Triple-Feature Part I: Wanted

Wanted
Directed by Timur Bekmambetov
Released June 27, 2008
Seen June 29, 2008

From its very beginning, “Wanted” is a heavily stylized movie which relies heavily on its many wonderfully-executed action sequences, which are not for the squeamish. Fortunately, the plot is even decent and the movie works better than it perhaps should. James McAvoy, putting on a flawless American accent, sounds oddly like Shia LaBoeuf, but it’s not a problem, and it’s cool to see him in this kind of performance after his recent forays into dramatic acting with “The Last King of Scotland” and “Atonement” as well as his comedy success “Starter for 10”. Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman are cast perfectly for their parts as well. The movie has a great sardonic wit that carries through its runtime and really adds to its overall effect. Set to a great soundtrack, the movie proceeds along at an energetic pace. It doesn’t care about adhering to strict conventions or pretending to be believable, and that’s where it truly succeeds. The movie is perfectly summed up by one of Freeman’s line: “If no one told you that bullets flew straight, and I gave you a gun and told you to hit the target, what would you do?” The answer, of course, is to have someone stand right in front of the target and watch the bullet weave around them. It requires a lot of suspension of disbelief, but the incredible action scenes and fantastic ending make this popcorn flick more than worth it.

B+

Film Review: My Blueberry Nights

Note: This is the last in my series of backtracking through the movies I have seen in the past two months and haven’t had time to review. I'll be posting reviews from my triple-feature from a weeks ago soon, and it'll be fresh stuff from then on.

My Blueberry Nights
Directed by Wong Kar Wai
Released April 4, 2008
Seen May 5, 2008

For those who don’t know, Wong Kar Wai is a Chinese director whose films are always extremely artistic and colorful, and more than often purposely sparse on plot. I have only seen “In the Mood for Love” out of his work, which is an interesting film in which surprisingly little actually happens, but I appreciate it as a quality film. His latest effort, his first American film, is a different kind of experience. He casts some terrific actors in various colorful locales and follows (I use this word lightly) their journeys. The movie is definitely intoxicating, and it’s quite easy to get sucked in. Once there, however, the movie doesn’t go very far. While lengthy shots that look like a car advertisement are fascinating for a moment, the film feels truly disjointed and aimless. If that’s supposed to be the point, and I believe it is, the elements of the movie aren’t fulfilling enough left as disorganized as they are. It’s definitely a beautiful film, and one which might be just as effective with the sound off, save of course for a fascinating performance from Natalie Portman which almost makes the whole thing worth it. Norah Jones takes on her first acting job here, and the result is intriguing – she’s terrific in all her scenes with Jude Law, but otherwise, she fizzles and it’s not that pretty. If you want to get lost in thought for an hour and a half, this film is a good way to go, but overall it needs just a bit more spark to make it worthwhile.

C+

Film Review: Iron Man

Note: This continues my series of backtracking through the movies I have seen in the past two months and haven’t had time to review. I’ll be catching up with one more review coming up soon.

Iron Man
Directed by Jon Favreau
Released May 2, 2008
Seen May 6, 2008

It’s hard to make a good comic book movie. Recent attempts have produced rather dim results, like the final installments of the “X-Men” and “Spider-Man” trilogies and both “Hulk” movies. I am thrilled to report that “Iron Man” actually does it right. In fact, it’s even better than the good ones, like the first two “X-Men”. Robert Downey Jr. is perfect as billionaire Tony Stark, and even though he’s essentially playing himself, he creates a likeable yet cocky character who really is the ultimate superhero. The story, from what I can remember and what I’ve heard, is pretty much faithful to the comics, save for some appropriate modernization of the situation in which Tony Stark creates the Iron Man armor. The film is thoroughly entertaining and action-packed. It’s a dramatic film but it’s infused with so much comedy seamlessly blended in, which works so well partially due to the particular talents of Downey Jr. The movie also includes small shout-outs to fans of the comic (or rather the animated TV show, which I used to make), which make the experience all the more enjoyable. The ensemble cast does its part, and the movie balances out its weaker elements by giving Gwyneth Paltrow a gloriously small amount of lines and by tailoring Jeff Bridges’ character to his penchant for shouting a lot. The effects are superb. And this movie contains probably the best ending I’ve seen in a long time (additionally, be aware that there’s a scene after the credits). In short, go see it! It’s fantastic! I’m already excited about “Iron Man 2”!

A-

Film Review: The Visitor

Note: This continues my series of backtracking through the movies I have seen in the past two months and haven’t had time to review. I’ll be catching up on several more reviews over the next few weeks

The Visitor
Directed by Thomas McCarthy
Released April 18, 2008
Seen May 6, 2008

At this point in the 2008 calendar year, I would have to say that “The Visitor” is probably the most critically-beloved film to make a big enough splash to be widely known (Metacritic ranks it #12 on their list of best-reviewed movies of the year). I’d love to be able to jump on the bandwagon and wholeheartedly agree with the praise heaped upon it, but I wasn’t as impressed as many others. To start off, I’m a huge fan of Richard Jenkins from his stellar work on “Six Feet Under” and in 2005’s “North Country”. He plays his solemn, quiet role here well, though I do enjoy when he has a bit more of a sardonic wit about him. The premise of the film – a college professor visits his New York City apartment to find two illegal immigrants living there – sounds intriguing enough, but I think that the movie allows the premise to speak for itself too much. The script skips the real interesting parts of the developing relationship between Walter and his new friends to focus on the problems that follow instead. For a movie so seemingly uninterested in adhering to standard conventions (especially from Thomas McCarthy, whose previous film was the wonderful “The Station Agent”), it would have been nice if it had spent some time just watching the relationships evolve rather than forcing action and twists and turns on the story. I understand why that’s all relevant, but the movie would have been a far more powerful and moving experience for me had that been emphasized. I didn’t connect or truly sympathize with the characters, but I desperately wanted to. The music in the film is great, however, and it’s cool to see both NYU and Connecticut College take center stage as the locales for this film. It aims to fulfill the true independent film experience, but I’ve been much more impressed with other fare. This is by no means bad, but I would recommend seeing “The Station Agent” instead.

B-

Minute with Abe: New Episode!

Film Review: Sex and the City

Note: This continues my series of backtracking through the movies I have seen in the past two months and haven’t had time to review. I’ll be catching up on several more reviews over the next few weeks.

Sex and the City
Directed by Michael Patrick King
Released May 30, 2008
Seen June 1, 2008

This movie isn’t for me. I’m sure that I’m not a member of the target audience, and I doubt that anyone expected me to like this movie. I didn’t even expect to like it. I tried to go in with as open a mind as possible. Reflecting on it afterwards, which I have been doing since I saw it a few weeks ago, I can’t seem to pinpoint what it is I didn’t like about it. I’m not even sure there’s much I didn’t like. I just really could not get into it at all. That doesn’t surprise me. Much like “Serenity”, which I recently reviewed, this film requires a certain knowledge of the show for it to be fully enjoyable. I suspect, however, that isn’t nearly as true for “Sex and the City” as it is for “Firefly” and “Serenity”. I can’t understand what’s so great about Mr. Big, and I presume that I would have a fuller understanding of why he’s so darn amazing if I watched the show. Putting the show aside, this film is a comedy with more than a hint of romance and an occasional venture into drama, but mostly it’s a movie for anyone who likes fashion and watching these women go around and spend money on meaningless things just because they can. That’s not to say that the audiences who go see this movie are shallow people who just want to be rich. It’s an experience that allows a glimpse into a fantasy world where there really is little to be concerned about other than, well, sex and the city (and probably clothes too). The women play their roles well. It’s just not my cup of tea.

C

Midnight Screening: Serenity

Preface: start at the beginning with my review of the TV show “Firefly”. The review below contains minor spoilers about the movie.

This past Saturday night marked my second ever midnight screening (the first was “Indiana Jones” only a few weeks ago), and my first ever cult movie screening. People were dressed up in costumes like the garb worn by Captain Malcolm Reynolds and the other crew of Serenity. Those who sported home-made replicas of the classic Jayne hat were rewarded with special prizes by the event runners who walked up and down the line repeatedly during the hour and a half or so before the screening began. Those same people shouted trivia questions and asked everyone to sing happy birthday to series creator and film director Joss Whedon on camera. Everyone in line sang along to the song “The Hero of Canton”, save for me, of course, and only because I don’t know all the words. The gentlemen behind me was there for the second night in a row, since they hold this screening Friday and Saturday night. We entered the theatre and they polled the audience about having a screening in Providence next year in addition to Boston. They gave away raffle prizes, one of which was a costume worn by the most minor of minor characters who barely even appears on screen for a split second in the film. That’s the amount of excitement these people had for this movie. And I was the person who got to see a cult movie for the first time with diehard fans who had seen it millions of times. As the saying goes, it’s a nice place to visit but I don’t think I’d want to live there. All this before the movie – a worthwhile experience already, I’d say. Right before the Universal logo appeared on screen, an attendee dressed as Mal ran up the aisle shouting “No power in the verse can stop us!” Indeed.

The film doesn’t lend itself to mass screenings as much as others in the sense that there are few applause-appropriate moments, but this audience did an impressive job and was much tamer than I had expected. Their reactions were spot-on, and I think I only missed a brief back-and-forth between characters due to loud laughing from the whole crowd. The movie had a nice action-packed start to it, even if some minor readjusting of the plot was necessary to make it readable for viewers who hadn’t seen the show. I enjoy flashbacks to childhood, especially when they’re linked with the recovery of memory. The device was very well used in this film. The film’s villain is quickly and efficiently introduced, and the movie’s start feels in media res, which is perfect when it serves as a continuation to the series.

The movie plays out just like a special two-part episode might. It is akin to the first “X-Files” movie, which takes what might be a season-long storyline and compresses it into two hours, fueling the film with action and resolving plotlines within its timeframe. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I wasn’t expecting such a serious movie. It’s not that the film lost any of the amusing, comical elements of the show; rather the film takes on a much more serious central plot. The Reavers are freaky creatures, and I was far more scared than I had expected. I had to put my popcorn down when it started to border on the kind of undead/zombie horror fare that I avidly try to avoid. Luckily, I’ve learned not to immediately equate something I don’t find altogether pleasing with bad quality. The movie was an intense thrill ride, and while I might have nightmares at some point soon, it was probably worth it.

As far as fulfilling the hopes of diehard “Firefly” fans goes, I think the movie does a pretty impressive job. The film provides a nice reunion chapter for the gang. Without giving too much away, it was not nearly as happy-ending-oriented as I had expected. It was a nice reunion for the gang, and however unlikely they may be, future chapters could easily be made chronicling the adventures of the Serenity crew in between the show and the movie or even after the events of the film. I’m pretty sure that any “Firefly” fan would always love to see more from this ’verse, but I think the problem is that it’s hard for new people to get into the movie. It strikes me as near impossible that the film could have been successful because any new viewers hadn’t seen the show and therefore might be confused or uninterested, or both. In order to get into it, you have to sit down and watch the whole thing like I did last week. A co-worker of mine saw the film without having even heard of the show and unsurprisingly turned it off before it ended. It’s certainly a worthwhile film all by itself, but you can’t have an experience which satisfies fans and serves as a continuation/conclusion without continually referencing the source material. You just can’t have it both ways. I’ll be happy to take the references, though, and concur that this was a great movie. I’d still recommend to anyone eager to see it that they take a stab at watching “Firefly” first. It will be a much more fulfilling experience.

B+

Film Review: The Incredible Hulk

Note: Because I haven’t posted in a LONG time, I’m going to put up reviews of movies starting with the most recent and working my way back. Check back soon for more.

The Incredible Hulk
Directed by Louis Leterrier
Released June 13, 2008

Ang Lee’s 2003 film “Hulk” (no “the”) was a disaster. I’m not quite sure why it was so bad, but there was just nothing about it that was good. Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, even Nick Nolte – not a bad cast by any stretch of the imagination. Ang Lee – a terrific, innovative director with a real creative vision (see any one of his other films). Regardless, it was terrible. And it wasn’t just me bashing it – the critics generally agreed. This new installment has to better – there’s no way it could be worse. While I was watching the movie, that’s what I kept thinking. But then the movie ended, and I realized that this was in fact just as bad as the first one. The main problem was that there was really no substance to it. Very little actually happened, which is especially regrettable given that this is not an “origin” story and therefore requires little exposition, which of course the movie does away with by the end of the opening credits. Worse still, the characters seem altogether unprepared for the things they come up against: William Hurt leads a platoon of soldiers to capture Bruce Banner and then is somewhat surprised and entirely unprepared when he turns into the Hulk. Shouldn’t he have seen that coming? I know I did.

Perhaps I got my expectations up too high after the remarkable “Iron Man” (review coming soon, I promise), but casting good actors in a superhero movie sometimes pays off. In fact, it’s usually the best thing about sub-par superhero flicks, like Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst in all three “Spider-Man” movies. I cite Edward Norton as my favorite actor on every occasion, and while I wasn’t expecting this to be his best performance, I had hoped he might at least have more screen time. He’s barely in the movie, which is really too bad. What he is given to work with is rather sloppy and mostly involves running, panting, and getting ready to “hulk out”. No consideration is taken to try to play to his great talent for really molding characters (“Primal Fear”, “American History X”, “The Score”, and many more). I know that’s not what a Hulk movie is supposed to be about – great acting – but if you’re going to use such an excellent actor, try to use him well (“Terminator” people take note – Christian Bale should be given excellent material in the upcoming film!). Liv Tyler is more of a waste of space than usual, and I’m continually unimpressed with William Hurt, whose career is taking the same route as that of Jon Voight, though somehow he manages not to get penalized by critics and is even rewarded with an Oscar nomination for a pathetic cameo (“A History of Violence”). To be fair, Nick Nolte wasn’t much better in 2003.

The story here is pretty lame and lacking. There’s a lot of evil grinning by Tim Roth and dorky snickering by Tim Blake Nelson, and quite honestly, there’s little more memorable. The effects aren’t terrific but they’re not bad either. This rendering of “Hulk smash!” really doesn’t work, and further proves the point that nostalgia isn’t always a good reason to do something (how about that recent Harrison Ford film?). I brought my camera to the theatre with plans to record a second “Minute with Abe” immediately following the film, but realized that I hardly had anything to say. I’ve managed to drag out my thoughts into a few paragraphs here, but really there’s not much to say about the movie, other than, to put it crudely, it sucks. There’s really no reason to see it. I wish I had more to say, positive or negative, but it just doesn’t leave a good impression. In fact, it doesn’t really leave any impression at all. At least I got to see the trailer for “Clone Wars”. That I can get excited about.

F

Sparse Summer

I don't really see as many movies during the summer as the rest of the year, especially the fall. I plan on posting reviews on the next few weeks for "My Blueberry Nights", "The Visitor", "Iron Man", and "Sex and the City", so check back for those soon. Come fall, I'll be posting several times a week with reviews of the latest popular and independent films. Also - Emmy predictions over at TV with Abe soon.

Full Review: Indiana Jones 4

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Released May 22, 2008

The "Indiana Jones" movies are all about having fun. The plot isn't meant to be taken entirely seriously, and the mood of each film is dominated by camp. That said, there is a certain importance to the setting, time-wise, of the films and the old-fashioned sensibility that goes along with it. Installment number four is still set in the fifties, but the whole film feels like it's been forcibly modernized. The running joke is that Harrison Ford, now aged 65 years, is old. My reaction is simple: we get it.

The movie is so overstuffed with references to the original trilogy that there's hardly any room left for anything else. Shots of Indy's hat blowing and his shadow appearing before him work amazingly in trailers and TV spots, but in the film they become tired and overdone, and quickly. This film is unable to stand on its own in any sense, constantly referencing classic moments from the original films, even incorporating the absent character played by Sean Connery through photographs and mentions. Wink-wink references are a major component of the Indiana Jones movies, yet here they occupy too much of this film for it to function by itself. The most blatant example is the ceremonial gagging of Karen Allen, something I had predicted might happen in this movie. The need to have a throwback to a famous scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where a gagged Allen shouts at Ford has no place in this movie, but it is inserted anyway. Was there not enough material to make a fresh movie? To support the possibility of creating an effective sequel without relying overly on the original(s), I direct your attention to "Live Free or Die Hard".

What "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" doesn't take from the first three Indy movies, it sure tries to make it seem like it does. Jim Broadbent's college dean and Ray Winstone's fellow archaeologist are introduced so as to imply that they have always been a part of the Indy universe. The movie is so desperate to fit into the franchise that it wants to appear as if the entire thing is just one big tribute that it sacrifices novelty and originality for comfort and laughs. Shia LaBoeuf, to his and the film's credit, does fit in fairly well to the time period, and his signature overdose of energy is not too much of a detractor. The real strength of the film is most definitely a superb Cate Blanchett, who does her best to act like she's in a better film.

The structure of the movie is also a problem. Instead of the typical Indy-friend-damsel layout, there are a whopping five characters who make up the Indy team. Most of them are dead weight, and this feels more like a huge reunion than another Indy adventure. The plot is pretty absurd, and while it sort of always is, it's actually rather boring and tough to follow in this film. Without giving anything away, I will simply say that I'm rather unhappy about the direction of the plot. The movies are supposed to have a serialized nature, with a new adventure every fifteen or so minutes, but here it's just one big, bland series of repetition. This movie wasn't supposed to be a remake; it was supposed to be a fresh installment.

Keeping my thoughts in mind, and pointing out that two members of my four-person group fell asleep several times throughout the film, I will note that the audience sure loved it. They were laughing at most of the references to the older films, and they really appreciated the fact that Indy is a senior citizen. I did laugh maybe two or three times, but I think there is a fine line between camp and comedy, and this film should definitely have fallen into the former category. Looked at simply as a comedy, I still wouldn't say that this is a terribly good film. Perhaps a little bit of exciting, but overall the ride really isn't worth it.

C-

Minute with Abe

A quick, exciting surprise from Downtown Disney before I get back up and running with the written stuff:

Check Back in June!

A busy semester kept me from seeing a lot of movies (my total dropped from 51 to 21), but I plan to come back full-force this fall with just as many movies as in months past. For the moment, I plan to put up reviews soon of "My Bluebbery Nights", "Iron Man", and "The Visitor", as well as any other films I see this summer. My main focus this summer will be TV with Abe, where I'll be posting detailed Emmy predictions starting in June. I'll still be posting on this blog whenever I see a movie, but make sure to come back in the fall for an influx of many films.

If you're looking for something to see in a theatre, the only movies I would recommend seeing are "Iron Man" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall". If you have access to an independent theatre, check out "The Band's Visit" and "The Counterfeiters". More soon!

More Movies Coming Soon!

I've been terribly busy in the past few weeks, but I absolutely plan to catch up in a major way on all the movies I've missed in that time. I'll also be seeing a lot of movies this summer. In the meantime, I'll direct you to my review which I wrote a while ago for this weekend's release of Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. Additionally, I'm keeping up with a number of television shows on my TV blog over at TV with Abe. Check that out for a while and I'll be back as soon as I can with movie reviews.

Vulgar and Hilarious: Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Judd Apatow and company have been churning out film after film for a little over a year now, and for every classic “Knocked Up” or hilarious “Superbad”, there’s an equally devastating “Walk Hard.” Fortunately, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” falls safely into the first category, and it’s even an improvement upon the earlier Apatow fare.

Jason Segel stars as Peter, a likeable composer for a crappy CSI-style crime series. His girlfriend, the immensely popular star of the show, dumps him unexpectedly and the break-up is very hard on Peter. His friend recommends a nice vacation, and Peter decides to head to Hawaii, only to encounter his former girlfriend, who has brought along her new boyfriend.

The best thing “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” has going for it is its spirit of camaraderie. Segel, usually relegated to supporting comic relief in “Knocked Up” and the CBS television show “How I Met Your Mother,” takes center stage here as the straight man. Segel, who also penned the script, displays qualities very much similar to Tina Fey, whose ability to make her roles funny when all the people around her all so outrageous and showy makes NBC’s “30 Rock” a pleasure to watch. Segel is funny to be sure, but it’s his effortless, kind charm that makes him a fantastic hero for this story.

There are plenty of Apatow regulars to be found in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” and every one of them is right on key for hilarity. Bill Hader provides great support as Peter’s best friend, but it’s the small roles with players like Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd that are truly winning. Sadly, neither Michael Cera nor Seth Rogen makes an appearance in the film, yet it’s a relief that the crew seems to have found a stellar new set of members whose debut appearances are nothing short of wonderful.

Kristen Bell, who has already achieved immortal cult fame as the lead on “Veronica Mars” and as a recurring guest star on “Heroes” last year, plays Peter’s ex-girlfriend, Sarah Marshall, with just the right mix of good and bad qualities. Her choice of an incomprehensible rock star over Peter makes her seem out of her mind, but it’s not hard to figure out why Peter would want her back. Relative film newcomer Russell Brand is perhaps the funniest performer in the whole film, as Sarah’s outlandish new beau. Mila Kunis, best known for her whiny, ditzy portrayal of Jackie on “That ’70s Show,” makes a stunning transition into respectable film acting as a hotel clerk who feels sympathy for Peter and tries to make his stay all the more enjoyable.

The sunny Hawaiian setting in the film just makes everything seem all the more pleasant and radiant. The film would still be funny were it set in a less tropical location, but the locale gives off an extremely happy feeling which remains throughout the movie. After all is said and done, this is still a lewd, highly uncensored comedy, but it combines the hilarity of “Superbad” with the effective dramedy of “Knocked Up.” The most commendable improvement over those earlier Apatow offerings is that this one isn’t too long – it ends at just the right point, and the last act is wildly and irreverently funny. If this movie is representative of the future of the Apatow troop, there are sure to be a whole lot of terrific movies coming up.

B+

Lofty and High-Minded: Smart People

Smart People
Directed by Noam Murro
Released April 11, 2008

"Smart People" is a film about the kind of knowledge that is only useful for taking the SATs or for having intelligent, sophisticated conversations. What the characters know does little to help them manage their daily lives or interactions with other people, a kind of street smarts that the film itself lacks.

Dennis Quaid, his face hidden by a dark beard, stars as disgruntled Carnegie Mellon professor Lawrence Wetherhold who, as one student says, teaches little and then is disappointed when his students turn in substandard work. Lawrence's son James shuns the family and sees it as depressing, while his daughter Vanessa secludes herself from the rest of the world to bolster her grades and participate in Young Republican causes. Lawrence's adopted brother is a lazy, unemployed and unmotivated moocher.

None of the characters are remotely likable. Last year's "Margot at the Wedding" was a failure mainly because it was impossible to sympathize with any of the characters, especially Nicole Kidman in the title role. "Smart People" has far less subtext and thought behind it than "Margot," which it expects to get away with by being a comedy. The film has laughs, but they are sparse and hardly fulfilling.

This film is full of good actors whose respectable talents are not represented here and whose skills cannot make their characters any less detestable. Quaid, who may well be past his prime, evokes only slightly more emotion than in the recent film "Vantage Point" and fails to infuse much personality into the stern professor. Sarah Jessica Parker, whose singular appeal has worked in films like "Miami Rhapsody" and the popular "Sex and the City" series, is whiny and bland as a former student of Lawrence's who harbors inexplicable feelings for him. Thomas Haden Church, who returned to the spotlight in 2004 with a remarkable performance in "Sideways," contributes nothing as Lawrence's brother other than a hilariously terrible mustache.

And then there is Ellen Page, whose roles in "Hard Candy" and "Juno" have earned her universal praise. She tries to make daughter Vanessa into a viable character, but the material she is given to work with is just not strong enough, and it is as if she is simply playing a less interesting version of Juno.

"Smart People" flaunts its knowledge and vocabulary, but its predictable and repetitive script is aimless. Instead of achieving some sort of self-realization, the movie falls flat. Juno, of all people, would not be satisfied with such cliché.

D-

Oh, I Do Feel Really Bad

I have been swamped with work and craziness lately and have barely had a moment for my blogs. I haven't even seen a movie in about a month. Regardless, I do have a review of "Smart People" which I'll be posting on Friday in conjunction with it running in the Washington Square News, and the following week I'll have one for "Forgetting Sarah Marshall". I definitely plan to come back in major force later this spring and certainly this summer.

Nothing Too Memorable: Definitely, Maybe

Definitely, Maybe
Directed by Adam Brooks
Released March 14, 2008

This year's token Valentine's Day romantic comedy pales as far as actual quality goes in comparison to last year's counterpart, "Music & Lyrics", but I suppose the sappy entertainment and romance factor is pretty much on par. Put quite simply, "Definitely, Maybe" is not my kind of movie, in that there is nothing too clever or artistic about it to merit it as a moviegoing experience. I fully recognize that this movie is not meant to be an awe-inspiring, medium-changing extravaganza, but looking at other romantic comedies, it seems to be lacking. One review called Ryan Reynolds "nauseating", and while I often like him ("Smokin' Aces") I have to agree here. As a lead, he oozes annoying traits throughout the entire film. Abigail Breslin plays a girl WAY too mature for her age, and her perkiness and intelligence become tiresome and unbelievable. The three leading ladies are actually cast pretty well - Isla Fisher of "Wedding Crashers" gives the most commendable performance, while Elizabeth Banks and Rachel Weisz have done better in the past but still turn in decent enough efforts. The film's plot - Breslin interrogates her father to find out who her real mother is - is nothing too new or intriguing, and progresses too slowly to make itself worthwhile. See it on a date, maybe, but as a movie itself, I wouldn't say that it's worth much.

C

Flipping through the Channels: Cruel Intentions

Cruel Intentions
Directed by Roger Kumble
Released March 5, 1999

Ah, what a fantastically ridiculous film. I first watched this movie at least five or six years ago when I could not fully appreciate its camp nature and its true awfulness that is so clearly apparent in my most recent viewing on HBO. Ryan Phillippe and Sarah Michelle Gellar try so hard to be aloof and above everything with all their fancy opinions and never-ending wealth. Truth be told, both Phillippe and Gellar are not actually good actors (sorry, Buffy fans! Don’t kill me!), and watching them try to out do each other is both painful and hilarious at the same time. Their desire to sexualize (a word?) everything is a lot to take, but it is consistently entertaining to watch them as they try to sleep with everyone. Substance-wise, this movie has a lot less in it than I initially remembered. I thought that I remembered the infamous horse scene from this movie, but I think that I missed it while I getting up to get some cake. Even without seeing that, I can still find Selma Blair’s performance absolutely fascinating, and appreciate the small roles given to both Swoosie Kurtz and Christine Baranski. And then there’s the music. “Every You, Every Me”, “Colorblind”, and especially “Bittersweet Symphony” are used so perfectly in this movie, not to mention the stellar score. Overall, this is one amazingly entertaining but completely ridiculous film that makes me laugh and cringe at all times throughout.

Entertainment value: A
Quality grade: C-

Best Films of 2007: #5-1

#5: THE BUBBLE

“Walk on Water” director Eytan Fox takes an inside look at the politically active youth in Tel Aviv in this fascinatingly fresh and wonderfully nuanced film. The young cast is uniformly excellent.

#4: AFTER THE WEDDING

This Danish effort from director Susanne Bier uses amazingly subtle cinematography to convey the deepest and gravest of messages. Mads Mikkelsen and the entire cast give remarkable performances in this stunning and powerful film.

#3: AVENUE MONTAIGNE

Perky, bright-eyed Cécile de France interacts with a number of colorful characters in this amusing and often funny drama that still has a serious but warm heart. The film is supplemented by wonderful music and a dazzling cast.

#2: THE LIVES OF OTHERS

The late Ulrich Muhe commands the screen as an interrogator in Germany in the 1980s. The story is marvelous, and every aspect of the film, especially its cinematography and music, make for a terrific experience.

#1: THE DARJEELING LIMITED

Wes Anderson’s latest film is simple yet wonderfully adventurous, and the music and colors of the film set it apart from the rest of the pack this year. The script is excellent, but it the casting of is Adrien Brody, Owen Wilson, and Jason Schwartzman as wacky brothers that really makes the film.

Best Films of 2007: #10-6

#10: RATATOUILLE

This winning animated comedy tells the story of a young rat whose culinary inclinations inspire him to get into the restaurant business. Terrific voices and a thoroughly amusing script make this premise work incredibly well.

#9: FIRST SNOW

About 15 people saw this fantastic thriller about a traveling salesman marked for death after a visit to a fortune teller. The suspense is gripping and the film is appropriately chilling, with excellent performances by Guy Pearce and J.K. Simmons.

#8: STARTER FOR 10

James McAvoy proves a suitable lead for this wonderfully amusing comedy. The cast is fresh and top-notch, and the script is terrific. The true definition of a dramatic comedy, with a heavy British influence.

#7: THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY

Director Julian Schnabel creates a dazzling and affecting portrait of a magazine editor paralyzed by a stroke who only retains functionality in one eye. The film is tough to get through but amazingly photographed and incredibly powerful.

#6: EAGLE VS. SHARK

Jemaine Clement of “Flight of the Conchords” stars as a supremely uncool loser who brings his would-be girlfriend along on a trip back home to get revenge on a bully. The script is flat-out hilarious, and the players work together perfectly.