Review: Avatar

Avatar (2009)
starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Sigourney Weaver, Michele Rodriguez, 3D, Motion Capture CGI
dir. James Cameron


Not much to add to the debate, but I would like to breakdown this thing into the two separate elements that everyone is talking about/fighting over. Technical vs. Story.

Is this the best example of 3D that has come along? Yes, but what does that mean? At first I was so entranced by the depth and levels that Cameron and his team have created that I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the story. It was more of a "Wow!" distraction then anything else. As my eyes grew accustomed to it, the 3D simply goes away and I'm left watching a 2D movie. What's the point of that? It just becomes a massive piece of escapism that makes my nose itch from uncomfortable glasses. There are some amazing moments, but as a viewer, it made me lose sight of the story, which Cameron claims is the most important part.

Is this the best example of motion capture CGI? Yes, hands down. There is weight and a naturalism to the movement, the eyes seem to live and the power of the closeup retains its importance. The world is amazing, at first, but starts to ware thing over time and when the plot should be really ratcheting up, Cameron gives us more tribal rites that are meant to expand the depth of our alien race, but kept reminding me of a "spiritual" version of the "Tonight we dance" scene from The Matrix: Reloaded. Not a high point.

So what about the plot? This is a movie that wears all intentions on its sleeve. That is, for me, where the film really starts to feel thin. People can quote different sources from where Cameron got his inspiration, but it all boils down to something that is mildly derivative and doesn't add anything new to the debate. These types of wars over territory have existed since the first monkey beat up the second monkey. There is nothing new here. The symbols may change, but the theme remains the same. There is always an exploiter and an exploited.

Here is a test. Take the movie and imagine it on earth. For ease, turn it into a western. The industrialists attempting to take land from a peaceful Indian tribe. How does that play out in your mind? Does it have the same impact without Cameron's imaginative world to back it up?

The characters are caricatures, or drawn thin to the point of nonexistence. There is no reason fro Michele Rodriguez to be in this movie and her motivations are never backed up. She says, "I never signed up for this!" which is a lie. Yes you did, that is the purpose of the humans being on Pandora. You fly a gun ship, what did you think you signed up for?

(SPOILER)
My big problem is that this superior sensitive species that are the Na'vi are supposed to hold all life sacred. Yet they ship off the humans to die. They are allowing for the death of an entire planet. That feels like a false beat and an unearned victory on their behalf.
(END SPOLIER)

Avatar is an excellent technical achievement and Cameron still has the stuff of greatness. He just has a mediocre story that is relevant because of eternal relevance. A proven universality in which to hang the latest and greatest of technology on. Without all of the tech, this would be laughed at by critics as sub-par Oscar bait. But the genius of the film is in the execution and that is the one thing that fires on all cylinders.

Is this a game changer? No. There is no such thing. The Wizard of Oz didn't change the game, The Matrix didn't change the game, Avatar won't change the game. It's a great piece of bubblegum that will lose its flavor and be tossed aside for the next piece. But it's a flavorful piece right now.

7 out of 10

Review: Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans

Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans (2009)
starring: Nicholas Cage, Eva Mendes, Val Kilmer, Xzibit, Brad Dourif, Jennifer Coolidge
dir. Warner Herzog

Considering the film tends to have moments that meander, this is a blast, due in large part to some great performances. Cage has been getting some mighty praise for his balls to the wall drug addled, back spasming corrupt cop and he deserves the praise. As a mater of fact it's right up there with Richard Widmark's insane turn as Tommy Udo in Kiss Of Death (1947). I only bring that up since both characters torment elderly women in wheelchairs. It's a blast to watch Cage act (if he's acting) and reminds us that he is a great talent that has to take one to many pay check jobs. His Lt. Terrance McDounagh is one for the books

But there are a few stand outs that ned to be recognized as well. Jennifer Coolidge has lost her botoxed lips and delvers a fabulous serious turn as a drunk girlfriend to McDounagh's father who is struggling with his recovery. The other actor to mention is J.D. Evermore who is almost as off the hook as Cage. Never going over the top, Evermore delivers the word "Wow" with a variety of expression and a flabbergasted shake of the head that sells a character as well as a stunning piece of humor. It's a great bit and he is one of the few cast members that really holds his own against the tornado that is Cage.

Herzog seemed a head-scratcher of a choice when he wa selected to direct, but it makes sense when it is all put together. McDounagh runs the same route as most Herzog protagonists; driven, bordering on obsessive as well as self-destructive. The post Katrina New Orleans is a good place for Herzog as he allows his camera to find those places that are tucked away in the lower income districts of the city. He also get to throw in a few of his flourishes with imaginary iguanas, a water snake and a patient alligator. Cage even gets to perform the spin into frame that Herzog and Klaus Kinsky used in so many of their collaborations. Another director may have been able to make this movie, but only Herzog could make it as bat-shit-crazy as it is and make the audience feel as if it were real.

There is a lot of talent in this movie and the thing that really keeps it from being a classic is the middle portion that struggles to find it's feet, but finally does, for what becomes a text book lesson in irony by the third act.

If you can handle some dark humor and some dark situations, this is worth a look. Don't be expecting a Harcey Kietel and Abel Ferarra film here, this one belongs to Cage and Herzog.

7.7 out of 10

Review: Pontypool

Pontypool (2008)
starring: Stephen McHattie, Lisa Houle, Georgina Reilly, Hrant Alianok
dir. Bruce McDonald

Zombie movies are a dime a dozen these days and out of every ten movies maybe there are twenty minutes of decent filmmaking. And when it comes to originality, forget about it. There have been some stand-outs, but these tend to be comedies like Shaun Of The Dead (2004) or Zombieland (2009). Even the Father of the zombie film George Romero's recent output could be called at its best flawed, at its worst unwatchable.

Now there is Pontypool, an original zombie movie that is more than just a zombie movie. It's a film about language, the flow of information, and wordplay. What makes this such a great movie is its perspective.

The brilliant Stephen McHattie plays Grant Mazzy a morning DJ at a small radio station in the Canadian town of Pontypool. He's an instigator, a shock jock, relegated to reading off weather reports and local news. This is the bottom of the barrel for him. He continually battles with his producer, played equally as well by Lisa Houle while sneaking liquor into his coffee mug. Then the first reports start coming in that zombies are attacking. It's confusing to our heroes and made even more confusing that the story never goes outside of the station, almost like War Of The Worlds where we only learn from scattered reports leaking in from the outside. It's this limited perception that adds to the tension and McDonald's incredible choice in camera placement that drives the growing dread home.


And these aren't just your regular walking dead. The virus that turns our innocent townsfolk into blood spitting, rage filled zombies is a new one for the books of the undead. The concept isn't wholly original, but it is for the zombie film and that makes this an even bigger breakthrough.

Tight, tense, great acting and great characters make this mini universe movie a must see for horror fans and cineaste alike. A great piece of filmmaking from script to cast to execution. This is easily my favorite "least seen" film of the year and may even be in the top ten of the year.

9.5 out of 10

Review: 2012

2012 (2009)
starring: John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Amanda Peet, Amanda Peet, Danny Glover
dir. Roland Emmerich

I'm going to say up front that I thought this movie was a blast. It is utter garbage, but it is a blast. Perhaps long in the tooth by the time you reach the final half-hour, but getting to that point is a lot of fun. Now, whether this is a good movie or not depends on a single factor. Was this gigantic wheel of cheese rolling down a hill at mach 5 intentional or not? How did Roland Emmerich approach this?

For the actors, they are in on the joke. There is no way in hell a cast of this caliber didn't realize this movie was nothing more than crap melodrama wrapped in a CGI machine of gigantic proportions. For that they get credit. There is not a single wink at the screen. A performance never becomes comedic for any other reason than to deliver a surface level joke. Every actor knows they are simply dialog delivery devices to make the disaster sequences stick together. In some ways, this is Emmerich's masterpiece. He has been able to boil down character to the minimal amount of broth needed to support the effect houses in charge of blowing up the planet. You never feel for anyone, but understand you are supposed to. In this type of film that's all you need. I dare anyone to say they felt true emotion for a character in disaster epics like The Towering Inferno (1974), or Earthquake (1974). If you have, then look in the mirror and try some self-examination.

Now the bigger questions lay in what Emmerich is trying to say with this type of movie. He is the reigning Irwin Allen and is able to tell a story clearly and cleanly unlike the blurry epilepsy inducing visuals of Michael Bay (I am using the word story loosely here). But does he want there to be more to it than just explosions? Right off the bat, I want to say no. It appears that Emmerich has resigned himself to making giant escapist cinema that wants to wow audiences with explosions and crumbling landmarks. He attempted to dig a little deeper with The Patriot (2000) when it came to exploring father son relationships or (less so) with the crapfest 10,000 BC (2008) as a love story. With 2012 he has tossed out any form of depth and stuck with what he knows best, spectacle. On that level alone he is successful.

But, if Emmerich's goal was to delve into the goodness of humanity and how our willingness to risk our lives to help others, he has failed completely. The relationships are shallow, the dialog clunky, and subtlety is a rock bashing us over the head. So it simply comes down to what is it that Emmerich is shooting for here. Is it possible to enjoy this movie? Of course. The X generation has firmly implanted a sense of irony into the human condition and we can scream, "This is a great movie" with no sense of shame. The film lover in me, the one that believes that cinema is worth more than two hours of explosions and lazy cliches knows it's just a piece of junk. So If Emmerich is in on the joke, good for him. If he sees himself as a serious filmmaker subverting content with CGI to lure in an audience, sorry Emmerich, no sale.

(Irony) 8.5 out of 10
(Legit) 4 out of 10

The Eclectic Choice: Return To Oz

Return To Oz (1985)
dir. Walter Murch


Man did this movie take a beating when it was first released. There was all kinds of flak over the fact that Disney was making a "sequel" to such a beloved film. Not to mention this one wasn't a musical. For shame. Never mind the fact that the original film was a perversion of a book by L. Frank Baum.

Return To Oz did exactly what it should have done. Go back to the original source material. By doing so, legendary editor and sound designer Walter Murch made his first and only foray into directing a memorable one. This isn't our parents Oz.

Darker, twisted and a lot of fun, Dorthy is sent to a hospital for delusions after she has talked up her first visit to Oz. The cure is going to be electroshock, but she is rescued by a mysterious patient and they escape into a storm that eventually leads a lone Dorthy back to Oz. There she discovers a destroyed Emerald City, A Gnome King who can move through solid rock and a Wicked Queen who has a variety of snap on heads to choose from.

She is also joined by a new cast of side kicks include a wind up robot, a living jack-o-lantern and a talking chicken. Together they seek to rescue the Scarecrow and return Oz to the pristine state it once was. It's a quest of the bizarre and a real cinematic treat.

Were this movie made in the franchise minded culture of today, it could be a big hit. Baum had written 14 Oz books, and the idea of a female protagonist running around a magical world could be a real hit amongst the Harry Potter lovers. Alas it was not meant to be. But we do have this adventure to enjoy and it's well worth the trip. I wouldn't recommend it for younger viewers, it does have a more macabre edginess to it and the effects, though good for the time, are showing their age.

This is another entry of a Disney struggling to find an audience. Along with other risks of the era like The Black Hole (1979), or Tron (1982), Oz was a failure at the box office, but now has more than a few aspects that make it an overlooked flick that's worth a second look.

POV: Good Ol' Days

I had moved from the small town to the medium city to start college. It was perfect timing. The popularity of independent film was starting to boon and no one had more of an influence on bringing the indies to the masses like Miramax. I was introduced to them through the breakout sex, lies and videotape (1990) and stuck with them through the amazing run of the 90's. The Crying Game (1992), The Piano (1993), and Pulp Fiction (1994) helped Miramax become a giant among production and distribution companies.

When the word came down that Disney was going to buy them up, it set off alarms. But Bob and Harvey Weinstein (despite reputations) were geniuses at getting what they wanted made and reinforced up the Miramax Brand. It wouldn't be until the new century that their Midas touch seemed to be hitting some bumps. Everyone does at one point in time, this doesn't mean they can't come back, but it caused a growing rift with their parent company. Then they left, forming the Weinstein Company which has been struggling to find it's feet.


So where did this leave Miramax? Well, unfortunately the name that helped define a generation of movies and movie goers has been relegated to the basement of Disney. They have announced they will only be releasing three films a year and let go of a majority of staff. What does it mean for the future of the once great indie champion? Probably a slow and painful death until the word Miramax sinks into history like AIP or Monogram. I hope it doesn't. They had such a mark of quality for so many years, it seems a waste to let it fuck off to hospice.

Maybe Disney will reevaluate at some point, bring in fresh blood that will be the new Harvey and Bob and resuscitate. Maybe the Weinsteins will see a banner year and bring back that old feeling of greatness to the movie screens. Or maybe, most probably likely, a new name will emerge from the ether and capture my heart.

Review: A Serious Man

A Serious Man (2009)
starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed, Sari Lennick, Adam Arkin, Fyvush Finkel
dir. Joel & Ethan Coen

The Coen brothers have been two of the more interesting filmmakers to watch evolve over the years and A Serious Man is another step in that evolution. It may feel like the distant cousin to Barton Fink(1991), or contain some of the same visual style as Blood Simple (1984) and Fargo (1996), but this is a film of a different beast that may deliver one of the more theologically debatable endings in recent years.

The story revolves around Larry Gopnik and his decent into chaos. His wife is leaving him for another man, his tenure may not be approved and a student is threatening to sue over a bad grade. Plus his brother is getting into trouble, his kids are fighting over money stolen from Larry's wallet and every Rabbi that Larry seeks consolation from can't deliver.

The film feels like the story of Job with a new ending that asks the audience to think about our own actions in life. Every scene seems to push Larry further and further into a spiritual hole that he just can't seem to dig himself out of.

The glue to this film is an amazing performance by Stuhlbarg as Larry. You feel the weight of his shoulders as he suffers emotional blow after emotional blow. He's so good if he doesn't get a best actor nomination then I'll have lost as much faith as Larry does in the film.

The one thing that also needs pointing out is the sound design. It's a knockout! Complex, precise, and it adds to the atmosphere more than it has in the brothers past films. Which is saying a lot since all of their films have amazing sound design.

The Coen's have delivered another piece of art that my cause some Barton Fink flashbacks, but feels emotionally like the flip side off the No country For Old Men (2007) coin. This isn't a film for everyone and challenges even the more devout Coen fans. But it's a remarkable and seemingly personal piece of work that comes from the mind of two brothers who do nothing but surprise us time and time again.

9 out of 10

Review: Paranormal Activity

Paranormal Activity (2009)
starring:Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Michael Bayouth
dir. Oren Peli

It was exactly 10 years ago the The Blair Witch Project (1999) opened up and became one of the summers biggest hits. It introduced the movie going public to what would grow into it's own sub-genre. These micro-budget horror films shot in a pseudo-documentary style have become a part of our popular culture and have ranged from a giant monster movie like Cloverfield (2008) to the annoying couple become fish food film Open Water (2003).

Paranormal Activity has had a long and strange journey. The word of mouth from Anne Thompson back in 2007 was great but it couldn't find distribution. There was an offer to remake it, but not release it in the original form. No matter how well test screening did, offers never came in.

They finally secured a deal, with midnight screenings and the opportunity to sign an online petition to have it released nation wide. I'm not sure if it is a publicity stunt, but it seems to be working. The tally is around eight-hundred thousand and rising by the minute. The goal is one million. So everyone will have an opportunity soon.

As for the movie it self, it will be looked at the same way as Blair Witch. Those who got in early before the hype grows out of control will love it. Those who see it after buzz hits the tipping point will hate it. Those who enjoy seeing the process of how a horror film works at manipulating the audience will find it very educational.

Here's the plot: Boyfriend buys video camera to capture strange things happening in the house at night. Camera starts catching weird stuff that slowly grows and grows until the final shot, which is designed to deliver a sharp shriek of fear and an uneasy feeling that all is not well in the world.

It's does contain some forced moments to try and tie the plot together , but Featherston and Sloat make a convincing couple with all of the quirks and idiosyncrasies that make couples lovable and annoying. They're fun to watch and you feel for them as they dig themselves deeper and deeper into the paranormal world.

This is a movie for folks who love horror that isn't about gore but the slow build. Outside of that, it is a fascinating experiment to see a potential model for distribution.

7.7 out of 10

POV: Flicker

Flicker (1991)
by Theodore Roszak

If you are a lover of movies, movie history and a shadow history of film that casts a dark, ominous shadow over the light of celluloid, then this book is for you.

I first picked up a paperback copy back around 1996. Like most things, I was first attracted by the cover. I'm known to pick up any book that features sprocket holes as part of the artwork. I assume it has something to do with movies, though most of the time, it doesn't. This time though, I hit pay dirt. It took about fifty pages for me to find the rhythm, but suddenly I was engrossed. It's so well written and thought out that I'm shocked it hasn't caught on to be a bigger work than it is.

This sucker is an onion, you keep pulling back layers and layers, idea upon metaphor upon theme. I'm always fascinated how I find new and deeper meanings with each read. It makes me wonder if it has to do with me growing older, learning more about film, or both. I'll say both.

The main thread is about Jonathan Gates, a young college bound kid in the late fifties who stumbles upon a small movie theater run by cineaste Clare and her stoned out projectionist, Sharkey. Gates and Clare begin an affair that will lead to the discovery and appreciation of a lost filmmaker named Max Castle. But Castle's films are much more than just b-movies, there is an under-hold, a flicker, a mysterious something that hides underneath his images.

The book is a gothic thriller that uses real movie history as the building blocks for a religious cult that is out to destroy the world. However cheesy it sounds, the book works incredibly well.

I remember trying to track down the rights to it and there was a big legal battle at the time. They ended up at Regency Productions and for a while Darren Aronofsky was attached. The only outcome of that was the most recent printing in 2005 which states Aronofsky's involvement. He has since left the project.

Only time will tell if a great movie will be made from this. There is a great movie in the book, it just depends on who ends up making it. But for now we have the perfection that is the novel and as soon as you've finished the latest political biography, or Stephen King paperback, pick this up and give it a read. You wont be disappointed.

The Eclectic Choice: Family Plot

Family Plot (1976)
dir. Alfred Hitchcock

This isn't Rear Window (1954), Psycho (1960), Vertigo (1958) or Strangers On A Train (1951). Hitchcock has a list of classics a football field long, and sure, this isn't one of them. Sure it may be flawed, silly, fluffy fun, but it is Hitch's last film and there is a lot more to it than you might expect.

The main plot circles around a fake, or is she, psychic who along with her cab driving boyfriend decide to hunt down an heir to a fortune. These characters are played with charisma and some real genuine chemistry by Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris. It's a blast to watch these two together. they have this rhythm that feels like a couple in love, even through the minor bickering of everyday life. Dern is a very different character than we are used to seeing. Sure he's quirky, but far from the nut-ball borderline psychos hat he is famous for. It is a real shame Barbara Harris was dealing with personal problems that stifled her career. Between this, Nashville (1975) and Freaky Friday (1968), it's impossible not to notice her incredible range and the cute-as-a-button looks this lady has. I really wish she was able to do more.

The weakness of the movie is William Devane who is always dependable, but is always William Devane. The character is weak and his subplot to kidnap people and ransom them for diamonds never really takes off. Karen Black plays Devane's accomplice, but isn't given much to do.

It's fun and frothier then most of Hitchcock's work, but it also includes a lot of the masters touches that made him such a great filmmaker. Does it stand up to his best films? Of course not, but few movies can or ever will be able to hold up such standards. Hitch may have not gone out with a bang, but as he literally ends his cinematic career with a wink at the camera, it reminds us that the man was never about delivering the normal set of expectations.

R.I.P. Henry Gibson

Henry Gibson (1935-2009)

Henry Gibson will be remembered for two major things. The first is a regular on Laugh In and the second was as the leader of the Nazi's in The Blues Brothers (1980). But for me there are three roles that really single him out as a major talent. The first two are for Robert Altman films.

His portrayal of Haven Hamilton in Nashville (1975) is great stuff. He captured all of the hypocrisy of Christianity and the entertainment world. All smiles and glad handing in public and just a royal judgmental prick in private. It's a stroke of genius in a movie that has genius at every turn.

The second was his take on Dr. Verringer in The Long Goodbye (1973). It's a tough thing to make intimidating Sterling Hayden look legit and Gibson did it with flying colors. Cold, steely eyes and the delivery of "Sign the check Roger!" You actually think he could kill Hayden with that look. Fantastic.

The third is in Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia (1999), as the snobbish barfly Thurston Howell. He takes down a crumbling William H. Macy with his one-liners and wandering eyebrows with the creepy grace and elegance of a serial killer. Plus his name is Thurston Howell, which is awesome.

There is also his work in Innerspace (1987), The Wedding Crashers (2005) and several episodes of King Of The Hill to take into account. The man worked rigorously and brought a touch of humor and ingenuity to every character he performed. It was an excellent career and one that will stand the test of time.

Not On DVD: Ride The Pink Horse

Ride The Pink Horse (1947)
dir. Robert Montgomery

The second (official) film directed by Montgomery, this may not be as stylistically experimental as his debut effort Lady In The Lake (1947), but this is a tighter story and grimy as hell.

Montgomery plays Lucky Gagin. He's tough, ruthless and is seeking to avenge, in the form of blackmail, a murdered friend. His adventure leads him to a dirty border town where he runs into a Fed, played brilliantly by Art Smith, who is after the same guy.

With a wicked-mean femme fatale, a Latino psychic predicting the worst for our hero and a smooth-as-glass bad guy who plays up his hearing aid like a badge of honor, this is hard boiled dipped in wrought iron. It's tough, mean, brutal and ornery. A real overlooked gem.

To ice the cake, the script is written by Ben Hecht and Charles Lederer who supply some great dialog that is endlessly quotable. A tight well paced piece that ranks with the best of their work.

This is a mandatory watch for any noir buff and a real shame that it doesn't have a DVD release.

Review: Whiteout

Whiteout (2009)
staring: Kate Beckinsale, Gabriel Macht, Columbus Short, Tom Skerritt
dir. Dominic Sena

A real waste of time and potential. Go and read the graphic novels by Greg Rucka, they are superior in every way. Bad dialog, shit direction and bland acting. It felt like the actors wanted to get off the screen as much as I wanted to get out of the theater.

I would like to point out a moment that got some big laughs for the audience. Unintentional, of course. Carrie Stetko, played by Beckinsale keeps having crappy flashbacks of a situation gone wrong. She and her partner have arrested some drug trafficker and have holed u in a hotel for some unknown reason. They handcuff the guy to one of the beds and Stetko decides to get some rest. She wakes up and sees the empty handcuffs on the bedpost where her Bad Guy once was. Her narration spouts, "I felt something was wrong as soon as I woke up." No shit, the guy is gone sweetie. Open handcuffs, hmmmm that seems fishy. Fuck, it was just ridiculous.

I will give props to some of the production design. there was some decent work done there guys, unfortunately the director only knows how to do closeups of faces, so the odds of your work getting any screen time are little to none. Sorry.

Oh, I'll also give credit to Skerritt. Not for his acting, but for his attempt to look as much like Kris Kristofferson as possible. Apparently Kristofferson had something better to do than this role. Like clean up the dog shit from his back yard.

It's just a shame, there was so many possible for tension and horror and mystery that just seems tossed out and wasted. If you can't figure out who the bad guy in in ten minutes, you're not paying attention. No matter how hard they try to pull a shifty eyed dog on you.

4 out of 10

Clip Art: Jubilee

Jubilee (1977)
dir. Derek Jarman


This is a great scene from a very interesting cult movie. It may not be 100% successful, but a fascinating film with an original voice and point of view.

Jubilee was Jarman's second feature film and was received with mixed reaction. Even members of the punk community felt they were betrayed by this film.

But everyone agrees this is a great moment. It features Orlando as Borgia Ginz who delivers a rant that sounds like something Rupert Murdoch would jerk off to. Punk icon Jordan plays Amyl Nitrate, the lip sinking songstress. The song is actually sung by Suzi Pinns. Jordan played a key role in England's punk movement and was one of the performers at the famous SEX (boutique). According to Wikipedia she is now a veterinary nurse and breeds Burmese cats. You can't punk forever, I guess.

POV: Lovin' The Arclight

For those who are not from Los Angeles or have never ventured here, we have a great theater called The Arclight. They are the home of the Cinerama Dome and deliver some of the best visual and sound quality around. They also have selective seating which is great when you buy tickets on line. Choose your seat and show up just before the film starts. It's brilliant and a great time saver.

They also have amazing screenings of older films all the time, usually in conjunction with the AFI. But last night the screened what I consider to be the oddest choice of all.


Yep, the direct to video piece of trash brought to us by the always trashy Asylum, Mega-Shark Vs. Giant Octopus(2009). What makes it even better is having Lamas show up to do a Q&A. I have no idea what this guy could talk about, unless the answer is, "I need a paycheck and no one else will hire me."

Now, admittedly I would have gone had I not already seen the movie, but to watch Lamas stumble through a Q&A just wasn't enough to validate the ticket price. That being said, I have several friends who are jealous that I even had the opportunity to witness this train wreck.

R.I.P. John Hughes

John Hughes (1950-2009)

The Loss of writer Bud Schulberg is sad but not at all shocking, the guy was 95 after all and he left behind some of cinemas greatest work.

The loss of John Hughes is quite shocking and very sad to me, a child of the 80's. One of my first major crushes was on a girl who resembled Molly Ringwald and it was at the time that Hughes was at his peak. I had seen Sixteen Candles (1984), The Breakfast Club (1985) and Pretty In Pink (1986) hundreds of times at that age. To not own one soundtrack from his films would be considered sacrilegious. Mr. Hughes passing is like a nail in the coffin of my youth.

As I look back at the films he wrote, directed, or produced it makes up a large portion of my childhood. Mr. Mom (1983), Vacation (1983) and even Nate & Hayes (1983)! I didn't know he wrote that, crazy! I also can't forget the classic Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987) and my personal favorite Some Kind Of Wonderful (1987).

He had retired from the biz as a director, but continued to produce and write under the psudonym Edmond Dantes, the name of the main character from Alexandre Dumas' novel The Count of Monte Cristo.

He has left behind a body of work that defined a generation and will be missed.

Posters: The Big Heat (TCM)

So TCM is doing a summer special called Summer Under The Stars, where they spotlight a certain actor or actress. This is really nothing new for TCM, but they have had posters created for each celeb and a specific film they were in. The posters are all great, but this one really got me.


Yes, it's for Gloria Grahame in Fritz Lang's masterpiece The Big Heat (1953). This is a great design, but the real kicker is the coffee pot. For those of you hwo haven't seen the film, shame on you, it's a perfect way to characterize Grahame's character in this movie. The poster, in context, is almost darker than the film itself. It's just twisted. I'd love to have a full size poster of this sucker.

I'll admit, the steam creating her face fives it a look like she stepped out of Doomsday (2008), but I love Doomsday, so I appreciate it even more.

Check out the other posters here to find your personal favorite and make sure you watch The Big het if you haven't seen it before. Prepare for a dark tip.

Not On DVD: The Crimson Kimono

The Crimson Kimono (1958)
dir. Sam Fuller

If you are a true lover of movies, then you are a fan of Sam Fuller. Fuller, a movie maverick, former newspaper man and thrilling raconteur gave us films that were entirely original. Every frame stamped with his mark. Just a hint of his dialog, framing or direction of the actors screamed a Sam Fuller movie. Some may find it over the top, more over though, it's a cinematic gut punch that the audience has to be willing to take.

Fuller was always forward looking and decided to take on the theme of race and racism from a very different perspective. The Crimson Kimono flip-flops the ideas so it is the minority of the picture who cries wolf. It's an interesting idea and deeper look into the human psyche than any Sidney Portier fist pumping portrayal could deliver.

A great opening scene, like all Fuller films, we get a stripper who is gunned down in the streets of Los Angeles. Homicide detectives Charlie Bankroft and Joe Kojaku are assigned to solve the murder. They were buddies in Korea and Joe even saved Charlie's life, so these guys are tight. They both fall for the same girl, Christine, who is a witness in the case. It beocmes an awkward love triangle, but it is Joe that Christine loves and end up breaking Charlies heart. When Charlie confronts Joe, Joe plays the race card. The film goes from murdeous melodrama into a tale about how we see ourselves through the faces of others. Luckily the murder plot and human issues are able to solve themselves in tidy little wrap up in the end.

It's an excellent addition to the Fuller cannon, but has let to see the light of day on DVD. It's not too shocking to know this is a Columbia Pictures release who seem to put nothing out on DVD unless it's new or an Oscar winner.

If you see this title floating around on TCM late at night, grab a drink and settle in for what Fuller would descibe as, "One hell of a yarn!"

Review: Chéri

Chéri (2009)

starring: Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupret Friend, Kathy Bates

dir. Stephen Frears

Meh. Which is an awful thing to say about a movie with this kind of pedigree. Directed by Stephern Frears, written by Christopher Hampton and starring Michelle Pfeiffer with subject matter about courtesans during the Belle Epoch, should be the perfect mix. These folks have come together previously for the brilliant Dangerous Liaisons (1988), so any film lover is wringing their hands in anticipation.

Well, it just doesn't come together this time. You have a great performance by Pfeiffer, some solid direction, some solid writing, but it never really clicks. It lacks an energy, or a balance that never lifts this up to even a good movie. It's a disappointment which is more than depressing.

The biggest flaw for me came in the choosing of Rupert Friend. Nothing about him is appealing. He isn't attractive, the performance is one note, never allowing for any kind of depth. Sure, that may be the point of the character, but Friend is charmless as Chéri. It's that lack of charm that makes him repulsive and impossible to understand the attraction that Pfeiffer's character Lea has for him. He's just a pain in the ass, why or how could a woman who has so much sophistication fall for this selfish child. It's not like she needs his money. Maybe he has a huge dick? They never say either way.

There are moments that really shine, but in the end it is a slightly sub-par movie that tries to deliver a dramatic punch with a final shot, that is very similar to Dangerous Liaisons, accompanied by a piece of narration that seems more fitting than tragic.

6 out of 10

Review: The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker (2008)

starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Ralph Fiennes, David Morse, Guy Pierce

dir. Kathrine Bigelow

This is my favorite film of the year so far. I've seen it twice and one of the most impressive things that a movie can do is maintain its tension on a second viewing. This film does that in spades.

It's like the Alfred Hitchcock theory on suspense. Show a person set a timer on a bomb and place it under a table. Then watch unsuspecting people sit down at the table and have a conversation. The audience will be on the edge of their seat wondering if the bomb will go off while the people sit there unknowingly. The Hurt Locker is a two hour version of that theory impeccably executed.

This is a film that also works on quite a few levels. Yes, it's an indictment of war and the soldiers on the ground. it is a film about urban warfare and how everyone is suspect. It's a film about decisions and how one wrong move can have great effect on everyone around you. But at it's heart, it is about addiction. This is a movie that uses the war genre as a metaphor for addictive behavior and how that will not only kill the abuser, but leave a trail of wreckage that the abuser never even acknowledges that he or she is responsible for.

Our addict in this case is Jeremy Renner giving an amazing performance as Staff Sergeant William James, the head of a bomb disposal unit. He's an adrenaline junkie, always looking for the next hit to supply those endorphins that keep him up. What really makes his performance so great is his willingness to remain completely ignorant of what is really going on inside of him. There are a few moments of clarity, but they pass, because he's a junkie and junkies only love one thing... Junk.

One of the better and very understated moments in this movie is his "quest for revenge". He ventures out of the base, after curfew, to look for the people responsible for killing a young boy he befriended. His pacing, nervous ticks and chain smoking feel and take on the appearance of a junkie looking for a hit. It's uncanny, but fits in so well within the context of the war film that it could easily be overlooked. This entire sequence isn't about revenge, but about the rush and when Renner's character discovers there will be no rush, his dealer is dry, he slinks away settling for a moment of physical abuse done to him by unknowing soldiers.

Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty are pitch perfect as soldiers who see the danger of their situation and can't get out of it. They understand that one wrong decision could get them killed and are frightened by the addict that leads them, but also have a certain admiration and want to be more like him.

Bigelow is at the top of her game as she builds sequences that are taut and riddled with tension on all sides. There isn't a single moment when you don't feel that something could go wrong or someone could easily die. It's filmmaking at its finest and Bigelow proves she is not only a great female filmmaker, but better than other action directors like the incompetent Michael Bay or the clueless Mc G. Though I do suspect that Bay has quite a few things in common with Renner's Staff Sergeant.

Maybe with the Academy upping the number of best picture nominees, this film will break through and find the much larger audience that it deserves. It's genre filmmaking with a heart and a head that outweighs anything that has come out this summer and will easily be up there at the end of the year.

10 out of 10

Review: Transformers Revenge Of The Fallen

Transformers Revenge Of The Fallen (2009)
starring: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, CGI robots
dir. Michael Bay


This has two moments that I enjoyed:

1. Shia Labeouf screaming like a girl as he's being attacked in his dorm room.

2. A couple shots on the Pyramid in Egypt as robots fight and the pyramid crumbles around them.

These two things equal about 45 seconds in a film that runs two and a half hours.

Fuck this movie, fuck Michael Bay and fuck you fools who walked out of the show I was at claiming that this is a good movie. Wake up you zombified morons.

1.5 out of 10

Review: The Proposal

The Proposal (2009)

starring: Sandra Bullock, Ryan Reynolds, Betty White, Craig T. Nelson, Mary Steenburgen, Oscar Nunez

dir. Anne Fletcher


To walk into this romcom expecting anything more than what hundreds if not thousands of these movies have given us before would be naive. So how do I discuss a movie I was born to dislike. Well, first dislike is too strong, maybe worse, I'd have no feelings for it whatever.

This is very by the numbers and risks nothing to make a single person think that for one minutes these two crazy kids wont get together by the end. Maybe that is impossible. Would the audience for a movie of this type tear the seats out of the theater if there wasn't a happy ending?

The only way to look at this film is using the following criteria:

1. Chemistry of the leads.

2. The jokes.

3. The wacky side characters.

Under those guide lines, here we go.

Reynolds and Bullock are fine together, you've seen worse. Reynolds is especially good when he reacts versus actual acting. he's got a great face when it comes to responding to the over-the-top situations around him. When he opens his mouth, take it or leave it. Bullock gives us exactly what a person wants from Sandra Bullock. A strong woman overcompensating for a heart afraid of being injured. Isn't that who we all are inside. On a side note though, she gets pretty naked and looks stunning. So you keep it up Sandra, the gym does have its benefits.

The jokes tend to fall flat. One or two land, though for the life of me I can't tell you what they are. Most are from the wacky side characters which leads us into...

Betty White. The woman is a comic genius. She's completely wasted in this film but damned if she doesn't give it her all. She has so much energy and spark, she might be more fun to have sex with than Bullock. Honestly Betty, call me.

The other side character of note is Oscar Nunez. You know him best as Oscar, the homosexual accountant from The Office. In this film he plays a small town homosexual business owner. It's a small stretch, I know, but he goes for it. It feels like a role that was written for Hank Azaria and Nunez comes off like a lightweight Azaria in all his scenes.

In a summer that is ruled by special effects and giant explosions, this is a nice diversion. If you're into nice. It is as safe as safe can be and will offend only those who expect something from it. But those people are stupid to begin with. I'd say stay away, but this is a movie that does nothing to damage the quest for real cinema. Its biggest offense is that it's harmless

7 out of 10

On The Boulevard: George Marshall

Who's George Marshall? I have no idea. Let's find out.

I don't think the one we're looking for is the military leader who became Secretary of State. He's probably the second listing I'm finding claiming that George was a prolific actor/writer/producer and director of film and television. Yep, that's the owner of this star.

Not much can be said, because I can't seem to find much n him. Even though he has a resume as long a my arm.

He was born in Chicago in 1891 and died in Los Angeles in 1975. It appears he started his directing career in 1916 at the age of 25 with the silent film Across The Rio Grande. From there he'd continue on to more recognizable titles like Destry Rides Again (1939), The Ghost Breakers (1940), The Blue Dahlia (1946) and as one of the many directors who contributed to How The West Was Won (1962). It says here he shot the railroad scenes for that film.

In the 60's he moved more and more into television ending his long carer with a a few episodes for The Odd Couple. Over 176 projects by the time of his retirement. It's an impressive sum.

Well, we may not have been very aware of Mr. Marshall's contributions to cinema and they may not have been groundbreaking or himself considered an auteur. But he worked, he added to the culture, he achieved what very few people have, a long and productive career.

It is a star as deserved and even more so, than others that exist today. I'm looking at you David Spade.

The Eclectic Choice: Quid Pro Quo

Quid Pro Quo (2008)
dir. Carlos Brooks

Mark Cuban may by as nuts and rich as the Crazy Texan on The Simpson's, but he has done quite a bit of good when it comes to independent cinema. He green lit Steven Soderbergh's experimental HDV movies as well as several other small films. Quid Pro Quo was one of those movies and even though it may not be perfect, it is a very interesting ride.

Nick Stahl plays a paraplegic radio show host who begins to investigate a subculture that wishes to be paralyzed. These people fantasize about it during secret group discussions and even have their own wheelchairs or braces to use in the privacy of their own homes. How ever odd it sounds, it is a very real condition and it's the"why" that this movie chooses to explore.

Stahl is a very good actor who gets very few roles that suit him. He's great here and plays well against the always impressive Vera Farmiga as the mysterious woman, who introduces him to this underground phenomena and has several secrets of her own.

Equal parts film noir, psychological thriller and emotional enlightenment, this may not be the second coming of independent cinema, but it is very original and well executed story. It's also incredibly short, clocking in at an hour-twenty with credits.

You can check it out on Netflix streaming, but I'd recommend seeing it on DVD since the quality of the stream tends to soften some really interesting cinematography.

Review: The Taking Of Pelham 123

The Taking Of Pelham 123 (2009)
starring: Denzel Washington, John Travolta, John Turturro, James Gandolfini, Luis Guzman
dir. Tony Scott

I'm a huge fan of the original film from 1974. I thought Walter Matthau as the sarcastic transit cop hero of the movie was inspired and Robert Shaw's cold blooded hijacker priceless. So when I first saw the cast for this remake I almost had to cause self harm. In what universe did John Travolta come anywhere close to Shaw? Sure Denzel Washington is a great actor, but he doesn't have the thing that made Matthau. No way was this going to be any good.

I finally decided after mocking the previews, posters, the career of Tony Scott and just the fact that remakes are sketchy at best, I decided to change my point of view. Call it a moment of clarity. I have come to the conclusion that remakes need to be looked at like cover bands. How is the material treated? Is it trying to be like the original or a springboard for something new? Can it stand on its own two feet or collapse under its own pretensions. This is how I've decided to look at remakes since, no matter how hard I want them to go away, remakes are here to stay.

So all that being said, this remake is pretty passable. It's failings come from director Tony Scott whose evolution into ADD filmmaking has become an albatross he can't, or wont, shake. Due to the fact that the flm s mostly rooted in a subway tunnel, it does restrict Scott from going bat shit crazy with the visuals, but you can tell he's trying to break out at every possible moment. His style, which seems to have no rhyme or reason ends up killing any sort of tension. It makes one long for the days of Crimson Tide (1995) and True Romance (1993).

That being said, screenwriter Brian Helgeland brings some fun twists to the story and refers back to the original novel more than the 1974 version. Sure there is some hokey dialog, but Washington and Travolta pull it off. They may not be the originals, but they bring uniquely flawed characters to life in a very watchable summer movie. Gandolfini is great as the Mayor who's role was expanded from the original and provides some of the highlights of the movie.

The one thing I do miss and wish there was more of was the feeling of the city. The original had a sense of New York and it felt like a character, this version could have been in Pittsburgh and you'd never know. Location was not a priority for Scott even tough the script wishes it was.

I may sound as if I'm being harsh on the film, which is fine because it's far from great, but I have to say it never felt like a waste of time. I won't be waiting feverishly for a Blu-ray, but if I see it on cable in the future, I'll stop and give it a watch before seeing if something better is on.

7.8 out of 10

Review: Land Of The Lost

Land Of The Lost (2009)

starring: Will Ferrell, Anna Friel, Danny McBride

dir: Brad Siberling

Not a kids film, not a movie for adults, so it's just a muddled mess. I was bored through most of it and I really enjoy Ferrell and McBride quite a bit, but nothing they do here is fun, well McBride has a couple moments.

One reviewer I read gave it credit for having campy looking visual effects, which were on purpose. An interview with Siberling said he wanted it to feel real so went with realistic looking effects. So we'll then say the effects are a failure as well.

If you were a fan of the show, you'll be let down, if your a fan of the actors, you'll be let down. If you are a fan of movies in general, you'll be let down. If you're a fan of this film, you've let me down.

5.5 out of 10

Review: Moon

Moon (2009)
starring: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey
dir. Duncan Jones


This is a pretty damned good science fiction film. Some of the advanced word had comparisons to 2001 (1968). So when I walked in I was waiting for a head trip. That wasn't what I was going to get, but it wasn't what was intended either. What I first felt as disappointment, turned into a level of admiration as the film continued to roll around in my head for the next few days. When that happens you know there is more going on there. It may not be 2001, it's more of a thinking mans Outland (1981), which in itself sounds odd, but works quite well here.

Sam Rockwell proves that he is one of the best talents working today. He continually gives layered performances and this is no exception. To go into more detail about his work here would give away the key plot of the movie, so I'll just say it's an incredible job and Rockwell deserves major praise.

Director Duncan Jones in his feature debut shows skill with the camera. I was blown away to find out they only spent five million dollars on this movie. It is visually arresting and Jones finds the right moments to sell the world he has created. His decision to use practical effects and models instead of CGI for key scenes is great to see. It ads a tangibility that today's computer work seems to lack.

Last and certainly not least is the score by Clint Mansell who delivers atmosphere and emphasis that drives the the film home and wraps it up into one very tight package.

This isn't going to be opening wide, so keep your eyes open because it's an intelligent piece of science fiction that we don't see a lot of anymore.

8.5 out of 10

Review: The Hangover

The Hangover (2009)
starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, Heather Graham
dir. Todd Phillips


Is this a funny film? Yes. That's all I asked for and I got it. It's not a movie as much as it's a concept piece using several skits and the theme of finding a lost friend to tie it all together. This isn't a film about change or building character, it's about setup and punchline. Looking at it from that point of view it delivers and is firing on all four cylinders.

Todd Phillips keeps the pace moving and creates a very visually appealing movie. It's nice not to see flat lighting and a wide/medium/closeup photography. He's good with comedy as long as he's given a good script. Just look at Starsky & Hutch (2004) or School For Scoundrels (2006) to understand his limitations. He can't improve, he can only deliver the package in hand.

I ran into Ed Helms at a party once and he was kind of a jerk, so I just don't like him. therefore I can't tell you if he was any good in this, all I could see was the jerk. Cooper plays a dick well and can look good doing it with stylish clothes and copious amounts of hair product. Galifianakis is the breakout. His stand up comedy, ore like performance art, is brilliant and he gets a chance to show off some of his skills with his man child character. He's sweet, a little demented and could be scary in the right circumstances.

It's a really funny movie and worth the price of admission. There is over the top humor and some subtle moments that might slip by if your not paying attention. It wants to make you laugh and nothing more. Mission accomplished.

8 out of 10

Clip Art: Brando Interview

This week I'm going to go in a different direction. Instead of a scene from a movie, here is an interview with Marlon Brando from 1965. The guy was a genius who was eccentric and a sense of humor way beyond the times. enjoy.




You can catch part 2 here. For some reason there is no embed code.

But there is code for part three. Hmmmm.

Review: Up

Up (2009)
starring: Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai, Delroy Lindo, Bob Peterson
dir.Pete Doctor


This is another great film from Pixar. Is it really a shock anymore? These people have a batting average that would put any studio to shame. Even the lesser films are better than most. When it comes to choosing the best movie, it's all about personal taste.

I have request. Make a film that just sucks. I want to see what one of those are like. Shoot for something really lofty with ambition and go after it with the conviction and passion that you show all your other films. Then just tank it. Get a tomato rating of 16%. Really toss it in the gutter just so an audience can see how badly you can screw the pooch. Don't make anything offensive, like the already mentioned pooch screwing, just something that falls flat on it's face. In the end it will be nothing but beneficial for you.

Your stuff is so damned good that it's almost starting to feel boring. "Oh look, another piece of art from Pixar" Yawn. Can't you see that we're getting bored of giving you money for something good while most of the movie industry takes our cash and shafts us for two hours. Stop being such iconoclasts and get aboard the crap boat.

On the good side, I do have to say I'm not sold on 3D. When it's used as a gimmick it feels like a gimmick. When it's not it becomes a bit of a distraction from the great visuals that you put up on the screen.

To sum up: For the good of humanity, lay a rotten egg so we as audience members can universally say you have a bad film. That you aren't the greatest animation studio today and that everyone is capable of showing up in public with a giant zit on their nose. Pretty please.

9.5 out of 10

Review: Drag Me To Hell

Drag Me To Hell (2009)
starring: Alison Lohman, Justin Long, Lorna Raver,DiLeep Rao, David Paymer, Reggie Lee
dir. Sam Raimi

This film is getting a lot of critical praise and it deserves it. After a very long sabbatical from horror films, Sam Raimi is back on his home turf and as comfortable as ever.

Using every trick in the horror arsenal, Raimi shocks, build tension, grosses us out and makes us laugh with the best intentions of entertaining the hell out of us. He has leapt back to the era of The Evil Dead movies and knocks it out of the park.

It would be unfair to not praise Alison Lohman, she gives a great performance and is a real trooper. Everything is done to her in this film and it takes real commitment to trust the filmmakers to pull of the horror/humor combo. Lohman has so many different things poured into her mouth, you cold see an adult film star saying no.

But really the best part is seeing Raimi going back to his old bag of tricks and making an energetic and fun horror movie that is a throwback to the old days that has a decent budget behind it. I could easily complain about some of the CGI. There are moments that really pull you out of the film, which is a shame. But the thing that is amazing is how Raimi can move between horror and comedy with such ease, the mind reels trying to figure out how he does it.

If you're the type of person who will roll with a talking goat, then this is a movie for you. It's a blast and you'd have to be a cold cynical bastard if you don't enjoy the hell out of this film.

9.5 out of 10

The Eclectic Choice: The Exorcist 3

The Exorcist 3 (1989)
dir. William Peter Blatty

This is one of those rare occasions when a equal made twenty years after the original actually turns out to be good. As a matter of fact it's even better than part two which was just down right awful. Yes, I'm saying it and will wear it with a badge of honor, The Exorcist 3 is a really good horror film.

It's got a great performance by the master George C. Scott. In the film he plays Detective Kinderman who was portrayed in the original film by Lee J. Cobb. The film picks up twenty years later (fitting) and Kinderman is on the trail of a serial killer who happens to kill the same fashion that a presumably dead serial killer used to. This leads to all sorts of questions and a patient in an insane asylum who happens to look a lot like Father Karras, the priest who took a tumble down the stairs at the end of the first one. Hmmmmm, this could get interesting.

Filled with a moody and terror filled atmosphere, William Peter Blatty made a wonderfully underrated horror film that has it's fans, but has yet to reach the position it so righteously deserves. Scott did well in the horror genre between this film and the classic ghost story The Changeling (1980). It also has one of the best ball busting friendships in cinema history. You can't help but smile as Scott and Ed Flanders (no relation to Ned) banter back and forth with frothy sarcasm, but show that deep caring of old friends in the smaller moments. It's a great relationship, though short lived on screen.

If you haven't seen this movie, you're missing out. You'll never trust people who crawl on the ceiling again.

Review: Easy Virtue

Easy Virtue (2009)
starring: Jessica Biel, Colin Firth, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ben Barnes, Kris Marshall, Fizz the Dog
dir. Stephan Elliott


The problem with summer is that we are bombarded from every direction with advertising for the giant tent pole movies that many smaller films slip by. It's a real shame because some of these little gems could use a bigger audience.

Director Stephan Elliott is best known for the sleeper hit The Adventures Of Priscilla Queen Of The Desert (1994). After a few misfires, an early retirement, near death experience and decision to get back into filmmaking Elliott has brought us a great little film with heart and some great comedy.

Based off of a Noel Coward play, Elliott and screenwriting partner Sheridan Jobbins have updated it and expanded some of the characterization with great success. It is a movie full of energy, some great gags and a few really great performances.

Jessica Biel delivers a solid performance, but is really shown up by those around her. Colin Firth delivers another solid character who silently suffers and holds onto a secret that has kept him tormented and bitter for years. But the real standout and it's no real suprise is Kristen Scott Thomas as the family matriarch. It's a thankless role and she is pitch perfect as a woman who struggles to keep her famly together even though they are becoming more and more secuded as society around them is changing at a rapid pace.

One of the more surprising elements is the soundtrack. It includes several Coward songs, but also more contemporary songs arranged to fit the style of the 20's. At first I was scratching my head trying to place the tune when I realized it was Car Wash set to swing. It is another layer that adds to the comedy of the piece and reminds us that we're watching a film by a guy willing to take chances.

It's a fun film that moves quickly, looks great and is fun of some real inspired comedy. If you're into something that's a little more offbeat and doesn't have giant robots or huge explosions, it's well work a look.

8 out of 10