Dexember's Rain

Dexember's Rain is MOVED!

2005-09-23T22:18:00.000-05:00

I am now the permanent movie reviewer for www.DoubleViking.com. You can get my movie reviews section by clicking here.

Dexember's Comic Awareness

Guess the Header!

2005-08-19T00:39:00.000-05:00

The correct answer is Arnold Schwarzenegger in Predator. Just about everyone didn't spell his last name correctly but the funniest was "Shwaroritzeger." Now for the winners:

1) Shamsha Alikalyan

2) Andrew Moakley

3) Bailey Hunter

The new image is already up as this is coming late. Good luck and remember that you need the actor(s) in the photo plus the movie it's from. Email your answers to guesstheheader@yahoo.com

Movie Review - Skeleton Key

2005-08-18T23:13:00.000-05:00

The Skeleton Key was touted as the next big scary movie. It was lauded as the next Sixth Sense or Hide and Seek. This was the teaser trailer's comments of course. It was neither an intelligent horror movie like Sixth Sense nor even an averagely scary movie like Hide and Seek. It was as if Iain Softley, the director, tried to mix B-movie horror with classic Hitchcock. What we got was a weird mix that never ventured far from the now predictable bait and switch moves of almost every horror movie to date. In a nutshell, it was not scary and only mildly entertaining.

Kate Hudson plays Caroline Ellis who is a hospice nurse. For those who don't know the job description of a hospice nurse: a caregiver to ease the transition from life to death. They let people die easy so to speak. Her drive to do her job with love is supplemented by a often mentioned but little explored back-story about how her father died alone while she was away from his side in anger. To make her caring more poignant the screenplay has every other hospice nurse act as a cold undertaker who cares little for the dying. It's a blunt tool to drive home that she cares but it works well enough in the limited time given to this aspect of Caroline's character. The back-story on the other hand feels pointless. Does she really need a reason to care so much for others in pain other than human nature? Evidently so because she is confronted about it often.

Caroline pays the Devereaux estate a visit after seeing an ad in the paper. She is to take care of the dying Ben Devereaux (John Hurt) as Ben's wife, Violet (Gena Rowlands), is getting to old to do so. Both do a fine job of acting. Gena smartly stays away from trying to hard to mimic the obvious similarities to her character and Kathy Bates and other evil old women. Her performance is well balanced but she isn't good enough to rise above some of the scripts worse moments, particularly the climax. John's role wasn't too hard but he does well enough to keep you from noticing one way or another which is usually best for a comatose character. Caroline begins to sense that not all is well in the house and that something is amiss. The trailer points a large finger at Violet. This is fine despite my general distaste of such marketing. The movie definitely starts you off early thinking that she is the villain as well.

When the movie does turn, it's not enough to really make the final bad guy be a shock. The movie more of veers slightly in the direction of ghosts than turns really. Then it sharply angles back to Violet and the whole ghost affair is so suddenly dropped that it wasn't till the end of the movie that I realized that they hadn't explained it away. But more on that later. So Caroline begins searching for why she gets uneasy feelings around Violet and low and behold, she finds a secret room full of voodoo materials. Slowly the movie leads the viewer deeper and deeper into the world of voodoo just as Caroline does. This is easily the best aspect of the movie. The voodoo stuff is interesting and fun but none of it is scary, unless you think Ouija boards are scary I guess.

We find that magic is keeping Ben silent, not a sickness. We also learn that the house's history involves the hanging of two black slaves who were great voodoo workers. These black slaves are to be the ghosts that I mentioned above. They are little seen but we do have a series of events that bring Caroline to bolder and bolder attempts to discover the truth. She even casts a spell to free Ben. This is all evidently a master plan by Violet and Luke, Violet's lawyer who's played by Peter Sarsgaard, to get Caroline to believe in voodoo because it only works if you believe in it. Just like Peter Pan! This idea is never really explored either is built up only to be used as a plot device as a weak argument for the events leading up to the climax.

So what is that climax? Well. Violet and Luke are really those two black slaves. You see, they never died because they discovered a way to switch bodies. They were hung because they were found doing voodoo with the master's children but no one suspected that the children were really the evil voodoo. Who do the voodoo he do? Well they did it and they are now searching for a nice young female. Remember Mr. old Devereaux? Well that was the real Luke and now Violet wants Caroline's young hot body. But not like half the audience, the men, just thought. But remember my earlier statement about ghosts? Well those ghosts were supposed to be the two black slaves and we do see a glimpse of the ghosts. But how could there be ghosts of dead people that never died? That is quite the contradiction that explains the quick manner in which the whole issue was dropped.

The whole plot is incredibly convenient and full of blatant plot devices. We are led to believe that Violet planned on being poisoned so that she could trick Caroline into casting a freeze spell on herself? Right. And then we are led to believe that they meant for Caroline to find out about voodoo on her own. Lucky for them she had a friend whose grandmother was into it. What would they do without Caroline's friend showing her where to get voodoo supplies?

The acting was good, almost great even, and I don't normally like Kate Hudson. But her performance here was actually quite compelling. And Sarsgaard's switch from lovable gentleman to villain is convincing in his subtle expressions. The problem arises from the poor plot and complete lack of anything scary. I had the whole thing figured out a third of the way into the movie. Lucky for me, the acting and the cinematography kept me interested. That and the movie's small ode, or maybe it was just obligatory, to B-movies with it's insistence that Kate Hudson wear only panties as often as possible. I found the thing obvious; the camera actually panned down a bit in one scene just to let you see that "yes she wasn't wearing any pants." But it should be tasteful enough to keep anyone from rolling their eyes.

Iain has yet to impress me with any of his work. Good actors and good cinematography a good movie does not make. It needs a good plot too, and a little thing called "no false advertising." This wasn't any scarier than my meal at Chili’s last night.

reviewed by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Friday's Preview 8/19/05

2005-08-18T23:12:00.000-05:00

Yes I know this is very late. But I just got back from vacation in Boston and with school fast approaching I have been short on time and long on things to do. So let's take a look at what came out yesterday.

Wednesday's Movies:
Supercross: the movie:
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Director: Steve Boyum
Starring: Steve Howey, Mike Vogel, Sophia Bush, Robert Carradine, Daryl Hannah
Snapshot: Yet another narrative story about a niche sport. Lots of the usual T&A, melodrama and oversimplification of the event itself is sure to be waiting for anyone stupid enough to see this movie. Even fans of supercross should stay away from this one. As a huge fan of "On Any Sunday," (not to mention as a person who rides) I highly recommend that EVERYONE not see this movie.

Reel Paradise: (NY)
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Steve James
Starring: Georgia Pierson, Janet Pierson, John Pierson, Wyatt Pierson
Snapshot: A documentary about a family who ran a free movie theater for the locals of Fiji. Evidently adventure is involved somehow from what the small promotional states. Despite my doubts of the contrary, I can't NOT recommend this movie.

The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till: (NY)
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Keith A. Beauchamp
Starring: N/A
Snapshot: [It has been over 40 years since the death of Emmett Louis Till, a fourteen-year-old black Chicago youth who was slain in Money, Mississippi in 1955.] The story of the murder of one Emmett Till for cat calling at a white woman. The importance of his death may be amplified in this movies attempt to make it seem as the lone catalyst for the civil rights movement but this shouldn't mess up an incredibly horrific true story and the sad truths it exposed.

Tomorrow night's releases bring us a nice mix of horror and comedy. Something for everyone as the cliche goes. The Top Picks bring us a comedy from the brilliant Steve Carell and a dark drama from the Orient. Sympathy for Mr. Vengance is Pulp Fiction meets John Q.

Top Picks:
The 40-Year Old Virgin:
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Judd Apatow
Starring: Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, Romany Malco, Elizabeth Banks
Snapshot: The comedy of a 40 year old virgin and his attempts to get laid. Not the best plot but Steve Carell is a very talented comedian, and Judd Apatow has been a part of the last string of Will Ferral movies. It should be a quiet success.

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance: (NY)
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Chan-wook Park
Starring: Kang-ho Song, Ha-kyun Shin, Du-na Bae, Ji-Eun Lim, Bo-bae Han, Se-dong Kim, Dae-yeon Lee
Snapshot: A low production movie that still has good cinematography, Sympathy is a large cast movie in the vein of Pulp Fiction. The characters all need different things from each other and not everyone is gonna turn out happy. It looks to be a well shot and well done film despite it's obvious low budget. I highly recommend this one for fans of twisted dramas.

Playing in all Theaters:
Red Eye:
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Director: Wes Craven
Starring: Rachel McAdams, Cillian Murphy, Brian Cox
Snapshot: Another Wes Craven movie but now it's PG-13. Either this is one weak horror movie or PG-13 has just gotten to be more violent. Cillian Murphy looks ugly here somehow and I doubt even Brian Cox could save this movie. Rent it.

Valiant:
MPAA Rating: G
Director: Gary Chapman
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Jim Broadbent, Rupert Everett, Hugh Laurie, John Hurt, Ricky Gervais, John Cleese, Tim Curry
Snapshot: A nice little British animated comedy. It's high calibar of British Isles actors should make the comedic lines hit their high notes but I wonder if it can reach the same dual purpose of entertaining adults and kids. A nice bet for the family.

Limited Showing: (Independent Films)
El Crimen Ferpecto (Ferfect Crime): (NY)
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Álex de la Iglesia
Starring: Guillermo Toledo, Monica Cervera, Luis Varela, Fernando Tejero
Snapshot: Yes it's spelled "Ferpect" on purpose. It's a dark comedy about a con man who specializes in conning, and bedding, women. A good bet if you think you can root for the bad guy.

Now & Forever: (limited)
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Bob Clark
Starring: Mia Kirshner, Adam Beach, Theresa Russell, Gordon Tootoosis, Gabriel Olds
Snapshot: The love story of two young adults who have their lives complicated by the evil at home they must run from. Hard to tell how good it's going to be but it sounds interesting enough for a gander.

Guess the Header!

2005-08-11T09:42:00.000-05:00

A fairly easy one this week after last week's pretty hard one.

Guess the Header. Email actor(s) and movie to: guesstheheader@yahoo.com

Friday Preview 8/12/05

2005-08-09T18:14:00.000-05:00

Doing the Friday Preview a little early this week because I have finals on Thursday and I'm leaving for Boston for five days. The site will have to be on hiatus till then but I will be back on the 17th to give all the updates coming in. For the first time in Previews, we have some Wednesday movies to showcase. Here they are first:

Wednesday releases:
Chaos: (NY)
MPAA Rating: N/A (Most likely Hard R or NC-17)
Director: David DeFalco
Starring: Maya Barovich, Chantal Degroat, Kevin Gage, Ken Medlock, Kelly K.C. Quann
Snapshot: Toted as the most brutal film ever made, this is sure to be a controversial film. Following two teenage girls who, in their attempts to score ecstacy, are captured by a gang of men and put through hell. I really can't say whether this is going to be anything more than a fictional snuff film. Extreme caution advised in picking this movie.

A State of Mind: (NY)
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Daniel Gordon
Starring: Pak Hyon Sun, Kim Song Yun
Snapshot: A rare look into North Korea's society, the movie follows two families and their gymnasict children. The kids are performers in the big show that Kim Jong Il puts on for himself and visiting dignitaries. The show itself is said to be the largest and most elaborate human performance on earth. As long as this is not edited by the N. Koreans into a propagandist film then it should be great.

The rest are Friday's Previews. We have two top picks this week as the Great Raid is released this Friday. You can check out our extensive preview here. The other movie is sure to be a cult classic comedy with Ron Livingston, Office Space, and James Woods. Sadly it's a NY/LA only release. Hit those theaters, I want to see this thing before the New Year.

Top Picks:
The Great Raid:
MPAA Rating: R
Director: John Dahl
Starring: Benjamin Bratt, James Franco, Connie Nielsen, Marton Csokas, Mark Consuelos, Joseph Fiennes
Snapshot: Set in the Philipines during the 2nd World War, this is the tale of the rescue of 500 prisoners of war. This is gonna be a good movie and a fantastic true story. It's about time we saw a decent movie about it. Go see this movie.

Pretty Persuasion: (NY, LA)
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Marcos Siega
Starring: Evan Rachel Wood, James Woods, Ron Livingston, Jamie King, Selma Blair
Snapshot: This movie looks really, really funny. Ron Livingston of Office Space is an English teacher at a private school where Evan Rachel Wood, no relation to James, is the lead role who accuses Ron's character of sexual harrasment. It's all a calculated scheme to become famous. This is sure to be a good one.

Playing in All Theaters:
Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo:
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Mike Bigelow
Starring: Rob Schneider, Eddie Griffin, Jeroen Krabbé, Arija Bareikis, Oded Fehr, Til Schweiger
Snapshot: The sequel to a mildly funny movie, this marks Rob Schneider's new attempt to make a hit movie. I don't think it will be the worst thing ever made, it just won't be close to Wedding Crashers. I'd wait to rent this one.

Four Brothers:
MPAA Rating: R
Director: John Singleton
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, André Benjamin, Garrett Hedlund, Terrence Dashon Howard
Snapshot: John Singleton is best known for his movie's 2 Fast, 2 Furious and Shaft. But he did help produce Hustle and Flow and this is his first movie to really show what he's got. I'm leaning on the positive side with this one. I HOPE he does a good job because it will bode well for his upcoming Luke Cage movie that's in development.

The Skeleton Key:
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Director: Iain Softley
Starring: Kate Hudson, Gena Rowlands, Peter Sarsgaard, John Hurt, Joy Bryant
Snapshot: The screenwriter, not the manga writer, of the Ring is teaming up with Iain Softley who is known for his widely known cult film, Hackers. Iain is better known for K-Pax but that movie wasn't that great. I think it has some potential but it looks like it's just riffing on the old and tired themes started in Pyscho and perfected in the new Texas Chainsaw Masacre. Not worth your money to go see in theaters unless you're just dying for a horror movie.

Limited Showing: (Independent Films)
Asylum:
MPAA Rating: R
Director: David Mackenzie
Starring: Ian McKellen, Natasha Richardson, Hugh Bonneville, Marton Csokas, Natasha Richardson
Snapshot: A tale in the same vein as a Jane Austin novel but with a more modern twist. A less than ideal marriage withers when the husband takes a job at a mental institution. The wife falls in love with a patient who's an artist and is there for murdering his wife in a jealous rage. She of course continues to fall for him. The movie is full of sex and explores the themes of duty versus passion. I personally dislike the conclusions these things usually find which is that while following passion only hurts everyone involved, it's the thing to do. Despite any misgivings about the plot, it should be a terrific movie that's well acted and well worth your time.

The Goebbels Experiment: (NY)
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Lutz Hachmeister
Starring: Kenneth Branagh (narrator)
Snapshot: The wondeful and amazing actor Kenneth Branagh, we'll ignore Wild Wild West if you will, is the sole voice of the movie as he reads word for word from Hitler's head propagandist's diary. Even with Branagh as narrator, I'm not sure if this is going to be entertaining as well as informative. The title of "Experiment" is aptly given.

Grizzly Man:
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Werner Herzog
Starring: Timothy Treadwell, Amie Huguenard
Snapshot: This is a look at the life of Timothy Treadwell, a man who spent his life exploring bears in the wilderness. He and his girlfriend were found dead, mauled by a bear. This film is the look at the bears, the human nature that compels a man to study them and the complex life and thoughts of Timothy. I'd recommend this one easily.

Mangal Pandey – The Rising:
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Ketan Mehta
Starring: Aamir Khan, Rani Mukherjee, Toby Stephens
Snapshot: Set against the backdrop of the Indian Mutiny of 1857, this film is about the lives involved in the fall of the British colonials who ruled India. A fine tale by all means that blurs the lines as Indian's help British and vice versa.

And the winner is!

2005-08-09T18:09:00.000-05:00

Guess I made it too hard for you guys cause we only had two correct emails this week. The answer was, Taye Diggs in the movie Equilibrium. I thought it was pretty easy one but what do I know? The winner's are:

1) John Terrell

2) Kyle Green

Thanks for everyone that played. A lot of people sent in the correct answer of Taye Diggs but very few guessed the right movie. Tomorrow I'll have up one that's a little easier.

Movie Review - Bad News Bears

2005-08-06T00:19:00.000-05:00

reviewed by Patrick Burbano

Imagine if Bad Santa was rated PG-13…wait you don’t have to imagine, watch Bad News Bears. I can’t exactly tell you the movie is bad because, honestly, it isn’t. There’s just something about seeing small kids cuss that tickles my fancy, and yes I had a few laughs while watching. The laughs, however, were just too few and too far between.

I have decided though that if I were to be a famous actor, I would be Billy Bob Thornton. Think about it: hit it off big in the beginning of your career with some widely respected films then become super famous for screwing Angelina Jolie (and not just screwing, I think they had to make up a new name for what they did together…he thorntoned her) and then get type-casted as the guy who just doesn’t care anymore. I mean, come on, I could show up to work every day drunk and smoking, cuss at some kids and thornton some hot tail, but that would just land me in jail. That’s neither here nor there though.

Anyways, my biggest complaint with the movie was that Billy Bob learned his lesson in the end…and by in the end, I mean IN THE END---like the top of the last inning. If you’re gonna have your main character have some huge breakthrough and decide to stop being a cock, you’ve gotta have a reason. The reason in Bad News Bears consists of Billy Bob seeing the gay guy from As Good As It Gets (Greg Kinnear) scolding his pitcher for trying to hit the batter with a pitch (which by the way he should have done anyways, but for some reason the entire crowd seems to side with the petty little brat). Then all of a sudden Billy Bob for some unexplained reason decides to put in the wheel chair kid in the last inning and blow the entire season without so much as an inspiring speech or a thoughtful eye. If you’re gonna wait that long, you should have just left Billy Bob a jerk and had them won the season. Then maybe you could of had the kids learn their lesson about how there’s more to life than winning, or something along those lines.

Other than all that though? A decent movie. Better than Mighty Ducks for a sports movie, worse than Bad Santa or South Park for a “did he just say what I thought he said?” movie. Don’t avoid it, but don’t seek it out either.

Patrick's Comedic Rating: 6

Friday Preview 8/05/05

2005-08-05T00:13:00.000-05:00

Sorry I'm late with this. It's been hell with school, writing for my various projects, and just general work. The two top picks is 2046 and Broken Flowers. 2046 was previewed on this site, check it out. The other movie is Bill Murray's next great film. Check them out if you are lucky enough to live next to those "limited" movie theaters.

Top Picks:
2046: (NY, LA)
MPAA Rating: R (for sexual content)
Director: Wong Kar Wai
Starring: Tony Leung Chiu-Wai, Ziyi Zhang, Chang Chen, Faye Wong, Maggie Cheung
Snapshot: This is the first high profile movie to come out of the orient that wasn't either a cartoon or a kung fu movie. It should be a great film by all accounts. A love and loss story but with a sci-fi twist. I highly recommend this one.

Broken Flowers: (limited)
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Jim Jarmusch
Starring: Bill Murray, Frances Conroy, Julie Delpy, Jessica Lange, Sharon Stone
Snapshot: Bill Murray's character goes searching for the writer of an anonymous love letter. If Murray can pull this one off then he'll be the king of subtle comedy. It looks like another "Lost in Translation" hit.

Playing in All Theaters:
The Dukes of Hazzard:
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Director: Jay Chandrasekhar
Starring: Johnny Knoxville, Seann William Scott, Jessica Simpson, Burt Reynolds, Willie Nelson
Snapshot: It's looks to be a well done comedy that shouldn't take itself seriously, even as a comedy. I'd count this as a safe bet.

Limited Showing: (Independent Films)
Bailey's Billion$:
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: David Devine
Starring: Dean Cain, Laurie Holden, Tim Curry, Jennifer Tilly, Jon Lovitz
Snapshot: It's a kid's movie about a dog who can talk, Jon Lovitz is the voice. The dog inherits a million dollars and hilarity ensues, you know the drill. Looks to have a decent enough cast of actors that it should be a good children's comedy.

The Chumscrubber:
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Arie Posin
Starring: Jamie Bell, Camilla Belle, Justin Chatwin, Glenn Close, Rory Culkin, William Fichtner, Ralph Fiennes, John Heard, Lauren Holly, Allison Janney, Josh Janowicz, Carrie-Anne Moss, Lou Taylor Pucci, Rita Wilson
Snapshot: A teen drama with a slight horror twist. Think O.C. but on crack and with a mysterious villain. I hate Glenn Close but I love Carrie-Anne Moss so I'm kind of stuck on how I feel about this one. Could be good, but then again, it has so many teen actors...

Duma: (CHI)
MPAA Rating: PG
Director: Carroll Ballard
Starring: Hope Davis, Campbell Scott, Eamon Ealker
Snapshot: It's one of those boy and his pet stories. Except the pet is a cheetah and the boy lives in South Africa. Then they do the cliché thing of going on a quest to set the cheetah free. Why it's releasing only in Chicago is anyone's guess.

My Date With Drew:
MPAA Rating: PG
Director: Brian Herzlinger, Brett Winn, Jon Gunn
Starring: Brian Herzlinger, John Mann, Lily Rains, Eric Roberts, Corey Feldman, John August
Snapshot: Notice that Drew isn't in the cast. Maybe she's somewhere hidden but I have feeling that this movie sucks. Besides, Drew Barrymore is an idiot, who wants to actually have to sit and listen to her talk about herself?

Saint Ralph: (NY, LA)
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Director: Michael McGowan
Starring: Adam Butcher, Campbell Scott, Gordon Pinsent, Jennifer Tilly, Shauna MacDonald
Snapshot: Another movie with Jennifer Tilly in it. Sigh, this is another cliched concept that's been done before. A boy thinks he can change the world by doing a miracle and then, GASP, he really does! Wow, let's all hug and sing kumbya. In all fairness this could be a good movie but I doubt it.

Secuestro Express: (NY, LA)
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Jonathan Jakubowicz
Starring: Mía Maestro, Rubén Blades, Pedro Perez, Carlos Madera, Jean Paul Leroux
Snapshot: [Every sixty minutes a person is abducted in Latin America. 70% of the victims do not survive. "Secuestro Express" is the frightening story of one young couple's ordeal as they careen through the underbelly of Caracas, Venezuela in the hands of three thugs who've made them their latest payday.] This looks to be a great movie if it's actually full of realistic scenes and characters. Sadly, this falls under the list of movies I likely won't see till WAY after its left theaters simply because I live in Dallas.

This Divided State: (SF)
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Steven Greenstreet
Starring: Michael Moore, Sean Hannity
Snapshot: The true story of the controversy and media surrounding a debate between Michael Moore and Sean Hannity at a Utah College. I'd like it but I can't imagine it being for everyone. The problem is that Sean Hannity uses real facts and tends to argue in a style that focuses on the logical argument. Moore focuses on appealing to the emotion of the audience or by using tricks to fool the audience. A more similar debater for him from the right would have been Ann Coulter. She's as manipulative as Moore is, they deserve each other.

Guess the Header!

2005-08-03T22:08:00.000-05:00

First real challenge here at Guess the Header. Email actor and movie to: guesstheheader@yahoo.com

And the winner is!

2005-08-02T17:43:00.000-05:00

This week's Guess the Header was ultra easy. It's Keanu Reeves in Constantine. I had several people send in the right answer, actually no one that sent in one didn't get it right. But the winners are:

1)Lial Hungerford

2)Laura Cohen

3)Ben Iriving

Lial Hungerford? I wonder if that's their real name or the person made it up. I'll have next week's up tomorrow. Remember that we'll be giving away some free stuff to the yearly winner. If we get enough people doing it then we might even be able to do a monthly winner. The prizes I'm looking at now are DVD's. And no they aren't Son of the Mask DVD's. We get them free from our sponsors.

Guess the Header!

2005-07-31T01:00:00.000-05:00

Now for a new weekly game here at DR: Guess the Header! It's fairly simple. Send in an email with the name of the movie and the actor(s) portrayed in the image at the top of the page. It's a two part question. And all you have to do is email the answer to me to win!

So what the hell do you win? Well other than the undying adulation and admiration of all your peers? You get your name posted here as the winner and we'll even post a photo of you if you want. Pretty simple really. I will hint that if we really get a lot of people enjoying this then we might send out some free stuff to the top three winners for the year...

Send all answers to here: GuesstheHeader@yahoo.com

I'll post the new image every Thursday and I'll post the winner every Wednesday. Don't forget to send in your name/handle with the answer or we'll just use your email name.

Even though there will only be one winner each week, I will be posting the names of the 2nd and 3rd place runners up. First right answer wins. So send them in.

Friday Preview 7/29/05

2005-07-27T19:58:00.000-05:00

Here's the second Preview and what a crappy week it is. This is a weak offering from the big studios but a couple of promising movies that are only coming out in NY/LA are also coming out this week. Top picks this week are Independent Films I doubt I'll even get to see in the foreseeable future. The only people who will be able to see them are those fine gents in NY. Go see it New Yorkers so they will get pushed nationwide.

Top Picks:
The Aristocrats: (NY/LA)
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Paul Provenza
Starring: Chris Rock, Gilbert Gottfried, Robin Williams, Jon Stewart, Eddie Izzard, Jason Alexander, Lewis Black, Drew Carey, George Carlin, Billy Connolly, and more
Snapshot: A backstage and candid look at comedians. Said to be a hilarious film in its completely irreverent and nasty verbal diatribes, speeches, improves, and general tom-foolery. The list of real stand up gods such as Izzard, Carlin, Williams, and Connolly are enough to make me want to see it.

Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamtress: (NY)
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Dai Sijie
Starring: Xun Zhou, Kun Chen, Ye Liu, Shuangbao Wang, Zhijun Chung, Hongwei Wang
Snapshot: Looks like a great tale of the real oppressions of Mao's Cultural Revolution and how three young adults found some happiness and love despite the lack of freedom. I really wish I could see this instead of Stealth...stupid studios.

Playing in All Theaters:
Must Love Dogs:
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Director: Gary David Goldberg
Starring: Diane Lane, Elizabeth Perkins, Alli Hillis, John Cusack
Snapshot: ["Must Love Dogs" centers on a divorcee (Lane) who, after choosing another Mr. Wrong, swears off dating. Her close-knit Irish-American family enrolls her in a number of online dating programs. The film is based on Claire Cook's 2002 novel.] Looks like an attempt to capture that Big Fat Greek movie's success. I'll wait before I really condemn it but I honestly doubt this is going to be good, even for an out and out chick flick.

Sky High:
MPAA Rating: PG
Director: Mike Mitchell
Starring: Kelly Preston, Lynda Carter, Michael Angarano, Danielle Panabaker, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Bruce Campbell, Dave Foley, Steven Strait, Kurt Russell
Snapshot: Disney's attempt to cash in on the "super hero" fashion going around Hollywood. Despite some signs of real promise, "Kids in the Hall" actors Dave Foley and Kevin McDonald and Bruce Campbell, I doubt this movie is going to be able to fight the Disney motto of ruining almost every chance they have of making a decent movie.

Stealth:
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Director: Rob Cohen
Starring: Josh Lucas, Jessica Biel, Jamie Foxx, Sam Shepard, Joe Morton
Snapshot: Obviously Jamie Foxx signed onto this movie before he did Ray or Collateral because this is an action only movie with the hint of T&A from Biel. But it can't even deliver on its only real promise as it's only PG-13. Don't go see this.

Limited Showing: (Independent Films)
Oyster Farmer: (NY)
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Anna Reeves
Starring: Alex O'Lachlan, Diana Glenn, Kerry Armstrong, Jack Thompson
Snapshot: One of those small town stories where a crook comes and tries to make a score but finds his morals in this small slice of America...PUKE. I'll admit that it could be good but it definitely doesn't sound like they are adding anything to the formula I haven't seen before in movies like Trapped in Paradise. Not to mention that problems usually arise when the director is also the screenwriter and producer. For all that I harp on producers for ruining movies, they are needed sometimes to keep six minutes close-ups from happening with no dialogue, i.e. Magnolia.

Tony Takitani: (NY)
MPAA Rating: N/A
Director: Jun Ichikawa
Starring: Issey Ogata, Miyazawa Rie, Shinohara Takahumi, Nishijima Hidetoshi
Snapshot: An odd tale about a logical boy and the illogical woman he falls in love with. Sounds like it should be a decent drama full of interesting characters, I recommend it.

Comic Book Movie's Report Card #2

2005-07-25T15:21:00.000-05:00

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

So we've seen the successes of the movie industry when porting over a comic book to the big screen. Those movies may not have always been the most accurate story of the original, Constantine and X2, but they were great movies nonetheless.

The next two categories straddle the line of decent and crappy. A lot of movies only seem to be able to reach for this middle status of mediocrity. The reason is quite obvious; producers want to get as much money with doing as little as possible. Their results have sometimes been average but still enjoyable ventures like Punisher and Batman Returns. More often than not, their goal of “just not sucking” inevitably makes them suck all the harder, i.e. Daredevil. And everything in-between these two opposites we have movies like Elektra, that barely deserved to even get a Poor, and Hellboy, a movie that really had it's moments that shined but ultimately sucked.

It's a state of the movie industry that must be realized and then accepted as the way it is. We can show our distaste for crappy movies all the time by bad reviews and poor box office showings, but as long as they get some money then they'll keep plugging away with crappy films. Somewhere in the process we have to encourage and demand that the greats keep getting made while Batman and Robin movies are never made again.

So how can a movie producer get lucky enough to achieve above par when just shooting for enough to get by? The answer isn't actors who like the characters, Affleck with Daredevil, or even directors who like the material, Guillermo with Hellboy, and it's not the material itself that matters, Alan Moore's highly intelligent comics have resulted in some of the worst movies to date (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comes to mind). The truth is that having a love for the material isn't necessarily a recipe for success. Nick Cage loves Ghost Rider but I can see the writing on the wall when they hired the same director that did Daredevil. I'll give him one more chance but the rumor that GR will be out running a tidal wave does not bode well.

Just having a competent director who makes good movies no matter the content doesn't seem to work either. The exceptions that proved this idea wrong was Joel Schumacher, responsible for the 3rd and 4th Batman atrocities while still providing great movies A Time to Kill, Flatliners, The Client, Falling Down, and The Lost Boys. How the hell does a smart movie maker like him create such awful movies?

The truth is that even writers who are responsible for the bad movies have even written good ones: David Goyer wrote all three Blade movies and Batman Begins. The truth is that each film comes together differently and the best hope a movie has is being the product of more or less, a singular vision. Then we must simply hope that vision doesn't suck. We must rely on the director in the end. We can see that every one of the greats had a singular vision moving them towards greatness. We can see in all of the great movies a great director who commanded the project more or less on a singular path to greatness. Nolan (Batman Begins), Singer (X-Men 1 & 2), Raimi (Spider-Man series), Norrington (Blade), and Mendes (Road to Perdition) all had that touch of understanding the material, staying true to the concept, knew how to make a good narrative piece of filming. Lastly, they took what they were doing seriously. I can only assume this last part is what kept Schumacher from making good Batman movies, because he didn't take it seriously. The rest of his problems stemmed from this. Ang Lee also is a good movie maker who didn't take comic books seriously. He ridiculed the source material in interviews and attempted to explain the Hulk in real science.

The rest fall into categories of filming style, Rodriguez has always been over the top and a little campy, Guillermo has always focused on special effects and never understood kung fu or action, and Alex Proyas always loved dark worlds with haunting sets. These are experienced film makers who made comic book movies that aren't out of step with what they made before and after those movies. The Crow, Sin City, and Blade 2 are all good movies and their director's experience with movie making won out with the complications they experienced (in all fairness to Alex, having his lead actor die on set is not really his fault). So what about the majority of the crap out there?

It comes from inexperienced directors who haven't proven themselves and therefore are cheap. What little money the producers have is going to actors and special effects (usually with no good results in quality for their money). They don't have money for a high paid director. But as you can see, even a high paid director can make high budget piles of shit. But the percentage of proven directors that make good films is much higher than that of neonates trying their hand at it cause they love the character. Love of character, a good film does not make.

% of directors with more than two other decent films making good+ movies: 63%
% of directors who had never filmed a movie yet filmed a good+ movie: 29%

That's a lot higher percentage of movies made by experienced directors. It really shouldn't be that shocking that when you let an inexperienced director take over, he's going to do a crappy job most of the time. And I've already explained why they allow it to happen, money.

A few directors didn't really fall into either category, Tim Story and Rob Bowman. Both had made a decent movie but not really more than that. Tim Story's Fantastic Four was more of a movie by committee than a real vision of his. His touch can be seen on it but the man made Taxi for god's sake, did no one see the minimization of Sue into cleavage coming? Bowman on the other hand had a very limited budget, bad actors, and a confused script. He actually did an ok job with what he had. But that doesn't excuse that he made a bad movie in the end. His Reign of Fire had better actors, bigger special effects budget, and a more lenient script.

Story's problem was that the producers steped in to help steer his project into the sun, this is a common event. Many times producers fear what, to them, seems risky. That's why Norrington, a great director by any measure, quit making movies after The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He was tired of the bullshit that producers were giving him and the amount of utter crap Connery insisted on being in the movie, the character of Tom Sawyer being one of them (he's not in the comic books).

Final analysis? Check the director's history, if he's made at least something you'll like then there is a much higher percentage that the movie might be good. The truth is that producers, a million re-writes, and shitty actors can always ruin the movie. But it ultimately comes down to the director. If they can't take control then the movie won't be good. None of the great movies were directed by anything less than a firm hand. Luck still seems to be the only hope we have. But rejoice, luck has been on our side more than not recently.

Movie Review - The Island

2005-07-24T02:24:00.000-05:00

I can't believe this movie was even made! Well, it's really that I can't believe Warner Bros. and Michael Bay, a major Hollywood studio and a major Hollywood schmuck (with Armageddon and Pearl Harbor on his credentials) would make a high budget film with a conservative moral story that borders on pro-life. I'm sorry to get political on you but this movie viewed without that moral story isn't as good a movie. It'd be fluff and bad fluff at that because this story runs throughout the entire film. It's an anti cloning movie that is very intelligent about the whole affair. I imagine many people will not even bother with the high minded scientific ethics issues looked at but they really should because scientists today are proposing that we do what this movie portrays. This creative warning isn't original, Phillip K. Dick and Gattaca, among others, that have looked at the problem of the new sciences of genetics and cloning. But Gattaca could easily be explained in an anti discrimination movie and Hollywood loves those. So it was with surprise that I found a good movie, on several levels amidst the normal Michael Bay fare.

The movie itself was exactly what I'd thought it'd be: a Michael Bay film in his usual style. The slow motion walks and the camera turning a circle around a group of people are all trademarks of his. I'm sad to say that he actually overused these techniques in this movie in some very specific parts. One is when some mercenaries are chasing our two escapee protagonists, Lincoln and Jordan (Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson). These are two guards that aren't shown prominently either before or after this very tiny scene. Yet they get the FULL spin treatment when they stop to look inside the train station. The point of telling us that they were there is a needed scene for the plot, because Lincoln and Jordan are seen running along some tracks and not going through the building to escape. That's ALL the scene is. They get away with no more explanation than that. So why did we need a full blown slow motion spin of these two extras when a simple shot of them entering the building would do? Because Michael thinks it's cool, and it is, when the people it's done to matter. When they don't matter, it's boring. It only happened a couple of times and all are in the first half of the movie. As it moves along, we lose the superfluous cinematics.

Vast underground complexes, rooms where people are grown in sacs of plastic and the cityscape are all visually amazing. The sets were stunning. And they tear them all to shit. Also in typical style of the man who brought us "Bad Boys," we have a lot of car chases. They take a concept directly from Bad Boys 2 when one group, who's being chased, are on a semi that is holding big heavy objects. They of course release these objects to much destruction and mayhem on their chasers. Despite its basic unoriginality, it's REALLY cool. The cars are ripped to shreds in believable fashion and get flipped with unbelievable regularity. Another staple of Bay's action scenes include LOTS of firing and shooting but no one but the good guys ever really hit anything. If you like these aspects then you'll love this movie. He's actually out done himself this time with the flying hover bikes. All the scenes with those were creatively written and filmed.

The one action scene that was so ridiculous as to border on stupidity was the falling scene. Our two heroes are trapped on the insignia that is tacked to the side of the building. It's sticking out over nothing and they are stuck in the middle of it. People above them fire so many bullets that they actually disconnect it from the building. That's a lot of middle flying through the air to not hit either of the two heroes even once. And of course a helicopter that is flying around trying to kill Lincoln and Jordan flies under the falling insignia and is destroyed. They show the co-pilot yelling to stop but evidently the guy flying was one of those AmeriCAN kinda people and wasn't gonna let something as small as a four story sized falling object deter him from trying to fly under it. Whatever. So the two heroes fall what has to be at least forty plus stories riding this insignia. They live.

The amazing part was all the time in-between these scenes, where an intriguing plot that actually had a couple of surprises and one big surprise that started it's misdirection in the beginning of the film. Scarlet and Ewan played perfectly together as the naive clones, new to life. Ewan's character alone made it an entertaining movie.

I can't believe that the man who brought us the horrible, HORRIBLE movie of Armageddon also brought us this decent sci-fi. It's got its superfluous cinematics, its long chase scenes and its requisite beat intensive songs. But somewhere in the middle of all this was a great story full of relevant philosophical questions. If killing an unborn person who is being grown in a sac is wrong, then why not abortion? The ability to see the unborn people through the clear plastic sacs resonates much more with an audience than just the word abortion does. I'm still trying to figure out if they knew what they were doing. Maybe they didn't realize the implications they brought on with these scenes? I can't imagine them not knowing without being complete idiots, yes they made Pearl Harbor but still.

I can't and won't say anymore for a list of reasons. Go see the movie and enjoy it but at least let it open your mind to the possibilities looked at in the film. Whether they meant to or not, they made a big budget conservative movie.

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Upcoming Movie - Tim Burton's Corpse Bride

2005-07-23T13:56:00.000-05:00

Release Date: September 23, 2005

Director: Tim Burton, Michael Johnson

Screen writer(s): Pamela Pettler

Cast: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Emily Watson, Albert Finney, Richard Grant, Joanna Lumley, Christopher Lee

Official Website: http://corpsebridemovie.warnerbros.com/

Trailers:
Trailer #1
Trailer #2

Synopsis: "Corpse Bride" carries on in the dark, romantic tradition of Tim Burton's classic films "Edward Scissorhands" and "The Nightmare Before Christmas." Set in a 19th-century European village, this stop-motion, animated feature follows the story of Victor (Johnny Depp), a young man whisked away to the underworld and wed to a mysterious Corpse Bride (Helena Bonham Carter), while his real bride, Victoria (Emily Watson), waits bereft in the land of the living. Though life in the Land of the Dead proves to be a lot more colorful than his strict Victorian upbringing, Victor learns that there is nothing in this world, or the next, that can keep him away from his one true love. It's a tale of optimism, romance and a very lively afterlife, told in classic Tim Burton style.

Why see it?: If you liked The Nigtmare Before Christmas then you should like this movie. Done in that classic gothic style that Burton is known for, Corpse Bride should be a visually stimulating film. This movie should be funny and entertaining in a slightly dark way. Besides, this is another Depp/Burton masterpiece in the making. When they work together, good things happen.

DVD Review - Constantine

2005-07-21T23:56:00.000-05:00

I said I'd do DVD review when they are released. It should be noted that I'm mostly going to be reviewing the movie, usually a movie I missed in theater or something similar. I am not, and this is not, a review of the extras, features, and etc. of the DVD itself. I do not have that kind of money to do such a thing. I barely have enough money for comic books and movie tickets as it is.

Onward to the greatness that is Constantine. It is based off of the comic book by Vertigo called Hellblazer. It is a good comic that is going on 200plus issues now. That's quite a bit in comic book terms. You should be warned now that this movie does deal heavily with the devil, demons and Christianity. If you might be offended by such things then I simply suggest you don't watch it. It's not particularly blasphemous but neither is it painting the prettiest picture of Heaven and angels.

That disclaimer out of the way: I must also say that this movie is the best that I could imagine a modern based magic movie to be. They do not insult the intelligence of the audience by explaining the how and exact whys of what Constantine (Keanu Reeves) is doing but the effects of his work are all apparent. I quite enjoy movies like this. Another example of this is the Underworld. It is a blatant rip-off of the White Wolf Publishing line of novels and RPG's but the movie, I must admit, is well made despite it being a cheap imitation of the source. Constantine on the other hand is not a cheap imitation. Keanu IS John Constantine minus the British accent. And while his quaint and quirky "britishness" is part of his charm, I think we can all agree that the accent was best left with the comic. No one wants to hear Keanu try to be British.

Everything else was fairly spot on, which means that he was a sarcastic asshole. His job isn't just to be an asshole though. He's chosen to help keep the balance between Angels and Demons. He is burdened by the knowledge that he will ultimately go to hell because he committed suicide when he was a teenager. It doesn’t matter what good deeds he does now, he's fucked. And so is the torment of John Constantine.

The acting is fantastic with Keanu doing a brilliant job. As long as the role suits him, then Keanu can deliver quite compelling performances. Don't listen to the nay-sayers out there about him, they're just jealous he gets to make so many cool movies. Rachel Weisz does a great job, playing both Angela and her twin (Isabel). It was nice to see Shia LaBeouf get some nice screen time. He is a good younger actor that may have gotten pegged in a role early in his career from his movie Holes, which got so much attention. I'd like to see him get some more adult work because he is well suited for it. Sadly, his next movie is a Disney one and quite frankly, Disney sucks.

The director is one Fancis Lawrence who is best known for his music videos. His cinematography here is top notch and I'm surprised he isn't doing more. I'm also surprised that they haven't signed him to do the sequel they are planning. Keanu and Rachel Weisz, who plays the lead female role of Angela Dodson, are both slated to return if the sequel is green lit. My biggest fear is that they won't bring back Lawrence who obviously has a firm grasp of the characters.

I recommend everyone to go pick this one up, or at least rent it. It's an intelligent comic book movie and we have so few of them.

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Friday Preview 7/22/05

2005-07-21T01:12:00.000-05:00

Even though this post is coming out on Thursday, I'll be posting this on Wednesdays for now on. This is a list of ALL the movies coming out for this Friday and a small heads up about them all. This week has three top pick movies to see, The Bad News Bears, November and The Island (which is previewed more fully on this site).

Top Picks:
The Bad News Bears:
Rated: PG-13
Director: Richard Linklater
Starring: Billy Bob Thornton, Greg Kinnear, Marcia Gay Harden
Snapshot: This remake looks to be irreverently hilarious. If you liked Bad Santa then you ought to like this.

The Island: Previewed here on Dexember's Rain
Rated: PG-13
Director: Michael Bay
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Michael Clarke Duncan, Steve Buscemi
Snapshot: This culturally relavent thriller is spattered with sci-fi and action served in director, Michael Bay's, usual widescreen, clear style. If the intellectual aspects are well delevoped then it'll be a hit.

November:(Only showing in limited theaters)
Rated: R
Director: Greg Harrison
Starring: Courteney Cox, Anne Archer, James LeGros, Michael Ealy, Nora Dunn
Snapshot: November is a psychological thriller that is based off of the loss Cox's character endures when her husband is murdered in a robbery she witnessed. She begins to see clues and what may be hallucinations that paint a different picture of what happened that night. Never sure if she is really seeing these things or going insane from the trauma, November should be a smart, mystery movie.

Playing in All Theaters:
The Devil's Rejects:
Rated: R
Director: Rob Zombie
Starring: William Forsythe, Bill Moseley, Sid Haig, Sheri Moon
Snapshot: This is the sequel to Rob Zombie's movie debut, Houes of a 1000 Corpses. This movie promises to be bloody, gruesome, and suspense filled in the vein of classic horror movies.

Hustle & Flow:
Rated: R
Director: Craig Brewer
Starring: Terrence Howard, DJ Qualls, Ludacris, Taryn Manning, Anthony Anderson
Snapshot: A Memphis "hustler" attempts to realize his dream of becoming a rapper. The main lead has earned his acting credentials, Crash, and the movie looks well made. If you like Hip-Hop or a good tale of redemption then I suggest this movie.

Limited Showing: (Independent Films)
9 Songs:
Rated: R(at least)
Director: Michael Winterbottom
Starring: Kieran O'Brien, Margot Stilley
Snapshot: An artistic attempt to meld music videos and romance that frankly borders on porn. I definitely do not suggest seeing this if you are at all going to be offended by it's graphic nature.

The Edukators:
Rated: R
Director: Hans Weingartner
Starring: Daniel Brühl, Julia Jentsch, Stipe Erceg, Burghart Klaußner
Snapshot: A drama about a group of young idealists who perpretrate small acts of rebellion, that isn't vandalism. They are confronted with one of their victims and a philosophical and political dialogue ensues. Should be entertaining although I have no idea what or how the sides of in the arguements will be expressed.

Gus Van Sant's Last Days:
Rated: R
Director: Gus Van Sant
Starring: Michael Pitt, Lukas Haas, Asia Argento, Scott Green, Nicole Vicius
Snapshot: A fictional piece inspired by Kurt Cobain's suicide. An artistic film that is bound to illicit some powerful emotions due to it's nature of "recording the last days" of someone's life.

Monumental: David Brower's Fight for Wild America:
Rated: N/A
Director: Kelly Duane
Starring: David Brower, Stewart Udall, Martin Litton, Jerry Mander, Floyd Dominy
Snapshot: A documentary about a group of lobbyists and activits who are fighting to preserve our National Parks. Part exposition on the beauty of the parks and part recording of the legal, marketing, and lobbying battles these people fought, Monumental should be pretty to watch with a good message:Protect out National Parks.

Viruddh:
Rated: N/A
Director: Mahesh Manjrekar
Starring: Amitabh Bachchan, Sharmila Tagore, Sanjay Dutt, John Abraham
Snapshot: The story of a 60 plus couple who must go in search of meaning in life after the death of their son.

Upcoming Movie - The Libertine

2005-07-21T00:58:00.000-05:00

Release Date: September 16, 2005 (limited)

Director: Laurence Dunmore

Screen writer(s): Stephen Jeffreys

Cast: Johnny Depp, Samantha Morton, John Malkovich, Rosamund Pike, Tom Hollander, Johnny Vegas, Kelly Reilly, Jack Davenport, Richard Coyle, Francesca Annis, Claire Higgins

Official Website: http://www.miramax.com/thelibertine/

Trailers: N/A

Synopsis: Johnny Depp stars in "The Libertine" as the scandalously decadent John Wilmot, the second Earl of Rochester. The film follows the Earl's adventures in London, from his passionate romance with a young actress, Elizabeth Barry (Samantha Morton), to the writing of a scurrilous play which blisteringly and bawdily lampoons the very monarch who commissioned it, Charles II (John Malkovich), leading to the Earl's banishment and eventual downfall.

Laurence Dunmore makes an assured directorial debut, creating a period atmosphere that combines the dark debauched underbelly of London with the allure and glamour of the Restoration court.

Why see it?: For some of you, and you know who you are, just the fact that Johnny Depp is starring in the main lead is enough for you to see it. But for the rest of us, the reason to see this or not should be a simple question of whether you like historical pieces full of scandal, romance, and comedy. I can't speak for everyone but I know I do. That and I like history...

Upcoming Movie - Syriana

2005-07-20T12:14:00.000-05:00

Release Date: September 16, 2005

Director: Stephen Gaghan

Screen writer(s): Stephen Gaghan

Cast: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Amanda Peet, Max Minghella, Greta Scacchi

Official Website: N/A

Trailer: N/A

Synopsis: An adaptation of the Robert Baer memoir "See No Evil: The True Story of a Foot Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism." Clooney will play Baer, who spent 20 years in the trenches for the CIA. The title is a geographical term, referring to the Middle East hot spots that have proved so volatile to U.S. security.

Why see it?: While I can't comment on the historical accuracy of this piece to date, I can say that it will probably be slightly, if not excessively, towards a liberal bias. I say that with the knowledge that Clooney is a liberal celebrity known for his open support of the left, and contempt for Bush. No matter what bent it's narrative conclusions might have, I still want to see this movie as long as it is historically accurate. But that's always a hard thing to tell when dealing with CIA cases. There are many dissedents of the CIA who, for various reasons, have left the CIA upset over the then current administration. Many left because of Clinton and many left because of Bush. So it's interesting to know where the author's political bias falls.

But like I said, this should be an interesting movie no matter your political leanings. Clooney and Damon are good actors and I suspect nothing but a great performance out of both of them. I'll find out what I can about the book in question and report back later.

Upcoming Movie - Keane

2005-07-20T11:20:00.000-05:00

Release Date: September 16, 2005 (limited)

Director: Lodge H. Kerrigan

Screen writer(s): Lodge H. Kerrigan

Cast: Damian Lewis, Abigail Breslin, Amy Ryan

Official Website: N/A

Trailer: N/A

Synopsis: A man in his early 30s (keane) struggles with the supposed loss of his daughter from port authority bus terminal in new york, while fighting serious battles with schizophrenia. we can never be sure if the loss is real or imaginary; or whether his overt interest in helping young girls is innocent and of a fatherly nature, or is of a darker, scarier motive. the film is about a search for family, belonging, and the overwhelming need for human connection. it is a disturbing and thought provoking story about real characters dealing with every day life. keanes quest for his daughter and kiras (kira is a young girl he befriends)longing for a nuclear family is what connects them and the audience to a heartbreaking story...

Why see it?: This movie was screened at the 2005 Atlanta Film Festival. Don’t be fooled. Keane, the movie, isn’t associated with the British pop band or the Family Circus cartoonist Bill Keane. The movie is, in fact, nearly the polar opposite compared to the relative levity of its namesakes. The movie compares much more appropriately to violent, vicious acts, such as self-inflicted wounds, perhaps even the loss of a major limb. Yes, my friends, this is a harsh one.

Keane is an experiment with in-depth character study. The title refers to the main character, one William Keane (Damian Lewis), a paranoid schizophrenic who believes that his daughter was abducted six months before the movie takes place. He travels the city in a maniac quest to find, what delusions, clues to his daughter's dissappearence. He is further made incoherent from his alcoholism and drug addiction. He relies on disability welfare checks to live without working, obviously given because of his mental disorder as there is no physcial impairment shown in the movie.

Damian Lewis, famous for Band of Brothers (certainly not for Dreamcatcher), gives an emotionally charged, impassioned performance as the tormented William Keene. He is helped in his acting by the camera work he is given. It’s easily among the best performances I’ve seen this year, which is too bad really, because most human beings will only be able to stand watching 5 minutes of it.

But where the movie is artistically brilliant, it is, as a narrative story, abysmal. There is no real narrative for the first half of the film as no plot points are addressed. The later half of the film is little bit more interesting and satisfying, however I believe it will come too late for most audiences. The filming style is also hard to watch. It can be downright difficult at times to not get motion sickness. This isn't a Blair Witch attempt at making it look "real." It is a style meant to make the audience feel as tormented and disoriented as Keane is. It's rough on the nerves and is hard to watch.

William Keane is an interesting character and Damian Lewis does an incredible job, so it is sad that this movie couldn't be more accesible. There was a good movie somewhere within this mess, but Lodge Kerrigan’s interpretation was the equivalent of him rubbing a crayon over a Picasso painting. I suggest this movie for those interested in abnormal psychology or who can get past the nauseating camera work and lack of plot to enjoy the artistic achievement made by the movie.

Upcoming Movie - Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire

2005-07-19T01:11:00.000-05:00

Release Date: November 18, 2005

Director: Mike Newell

Screen writer(s): Steve Kloves

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Tom Felton, Matthew Lewis, Devon Murray, Jamie Waylett, Joshua Herdman, Alfie Enoch, Oliver and James Phelps, Chris Rankin, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon, Robert Hardy, Shirley Henderson, Jason Isaacs, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Timothy Spall, Mark Williams, Ralph Fiennes, Miranda Richardson, Brendan Gleeson, Frances De La Tour, Roger Lloyd-Pack, Pedja Bjelac, Jeff Rawle, David Tennant, Robert Pattinson, Stanislav Ianevski, Clemence Poesy, Katie Leung, Shefali Chowdhury, Afshan Azad, Angelica Mandy

Official Website: http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/gobletoffire/index.html

Trailer: Trailer #1

Status: Post-Production

Synopsis: The pivotal fourth novel in the seven-part tale of Harry Potter's training as a wizard and his coming of age. Harry wants to get away from the pernicious Dursleys and go to the International Quidditch Cup with Hermione, Ron, and the Weasleys. He wants to dream about Cho Chang, his crush (and maybe do more than dream). He wants to find out about the mysterious event that's supposed to take place at Hogwarts this year, an event involving two other rival schools of magic, and a competition that hasn't happened for a hundred years. He wants to be a normal, fourteen-year-old wizard. Unfortunately for Harry Potter, he's not normal, even by wizarding standards. And in his case, different can be deadly.

Why see it?: It's Harry Potter 4, do I really have to tell you why? Everyone is returning, the robes are back, and there is a dragon...nuff said for me. The director isn't tested but they needed someone they could pay less with all the actors asking for more and the Special Effects bill going up. I didn't like Harry Potter till I saw the first movie, I suggest everyone give it a try at least.

Upcoming Movie - Hooligan (Green Street)

2005-07-19T00:59:00.000-05:00

Release Date: September 9, 2005 (NY, LA, Chicago)

Director: Lexi Alexander

Screen writer(s): Lexi Alexander, Dougie Brimson, Josh Shelov

Cast: Elijah Wood, Charlie Hunnam, Claire Forlani, Marc Warren, Leo Gregory, Henry Goodman, Geoff Bell, Rafe Spall, Kieran Bew, Ross McCall, Francis Pope, Christopher Hehir

Official Website: http://www.hooligansthefilm.com/

Trailer: None yet

Status: Post-Production

Synopsis: Journalism student Matt Buckner (Elijah Wood) has been expelled from Harvard for a crime he didn't commit. His promising career ended and his future looking bleak, he heads for London to seek refuge with his married sister Shannon (Claire Forlani) and her husband Steve (Marc Warren).

Steve introduces Matt to his younger brother Pete (Charlie Hunnam) and, through their friendship, Matt enters the world of football fanaticism and the secrecy and intrigue of the football firm.

Pete Dunham and his close knit group of friends make up the Green Street Elite (GSE), a hard core group of West Ham United supporters – and one of the toughest London football firms. All the football clubs have a firm and they all have one aim – to be the most feared and respected mob in the country - no matter what it takes. As Pete explains 'West Ham's football is mediocre, but our firm's top notch and everyone knows it… it's really about reputation – humiliating the other mob by beating them in a row or doing things that other firms get to hear about.' Matt is not only drawn into the sheer excitement of the game of football itself, but also the brotherhood and loyalty of life inside the GSE. The buzz that violence brings to him produces a sense of power that he has never before experienced.

But Matt has been sparring with the truth about his past life and not every member of the firm considers him a 'brother'. Bovver (Leo Gregory), resents the presence of the outsider and his own apparent demotion within the ranks of the GSE. His continuing distrust and dislike of Matt creates a powder keg of jealousy and emotion that's just searching for an opportunity to blow.

When Bovver discovers hidden information about Matt it sets off a devastating chain of events that tests friendship, loyalty, honor and determination in battle. Tragic consequences force Matt to acknowledge the cost of his actions and the painful lessons learned lead him to re-evaluate his future.

Why see it?: I've really been impressed with Elijah Wood's slow but steady rise. He's been picking some really good movies and doing well in them. I'm happy to see him get the spotlight. Soccer Hooliganism has risen to pretty violent levels recently, although a lot of the reports are located outside of the UK (I went back and checked the articles). A mixture of things are the cause of this but I should note that it has always had a dangerous edge to it. I remember watching a game in Liverpool in '89 when a riot broke out. The bobbies picked out one guy and dragged him to the middle of the field DURING the game. They just put him in the center of the field and beat the CRAP out of him. All the fighting stopped and the game continued. Anyway, this should be a great window into a part of that world that most Americans don't know anything about. Thanks to Andy Shaw for informing me about two previous soccer gang movies, ID and The Football Factory.

Upcoming Movie - A Sound of Thunder

2005-07-18T11:12:00.000-05:00

Release Date: September 2, 2005

Director: Peter Hyams

Screen writer(s): Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer, Ian LaFrenais, Richard Clement, Gregory Poirier

Starring: Edward Burns, Ben Kingsley, Catherine McCormack

Official Website: http://asoundofthunder.warnerbros.com/

Trailer: Trailer #1

Status: Post-Production

Synopsis: Based on a short story by master of science fiction Ray Bradbury, the sci-fi action adventure A Sound of Thunder is set in the future, when time travel is not only possible – it's a lucrative monopoly. It's especially profitable for Charles Hatton (Kingsley), the owner of Time Safari Inc., a travel agency that specializes in escorting wealthy clients on exclusive hunting trips back to the Prehistoric Age. Under the leadership of seasoned scout Dr. Travis Ryer (Burns), participants are permitted to hunt and kill dinosaurs provided they follow a set of strenuous rules. These guidelines are intended to protect the creatures' natural habitats and prevent time travelers from impacting the course of evolution. When an expedition is compromised and the rules are broken, the hunters return to the future...and discover the world is a markedly different place than it was when they left. As "time waves" ripple from the Prehistoric past through the present to the uncharted future, Ryer teams up with Sonia Rand (McCormack), the inventor of the time travel technology, to unravel the mystery behind the catastrophic historical changes that are threatening to erase humanity from existence.

Why see it?: I'm a huge Bradbury fan and I remember reading this short story and loving it. I've reread it to remember it's greatness. The first part of the movie, them hunting through time and so on, is the short story. The short story ends when the hunters return to find their present time to be noting like they remember it. This is where the movie picks up it's own narrative. I like Edward Burns and Ben Kingsley a lot. They are both great actors, so that combined with my affection for Bradbury makes me want to see this movie. But it has a very large chance of being a huge letdown. It looks like from the trailer that they really have no basis for why the things are happening the way they are except to make it more thrilling, pretty stupid if you ask me. And the large number of writers who have shredded the original script does not bode well for the movie either. I'd hold off seeing this one till we can review it and give you a better idea if it's worth it to actually go to the theaters for this one. Here's for hoping for the best.

Upcoming Movie - Transporter 2

2005-07-18T10:52:00.000-05:00

Release Date: September 2, 2005

Director: Louis Leterrier

Screen writer(s): Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen

Starring: Jason Statham, Alessandro Gassman, Amber Valletta

Official Website: http://www.transporter2movie.com/

Trailer: Trailer #1

Status: Post-Production

Synopsis: Jason Statham returns in his signature role: ex-Special Forces operative Frank Martin, aka "The Transporter." Now retired in Miami, Martin makes a living driving for a wealthy family, including twin brothers with whom he has unexpectedly bonded. But when the boys are abducted, Martin must use all his skills to bring them to safety and discover the kidnapper's master plan.

Why see it?: The first one was a great action film. With creative fights and nice camera work and stunt crew. This one doesn't look to be any different and that's a good thing. Jason Statham is a decent enough actor but any movie based around a little kid's protection hinges on how well the kid can act. It won't ruin the movie for me if he can't but I can't speak for everyone. The last movie had an Asian porn star as the main female lead. Looks like they are doing a little bit of the same kind of casting for this one. Should be a good one with Luc Besson attached. Some people are wary of his work but I find him to be very creative with his writing and directing.

Movie Review - Layer Cake

2005-07-17T12:51:00.000-05:00

This is a British film that has taken the trip across the pond. And am I glad it did. I loved this movie. I hate to give almost nothing but praise but I really can't help it. This really was one of those rare movies that had me guessing, had me laughing, had me caring, had me wanting more, and stayed stylishily cool the whole time.

The main character is played by Daniel Craig, rumored to be the best canidate for the next Bond, and I now think he would be the best person for the role. He reminded me SO much of Steeve McQueen. A new 90's Steeve McQueen but him all the same. His character is the inevitable melding of modern business acumen with drug dealing. A point made more obvious by the inclusion of such steretype characters as "the Duke," who despite the name, is really just an arrogant idiot just like most drug dealers tend to be. The Duke is in it for the fame and glory and in drug dealing, those two things will only get you killed. Our affable main character is well aware of this and gives the viewer many tips and the do's & don't's of being successful drug dealer. Of course half the things he says not to do he ends having to do by the movie's end but that's to be expected. A movie of him just doing great would be boring.

The rest of the cast is filled by memorable support actors who all seem to be resigned to that status permanently in their careers. They are all great actors but it's sad to see George Harris, Colm Meaney and Kenneth Cranham. Michael Gambon does a wonderful job playing the tough but likable British millionare. A role he's done before in various movies. He is quite the amazing actor and will be seen in the upcoming Harry Potter 4 as the lovable Dumbledore.

It's the directorial debut of Matthew Vaughen, the producer of Guy Ritchie's films, both of them: Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. Both good films but they tend to lean on the slapstick/humor side of it. You can definitely see a resemblance but where Guy does gritty, outlandish stories, Vaughen does sleek, grown up man's stories. There is just this maturity and realism that even Guy doesn't seem to be able to grasp. I really would like to see what else Vaughen can do. I mean I hope he isn't stuck in one genre like Guy is. But as long as he keeps putting out movies this good, I really don't think I'll care.

Their is a moral to this story that isn't ever said or even implied. The moral is in the consequences you see on film. I can't say anymore than that but I can say that every character does follow the path they were set on to it's conclusion. Some people may not appreciate this but I find such non-Disney scenarios to be satisfing in all the right ways. In the ways were it doesn't deliver, the romantic notion of happiness for the characters you like, is all the places where we should have those notions dashed to rocks. Crash another good example of this effect in storytelling. Good guys lose and bad guys win, not always but sometimes. That's life and any movie attempting to portray that should take note of what was done here, War of the Worlds I'm looking at you.

What little fighting there is usually implied, we see the aftermath, or is as most fighting truly is, short and brutal. But this isn't an action movie, what it is though is one hell of a fun ride. Part mystery, part crime thriller, and completely witty, Layer Cake is a must see by anyone who likes gangster films and by everyone else who just likes good movies.

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Movie Review - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

2005-07-17T01:36:00.000-05:00

The first thing you'll notice is that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is distinctively a Tim Burton film. In that style that only he can achieve, the viewers find themselves in a world that is ours but with a twist and flair. This movie could not have been done without this eccentric posturing to sustain the surreal atmosphere throughout the movie. But it does and with Tim Burton at the helm, it also gains the little dark edge. This deranged humor and it's dark tones is taken straight from the book by Roald Dahl, so you can see why Burton was quite perfect for this movie.

This movie is not Mel Stuart's Chocolate Factory or Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka. And any comparisons to them are unfair and only going to disappoint. So before you see it you should wipe away any notions that this movie is going to follow faithfully into their footsteps. Even in Stuart's depiction of the novel, Willy Wonka said some mean things and seemed more upset for his candy than for the children. But Gene Wilder's charisma tended to smooth over the harsh words and disgusted looks he'd give in between the songs and dance. So it's no wonder that most people don't remember that movie to be as dark and ambiguous about death as it really was. With Depp, there is no glossing over the comments, strange, weird and sometimes downright mean spirited. You could see the joy on Depp's face when a rotten kid got their just reward for their misbehavior.

Burton, of course, doesn't shy away from the dark aspects of the book but embraces them. His is a better adaptation of the book in many ways. It grasps the moral messages from Roald Dahl's book much better than Mel's vision did. So it's fitting that it takes the real name of the book. That message may be lost on children but that's not really who it's intended for. It's aimed at adults and I'm afraid that many adults may not get it. Instead, they'll focus on the antics of Depp or ambiguous comments about the children dying, my favorite parts by the way. That's too bad because the message is quite an important one as far as I'm concerned, indulgence and denial are both harmful in the extreme. And it's both parent's and the child's faults if a well balanced child like Charlie isn't the outcome of parenting. Dahl's book is mostly a satire on the errors in child rearing and obsessed children. All of the horrid kids are obsessed with something, food, being #1, themselves, or material wealth. All are facilitated by their parents who either do nothing to curb their appetite (sorry bout the pun) or actually encourage their harmful behavior.

This leads us to Charlie: a great kid who is well balanced and has good parents who TRY to be good parents. Charlie offers to make heart warming sacrifices throughout the movie for his family. Freddie Highmore, who plays Charlie, worked with Depp in Finding Neverland. Depp was supposedly thought so highly of him that he elbowed Burton for the job of Willy Wonka. And we can see why, Freddie gives a stunning performance. Stunning because he actually is able to convey his wonder and happiness without coming off cheap or corny. Not once did I feel that he broke character. His facial expressions were simply amazing for a boy his age. Let's hope he doesn't go down the road so many child actors have.

The rest of the cast did alright, David Kelly being a good pick for the grandfather in particular. It was a little weird to see Helena Bonham Carter more than a little like her Fight Club character, it was mostly the ratty dresses and darkened eye sockets. But once I got over that first impression flash back, she, and Noah Taylor who played Mr. Bucket, did a fine job.

Depp on the other hand was actually missing something. He was his usual passionate self with all the odd quirks and movements that he can bring to a character. Yet he seemed almost...too normal. It seemed like they has to scale back the eccentric nature of the character to make sure it fit with the flashbacks they kept giving him. Those flashbacks themselves seemed tacked on and really seemed out of place. But they were amusing and added another element to the morality of the story, namely that parents, even bad ones, love their children and only want what's best.

The movie is definitely eye candy (sorry again) that is less like the acid trip ride of the 1971 film, with all it's bright colors, yet this movie still has that hallucinogenic feel. I rather enjoyed the whole affair and was quite happy with it all, especially the music. Danny Elfman is by far the best composer I've heard accompanying a movie. His music is just phenomenal. The problem I encountered didn't lie with him but with the songs by the Oompa Loompas. I couldn't hear what they were saying half the time. It mixed in with the song too much for me to pick out the words. It really frustrated me because what I could hear sounded clever and I wanted to hear more. It was by NO means a deal breaker but it did distract me enough to lean into every song, trying desperately to make out the words.

The only other part I didn't like was when they showed the bad kids all alive and well after their ordeals. I would have much preferred that we simply remain in the dark as to their fates. I understand however that even Burton has his limits on the ambiguity that can go into whether or not a child was killed. But those were still my favorite parts.

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Movie Review - Wedding Crashers

2005-07-16T18:04:00.000-05:00

reviewed by Patrick Burbano

For any fans of the latest fad comedy troupe, i.e. Will Ferrell, Owen/Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughn and (occasionally) Ben Stiller, you no doubt had high expectations for the newest addition to their growing movie résumé. I know that comedy fans aren’t much for the extensive reviews, so I’ll get right to the point: Wedding Crashers does not disappoint. The very instant I saw who was headlining this movie (Vaughn/Wilson) I knew I was at least in for a few cheap and guilty laughs. I’ll be the first to admit that the movie is full of such instances.

However, the surprise of the movie was Vaughn. The comedic timing and delicacy with which he delivers some of the movie’s crasser lines (pay special attention to an extensive monologue towards the beginning of the movie between Vaughn and his secretary) is nothing short of awe-inspiring. It is with great reservation that I throw this out there, but dare I say Chevy Chase caliber? It became very evident in the beginning of Wedding Crashers that Vaughn had perhaps sold his soul so that every last ounce of breath that spilled from his lungs was 24 karat comedic gold. It was almost obscene. It was the minutiae of his performance that really sold me: facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. Whatever, I’ll stop this ball fondling now, but you get my point.

I had higher expectations for Wilson though. I think we were all spoiled with his performance in The Royal Tenenbaums, but that does not take away what he was able to pull off in Crashers. It was Wilson’s sincerity that carried the film through its slower parts, which it was bound to have, considering the length of the film (a 2 hr comedy? Holy shit).

If I were to have a complaint of Wedding Crashers, it would be the length of the film. Don’t get wrong, I would have watched a 24 hr. Vaughn/Wilson marathon even if I was suffering from cholera and sitting on a bed of spikes, but I think the movie would have been a bit stronger if they could have shaved about 15 min off of it. The only reason the movie even sagged in the latter stages was because Vaughn and Wilson were having a fight and therefore were not interacting. Their chemistry in this film is nothing short of Pfiezer Pharmaceutical’s breakthrough Viagra. Wilson’s love interest (McAdams) is actually a pretty engaging plot, but just tastes sour when Vaughn isn’t pouring sweet honeydew into your ears.

If any of you just skipped to the end of the review, I’ll make it easy for you: Wedding Crashers is better than Old School. Yeah, I said it.

Patrick's Comedic Rating: 9

Upcoming Movie - 2046

2005-07-16T17:47:00.000-05:00

Release Date: August 5, 2005 (limited release)

Director: Wong Kar Wai

Screen writer(s): Wong Kar Wai

Cast: Tony Leung Chiu-Wai, Ziyi Zhang, Chang Chen, Faye Wong, Maggie Cheung

Official Website: http://www.sonyclassics.com/2046/

Trailer: Trailer #1

Status: Post-Production

Synopsis: He was a writer. He thought he wrote about the future but it really was the past. In his novel, a mysterious train left for 2046 every once in a while. Everyone who went there had the same intention…to recapture their lost memories. It was said that in 2046, nothing ever changed. Nobody knew for sure if it was true, because nobody who went there had ever come back - except for one. He was there. He chose to leave. He wanted to change.

Why see it?: Besides the fact that this is the first non-martial arts action movie to come out of asia and meant for mainstream America? Because it just looks like a good movie. Bound to be a little racy, and full of mystery and style, this movie should be a nice break from the sci-fi's with guns and superheroes. Instead we are treated to a psychological thriller with an interesting concept: if you could relive your best memories over and over again, would you chose to leave?

Upcoming Movie - The Great Raid

2005-07-16T01:15:00.000-05:00

Release Date: August 12, 2005

Director: John Dahl

Screen writer(s): Carlo Bernard, Douglas Miro

Cast: Benjamin Bratt, James Franco, Connie Nielsen, Marton Csokas, Mark Consuelos, Joseph Fiennes

Official Website: http://www.miramax.com/thegreatraid/

Trailer: Trailer #1

Status: Post Production

Synopsis: Set in the Philippines in 1945, "The Great Raid" tells the true story of the 6th Ranger Battalion, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Mucci (Bratt) who undertake a daring rescue mission against all odds. Traveling thirty miles behind enemy lines, the 6th Ranger Battalion aims to liberate over 500 American prisoners-of-war from the notorious Cabanatuan Japanese POW camp resulting in the most audacious rescue ever.

Why see it?: Despite my reservations about Bratt, I believe this movie will be quite good. Yes I am a history student and so this movie holds more importance for me because I actually had to learn about this before the movie. Yet it was an important part of that war. We went into enemy territory to get soldiers out, not put them in. Americans know far too little about their own countries great success stories. We all hear about the times America was in the wrong, it's nice to see a movie remind us of the times when we were in the right. This and our opposition to Imperial Japan during the war were two of those times.

Upcoming Movie - Ultraviolet

2005-07-16T01:01:00.000-05:00

Release Date: August 2005, TBA

Cast: Milla Jovovich as Violet, Cameron Bright as Six, Nick Chinlund as Daxus, William Fichtner as Garth, Sebastien Andrieu as Nerva, Ida Martin as young Violet, Jennifer Caputo as Elizabeth P. Watkins, Duc Luu as Kar Wai, Digger Mesch as Det. Endera, David Collier as BF-1

Director: Kurt Wimmer

Screen Writer(s): TBA

Official Site: TBA

Trailers: N/A

Status: Post-Production

Synopsis: In the late 21st century, a subculture of humans have emerged who have been modified genetically by a vampire-like disease, giving them enhanced speed, strength and intelligence, and because they are set apart from ordinary "healthy" humans, societal riffs push the world to the brink of worldwide civil war between the human government and the enhanced diseased populace. Caught in the middle is one such infected woman, Ultraviolet (Milla Jovovich), who finds herself protecting a nine-year-old boy who has been marked for death.

Why see it?: While I look forward to seeing Kurt Wimmer's next project, I am a little worried it might not be up to par with his last movie, Equilibrium (with Christian Bale). That movie, like this one will be, was a sci-fi on a budget and it showed. As long as you are ok with that then you should enjoy it and this movie. He normally has very talented actors but Milla can sometimes be lacking. She's shown greatness in movies like Fifth Element and the Messenger but also seemed flat in Resident Evil. She's really only as good as the movie around her. Lets hope Kurt can build one for her.

Milla as Ultraviolet

Upcoming Movie - The Island

2005-07-16T00:47:00.000-05:00

Release Date: July 22, 2005

Cast: Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Djimon Hounsou, Michael Clarke Duncan, Steve Buscemi, Sean Bean, Shawnee Smith, Noa Tishby

Director: Michael Bay

Screen writer(s): Caspian Tredwell-Owen, Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci

Official Site: http://www.theisland-themovie.com/

Trailers:
Trailer #1
Trailer #2

Status: Post Production

Synopsis: Lincoln Six-Echo (McGregor) is a resident of a seemingly utopian but contained facility in the mid-21st century. Like all of the inhabitants of this carefully controlled environment, Lincoln hopes to be chosen to go to the "The Island"—reportedly the last uncontaminated spot on the planet—until he makes a terrible discovery that everything about his existence is a lie…and that he is actually more valuable dead than alive. Together with a beautiful fellow resident named Jordan Two-Delta (Johansson), Lincoln makes a daring escape to the outside world he’s never known. Now, with the forces of the institute that once housed them relentlessly hunting them down, Lincoln and Jordan engage in a desperate race for their lives.

Why see it?: My intial impression of the teaser was a more than a little negative. But after I got a glimpse of the real story, the controversey of cloning, I really came around to looking forward to this movie. I really like McGregor and Johansson and although Bay is known more for his wide screen action than thoughtful plots, I have hope he's got it in him to make this more than a pretty car chase.

Who are we & What are we doing here?

2005-07-15T14:13:00.000-05:00

We are a group of people that love the finer things in life, and movies. So to that end we've decided to bring to you the reader, free of charge, reviews of most of the main movies that we are able to see. We will try our best to see the most movies as soon as they come out. We might also review movies from DVD and will say so when we do. This might help you to make a choice on renting a movie you didn't really want to see in the theaters.

We will also bring to your attention upcoming movies and if they are worth seeing. So many movies, movies like Layer Cake, fall between the cracks of mainstream theaters and we hope to bring these movies to your attention. Those movies that are great and moving but don't necessarily have the big names that make it to the Cinemarks and AMC's. We won't display a movie unless we at least HOPE it is going to be good. But if we see the writing on the wall, have no fear that we will tell you that we think it's going to suck.

Which leads us into why should you come here verus any other place? The great conversation? No, you should come here because we aren't beholden to studios, theaters, or artisits. We can and will say exactly what we think. We'll even disagree with each other. If one of us loves a movie and another hates it then we'll allow room for both reviews. Let you read the battle of words and sort out for yourself if you really want to see it.

So who are these people that have a passion for movies? I, Michael McDaniel am the publisher and will be doing the majority of the reviews. The other two members of the team that will be reviewing from time to time are Patrick Burbano, who will most likely take on chores with comedies, and Clark Bosslet, who will most likely take on the duties of seeing those indie films. I am the Dexember of the title; I will continue write about any and all sci-fi, action, fantasy, and comic book movies that come along. Although I'm sure Clark will contribute a damning review of a comic book movie here or there.

I've decided to drop the rating system except for the comic book movies where I will use it for the report I've been working on. I had wanted a way to grade comic book movie's success and then I figured, hey, why not use it for everything. And so I did. I've come to see it as a little lame and unless I get any major complaints from readers like yourself or my team mutinies, it'll be gone for most of the movies. Please feel free to give us your input about it, do you like it or does it suck?

Movie Review - Batman Begins

2005-07-14T13:17:00.000-05:00

Big Spoilers....I warned you...

As my upcoming sister site to this one should prove, I love comic books. I've read them since the 3rd grade, and while I was never the biggest Batman fan, the movies in his name always seemed the best fare available to me till the renaissance started by Blade's release. Yet I had no real vested interest in them per se, not like I do with X-Men. So when the dissapointing Batman & Robin was released, I simply turned in disgust, filled with the assertion that a "real" comic book movie wouldn't ever be released. But when I heard of the release of another Batman movie, things had changed. Spider-Man had set the bar high, X-Men had helped maintain the idea that comic book movies could be smart and well acted as well as fun. But Batman had gone down a path that he could not go back from with his last two horrible movies, giving me little hope that this next one was going to be any different. That is till I heard that not only would a favorite director of mine, Chris Nolan, be directing, but that this movie was going to be a do over. An admission of fault simply by existing, this film would mark an aknowledgement that the past two movies had been jokes. Never did I think though, that they would actually surpass Tim Burton's two decent forays into the world of Gotham. Oh how they proved me wrong.

It starts and ends with Nolan's involvement. His drive to make this movie close to the source, intelligent, and different than any of the prievous movies was the catalyst behind the whole project. His creditentials include the cult favorite, Memento, that is now apparently to be Guy Pearce's crowning achievement. Guy's got three new movies coming out in the next year or so but none of them offer him more than a supporting role. Batman is chock full of normally leading men, and the fact that so many actors signed onto this movie can most likely be attributed to Nolan's reputation and vision. David Goyer, who wrote the original screenplay, is a writer I'm experienced with, him having written all three Blade films, and while I think he is a good writer, I don't think his script alone could have brought all these actors to the table. Nolan's presence was needed and is seen in the final verision of the screenplay that he helped write with Goyer. The other writer was Bob Kane, who helped with characterization and character personalities as far as I can tell.

The most important role to fill of course was taken by another independent veteran, Christian Bale. Hot off his role in the The Machinist, where he weighed less than 100 pounds at one point, he was willing to do this big studio movie because he trusted Nolan. Normally shy of big studio films, Bale has proven himself time and again that he is an incredible actor willing to do sci-fi movies, i.e. Equilibrium and Reign of Fire. Bale's performance was spot on Bruce Wayne. More than any before him, Bale was able to present the flirting playboy mask over the true Wayne that is calculating, brooding, and full of real emotional pains and scars. The true Bruce Wayne is avenger and detective that is seen in the persona of Batman. Batman is a symbol true, but it's a mask that lets Bruce be who he really wants to be, who he is.

Bale does the best job in the costume to date. Keaton came close but where Keaton was always portraying that calm and collected demeanor, Bale lets the anger and passion spill out. This passionate and furious side of Batman is present in the comic as anyone who's read any of the main story arcs can attest to. Batman is the perfect blend of unchecked anger and rock solid calm in the storm, both of which are simply tools against his enemies as he uses what is necessary. One of the best lines in the whole movie was during the interogation of the character Flass, played by Mark Boone Jr., who says, "I don't know anything. I swear to God!" in response to Batman's question. Batman simply replies, "SWEAR TO ME!" Spittle is flying, the rain is pouring, and the whole scene takes place ten stories up. Bale is the perfect Batman in his acting, his physique, and evidently, his chin. Many people have been commenting on how great his chin looks. Looks ok to me but I lack female anatomy so I'll trust their expert opinions.

The rest of the cast if filled out by a slew of amazing actors and big names. The most important role is inevitably Alfred as the character acts as a suragote father figure for Bruce. Michael Cain acts so well as to make even his bad lines sound good; yes I know it's a cliche to say that but they say it for a reason, it's true. Alfred needed to be cast well because he is one of the only repeating main characters in the series. Assuming Cain returns, we shouldn't be disappointed. The other main repeating character is Lt. Gordon, actually Detective Gordon for most of the movie, played by Gary Oldman. My friends would say I have a hard on for Oldman as I make a point to see every movie he's ever made. I'd say I just like one of the best actor ever. Yes, ever. The man changes his looks and personality SO much role from role as to be unrecognizable by most people. He's also one of those Bristish stage actors turned Hollywood just like Patrick Stewart or Ian McCellan. The rest of the cast is filled out with Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. He does a good job but it's relatively minor role. Freeman's charm is evident though in the dialogue exchange with Bale. Rutger Haur plays Earle who is Wayne Corporation's Board Chair and who ran the company in the time period between Bruce's parent's deaths and his return from self imposed exile. He does a good job but again, it is a small role. These minor roles filled by good actors only helps to propel the movie into that status of greatness as each character seeminly has some depth.

The love interest is one Rachel Dawson who is played Katie Holmes. I expected her to be the weak link in the chain but I was surprised by her level of complexity in portraying her character. Some of her lines are weak, like at the end of the movie where she denies Bruce's love for a seemingly stupid reason. But at moments she really shines as when she is sitting in the car with Bruce after he reveals his intentions of getting revenge for his parent's murder. Her character could easily stick around as the rumor is that Harvey Dent, aka Two Face, will appear in the later films.

No movie is great without a great villain. Ra's al Ghul is that villain. Ken Watanabe does a phomenable job and had I not already known the truth of the characters before the movie, I would have been upset with his utter lack of dialogue. Henri Ducard, played by Liam Neeson is the real villain of this tale. He is both mentor and enemy to Batman and even though we've seen him act the mentor role many times before, he makes it fresh and new here. As Ra's al Ghul is the great villain in the story, Scarecrow is the weak one. His character is weaker and usually only motivated by money and his schtick of abnormal psychology. But the Scarecrow, played by Cillian Murphy is given the low level status he deserves. He is nothing but a pawn of Ra's. Carmine Falcone is the typical gangster played by another Bristish actor, Tom Wilkinson. His role as a crime boss is important both as Batman's first real test and as the catalyst behind Bruce's exile.

The special effects were amazing and I was more than thrilled with the effects given to Scarecrow's hallucinagenics. They did the Scarecrow in the only way you could without falling into campiness, they made him truly horrific when others are under the influence of his drug. The bats were done well enough, no one was going to think they were real bats but they weren't fake enough to distract you. All of the car scenes were well done, even the roof jumping, and the sets in general were incredible. The city of Gotham was a real city in this movie more than it ever has been to date. Yet they still managed to keep the raised train effect that is a staple of the Chicago-esque cityscape of Gotham. The whole movie is beautiful to look at. From the Mountain panoramas to the closed in Bat-Cave to the city slums, modeled after the slums in Hong Kong, all give the movie a sense of scope that this tale is epic. Fantastic Four could take note of this effect in movie making as they somehow made a trip to space seem almost dull and ordinary.

So is it a grand slam movie to forever go down as one of the best ever? Sadly no it's not. Chris Nolan, for all his good directing, can't seem to film kung fu any better than a three year old. He isn't normally an action director and I understand that. I knowingly would trade this deficit in action with the all the rest he got right yet it still doesn't erase the fact that his fight scenes are hard to follow blurs that inevitably become boring because you can't understand what's happening. I call it the American way of filming kung fu for actors that don't know a thing about martial arts. If Keanu can look convincing during his fight scenes in the Matrix, then surely the already trained actor of Bale can do them here. His complex movements in Equilibrium were good enough to mostly be done with only a couple of cuts (camera angle changes). Some directors claim that the American way of doing it is intense and lets you feel as part of the action. I think that's just an excuse for being lazy. The worst fight scene out of them all is the first one as him as Batman. He lands in the middle of six guys and after thirty seconds of about twenty cuts, he is standing in the middle of a pile of bodies. I have no idea how he got to that point and I've seen the movie twice now. And the funniest part about it is that those exact type of fight scenes is what Bale trained for in Equilibrium. Oh well. I'll glad take this beacon of a movie and make do with the lack of excitement during those moments.

This meets the bar set by Spider-Man and takes it's place alongside those movies as the best the Comic industry has yet to offer with one of their mainstream characters. Add another notch onto everyones belts who were involved with this project, this is a real catch.

Batman Begins - 8.7
Ad: 9.5
F: 7 (The only thing that kept this from being the first 9, Nolan just doesn't know how to film martial arts. The ingenuity with the rest of the combat kept the score up though.)
Ac: 9
D: 8.5
SE: 9
MN: 9
E: 9

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Movie Review - Mr. & Mrs. Smith

2005-07-13T23:07:00.000-05:00

The producer of the Bourne Triology, and the director of the first one, is back directing after having spent the last year or so working on the hit show The O.C. Doug Liman is a great story teller. He understands when a movie can and should be intelligent and sophisticated and when it should be just fun with some sophistication; he does this amazingly without insulting our inteligence. This movie is an action film that's fun, light, and filmed in the same style as the Bourne Identity, minus all the deep thinking and moral questioning. His filming is clear, and amazingly easy to follow even when the screen is in chaos. Thus he is able to bring complex, and in this movie's case a little absurd, fight scenes to life that are enjoyable to watch.

This still doesn't mean he isn't able to slow it all down for a second or two though. His small scenes of intimacy, after the love battle in the house for instance, are reminicent of his scenes in The Bourne Identity, the aftermath of the fight with the second assassin comes to mind. If Mr. & Mrs. Smith do not have the grim tones of their early counterparts they do achieve their goal, emotional characterization that has you wanting the couple to stay together. It doesn't hurt that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Mr. and Mrs. Smith respectively, are beautiful to look at. Both do a fine job of acting as there really isn't anything hard about these characters. They are entertaining charcters to watch as they spin, dive, shoot, and make wise cracks on screen. The style of cool, smooth operators was so infused throughout the movie that Pitt's character as a rough-around-the-edges guy was almost lost.

Pitt's character you see, is the unconventional, messy assassin while Jolie is the organized, killer with a sense of professionalism. This dichotemy isn't anything particularly new but it seems fresh when put on the act of killing for money. It also never fails as the interesting catalyst for tension between the two opposites.

The comedy that this tension creates helps round out the movie. The obvious questions that couples ask one another BEFORE they get married are asked during times of stress for the characters, a car chase, before an important mission, and so on. Vince Vaughen, playing his usual persona in the skin of an assassin, is a refreshing change of pace in the movie when he shows up. But Liman is smart enough to not let Vaughen drag on, and you really never get too much of him to let his 2 dimensional character get stale.

The fighting was done in Liman's typical style. He doesn't use any more cuts of the camera than is necessary and he pans far enough way to let the viewer actually see what's going on. This isn't the Matrix but it doesn't need to be. Too many directors think it must be fully choregraphed kung fu or Chris Nolan's crappy martial art scenes in Batman Begins. Liman shows a very happy meduim. I'll always want the Matrix but I'll take Liman's clear fights over Nolan's lazy filming any day.

In short, this movie is a good action movie, funny at times, just enough drama and romance to care about the characters, and it has more sophticated style than Fantastic Four. Not a priority see but it should't dissapoint if you do.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith - 7.2
Ad: N/A
F: 7
Ac: 7
D: 7.5
SE: 7
MN: 6.5
E: 8

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Rating System - NOT BEING USED

2005-07-12T20:55:00.000-05:00

I've decided to only use this system for Comic Book Movies. If you like it then you should email me and I'll enforce my reviewers to learn it and use it. Otherwise...bye, bye rating system.

Here at Dexember's Rain, we use a simple 1 to 10 rating system to help give you, the reader, a quick and easy way to see what we thought. This number is the average of 7 different categories. I offer those numbers as well but if you don't care how it got the rating it did then all you need is the bold number to the right of the movie's name. An example of what the whole thing looks like is this one of Spanglish:

Spanglish - 7.4
Ad: N/A
C: 7
Ac: 7.5
D: 7
SE: N/A
MN: 7.5
E: 8

All you really need to look at is the bold type and the number found there. Easy enough really, these will always be at the bottom of the review. As you can see for yourself, the average almost never comes out to be a whole number. We only round to the tenth decimal place. Note that we'll only use whole numbers and halves with the minor categories.

You may also notice the N/A which obivously stands for Not Applicable. This will be displayed anywhere a category does not apply; rest assured that we will adjust our averaging to account for the change ;). Above we see the categories SE, Special Effects, and Ad, Adaptablity, with an N/A as neither of those categories are approtiate for Spanglish.

Here's a small breakdown of what exactly a movie's rating means for the overall quality of a movie:

Great - 8-10

Good - 5-8

Poor - 3-5

Ugly - 0-3

The following are the different categories and what criteria I use with each.

Adaptability: Pretty obvious category, as most of them are. It's understood that adapting a story from one medium to another is never a straight process. Some things must be changed to better fit the medium. But staying true to the characters, tone, and overall plot of the original source material is still very important. Those who do well in this category tend to do well overall because it means they take the story seriously and understand what needs to be done to make it work. Where not applicable, I'll have a N/A and it just won't be included.

Fighting/Scary/Love/Comedy: Movies that try to fit a more specific genre will be graded by their attempt in this category. For fighting, they are either fun, well tailored for the story and coherent; or they can be confusing, needless, or worse yet, boring. Romance has Love to gauge the on screen chemistry. Horror will have a Scary instead of Fighting. I'll have a N/A and it just won't be included.

Acting: Pretty self explanatory. Good, bad or downright shitty.

Dialogue: This is basically the critique of the script, excluding plot. A movie could have great acting and bad dialogue, it's just harder to notice.

Special Effects: Self Explanatory. Used where applicable.

Movie Narrative: This is used as my grab all for plot, coherence of narrative and so on.

Entertainment: The most subjective category. It could be a bad movie but as long as I enjoyed it then it gets a good rating here.

If you really want a rubric for the Great, Good, Poor and Ugly then here's what it should basically tell you about the movie.

Great - Fires on all cylinders, is about as good an adaptation as is possible in a movie. It's acting is well done and it has a good plot. Action and special effects are seamless. A great movie no matter the content.

Good - As a decent adaptation but once or twice it negatively moved away from the source material. Is a decent movie. It has average acting and might have a bad apple or two. Action and special effects are par or below.

Poor - The opposite of a Good rating. It is below par on all counts with one or two bright spots. It has a coherent plot and average fighting.

Ugly - Just crap. Has no concept of the source material. Is a bad movie no matter the context. Has bad acting and an incoherent plot.

Movie Review - Fantastic Four

2005-07-12T11:27:00.000-05:00

Another comic book movie. Another movie with large potential because of the HUGE amount of source material available. Another disappointment. I never really read the Fantastic Four growing up. I was an X-Men kid but I was a comic book geek in general and so I knew of them and their powers, origin story, and personalities. I have recently begun reading the Ultimate Fantastic Four, which is just a re-telling of the original story but with a modern setting, rather than the 50's setting the original had. I figured that they would take more from the Ultimate origin story as they seem to be doing with all their heroes. I was half right. They added in Doom's origin story with the Four's just like in Ultimate, yet they left the transformation to a space phenomenon.

This seems fine to me, the last thing we need is them trying to come up with a reasonable excuse for why they have their powers. Ang Lee botched this part of the Hulk by trying to rationalize the "fantastic" parts of the story with real science. The result was the complex, boring, and lifeless piece of shit that had the name Hulk slapped on it. THAT part of the story isn't the part that is supposed to be seriously digested by the audience. The other end of the spectrum is the all campy exploits of say...Batman & Robin? And so in the middle of these two extremes sits The Fantastic Four. It's amazingly average. In the words of reviewer who knows the FF better than I, "It's a shit covered diamond. You get to glimpse the diamond occasionally but you're still looking at shit."

So lets get the stinky part out of the way first, yes puns are fun for everyone :P. The acting, while nothing award winning was ok. Their were some high points, Michael Chiklis (The Thing) and Chris Evans (The Human Torch), and some low points, Jessica Alba (Invisible Woman) and Julian McMahon (Dr. Doom), with Ian Goldfield (Mr. Fantastic) being the spokesman for the movie with his very average performance. I hear people RAVING about McMahon on his hit show of Nip/Tuck but I just didn't see anything that was particularly great about him. I understand that a lot of my disappoint was in the way his character was written more than with him specifically but he just didn't seem mean enough. His voice coming out of the "helm" of Doom needed to be much more threatening and sinister. Jessica Alba's failure is that she is and always will seem to be a bad actress. Yet she keeps getting roles? Yes, she's pretty and yes she did better than I feared she might...but she still just didn't seem at all to be able to act like the world class scientist her character is. The character was reduced to cleavage and bitching at the other characters, neither of those things are Sue Storm.

All these problems do partly stem from the writing. The dialogue was again, ok. I really wish all the cute, tongue-in-cheek crap would have been cut. The most glaring of all the lines were the foreshadowing comments about the four superheros. Johnny's a hothead, Ben feels solid, Reed is stretched thin and Sue feels unnoticed. Gag me please. I got the message, and I'm sure only those who really got it were those like me that really wish it wasn't there. That said, I was fearing with great trepidation the time when Ben would say his classic line, "It's Clobberin' Time!" I mean how do you say that without sounding like an idiot. He still sounded stupid saying it but at least he had some kind of excuse in the plot for it's utterance as Johnny showed him a toy that says the line, thus taking the creation of the crap line off of Ben's shoulders. Stan Lee loves that corny crap though and I actually enjoy the fact it's in there. It's ode to where the character came from.

Back to the writing. Where was the climax? It came and I felt more like it should have been the middle of the movie. They weren't fighting to save the world, just themselves. They weren't fighting for the second or third time but for the FIRST TIME in the whole movie. The entire movie played as one big origin story ripped straight from the comic books. I'm sad to say that the comic book was more intelligent and entertaining than the movie. This is partly due to certain subplots that were not needed, their contributions to the main story (such as Doom's first murder of revenge) could have been achieved in another way. The stupidest sub plots were both of Doom's, his lust for Sue and his financial troubles. Both make the character less sinister and less powerful. Dr. Doom is one of the greatest villains of all time. He is both a mad scientist and a dark sorcerer, which never comes up, and he has a nice and nuanced back story. His real backstory is completely dropped and we get tidbits of his ties to Latervia as morsels to wet our appetite for the obviously planned sequel.

The Special Effects were half ass. They spent a lot of money and yet produced lazy ass effects and crappy visuals. They weren't stupendously bad, just half-ass. Reed's stretch wasn't really used to full effect till the end and even then it wasn't lit well enough to really stand out. Johnny's fire effects were mostly ok but he looked...flat, not good for what's supposed to be a three dimensional person. Sue's invisibility looked good when they would do a light gossamer coating to show her but let you know that no one else could. But then they would continue their half ass show and have her go completely invisible, fairly easy to do by the way. The one bright spot was the Thing. He looked like the original Jack Kirby Thing and the make up was done very well. Doom's make up was also done incredibly well. His lightening powers were visually weak but shockfull in their effect.

The good points of the story mostly consisted of either Johnny or Ben. Both were portrayed accurately and their stories were done well, minus Debbie's whole run out in a negligee episode. I liked seeing Maria Menounos (From Channel One fame) but I really didn't like the generic "X-Games" crap Johnny would go do. The snowboarding was reasonable but the motorcross? Are you kidding me? Thank god they ended it there before he did a half pipe on his skate board. But unlike Sue's and Doom's characters, Johnny's and Ben's were way more good than these nit pick complaints. Reed was average and while I seemed to enjoy him more than any other reviewer I have yet to read, I really didn't see the Reed of the comic books till the end when he takes charge of the team to defeat Doom.

Phew, had a lot to say about this one. It was entertaining, not too campy, close to the original tone, and got half the characters right. A story is only as good as it's villain, and Doom was not the best villain in this movie. Let's hope the sequel has him up to true evil form. Oh man, they are so gonna do a Mole Man plot with the second one. They have to put him in the second cause if they do a third then it will be space based, Skrulls and Galactus here we come.

Fantastic Four - 5.6
Ad: 5
F: 5
Ac: 6 (slightly high marks for not wanting to make me vomit when I saw Alba try to be serious)
D: 6
SE: 5.5
M: 6 (I'm sorry but I did enjoy myself despite it all)

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

And here's some bonus art from the comic by Steve McNiven:

Movie Review - Crash

2005-07-12T00:29:00.000-05:00

I'm a little late in posting this review as the movie might only still be in "indie" theaters. But if you still have a chance to go see it, stop reading this and go see it. It's that good. The movie itself isn't a Titantic, Lord of the Rings, or even a Hotel Rwanda. It is good in a much different way than those other movies, although it holds some ties to Hotel Rwanda as it attempts to educate in an entertaining form.

If you don't know the premise already then the best that it can be summed up without giving it away would be to say that it is about a large diversity of people and the racial tensions that inevitably follow the "Crash"ing into of these people. A mouthful I know. Somehow this movie gets it's balanced message across without seeming preachy, a hard fete by any measure when dealing with such sensitive topics. And did I say "balanced message?" Why yes I did because this movie provides just that, the recognition of racism from everyone and to everyone and in all shapes and verbal comments. No one is spared. In fact, the director makes a point of introducing characters that, at first, seem like stereotypes of racists and victims but every character is developed into an individual. By the end of the movie you will come to find respect for the "bad guys" and see the "good guys" in a new tarnished light.

It is a subtly moving piece at times with it's small racist comments that almost go unnoticed till someone reacts to it onscreen. I found myself having to stifle laughter at jokes for fear of being seen as a racist by those in the movie theater with me. The movie has some honestly funny jokes that are racist no matter how you slice it. Yet is it ok to laugh? In the end I think it is. The director put them in there on purpose. And that purpose is two fold: First to simply add some comedic relief in this highly dramatic and tension filled movie, and second to make the watcher aware of his own beliefs and ingrained stereotypes. Only by acknowledging those stereotypes can we begin to break them down.

The cinematography is nothing short of brilliant. I really have a bias towards the ultra clean, hi Rex film but I must say that it is used to the fullest here. The faces on all the actors can be seen with the utmost clarity. Which is needed because we need to see their pain, anger, and despair to fully feel it too. The film needed perfect acting to be captured and we the viewers get that perfect acting. Every character, yes even ludicrous, was portrayed without seams. I believed the actors were those characters. Some actors that had minor roles might have messed it up had they been called on to do more, Brendan Fraser comes to mind, but luckily he was asked to do no more than act calm and collected the whole time. Extreme noticeable's included: Matt Dillon, Don Cheadle, Thandie Newton, and Michael Pena. I really, REALLY like Michael Pena. He has proven himself in two good movies with two good performances, this movie and Million Dollar Baby. I'm really looking forward to seeing more of him.

A last note (it has to be said), Jennifer Esposito is freaking beautiful, so is Bahar Soomekh. I have a thing for Persians, having dated one for four years, but still. She is gorgeous.

Crash - 8.9 (out of 10)
Ad: N/A
F/S/L/C: N/A
Ac: 8.5
D: 9
SE: N/A
M: 9
E: 9

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Upcoming Movie - "V" for Vendetta

2005-07-10T13:13:00.000-05:00

Release Date: March 17, 2006

Cast: Natalie Portman as Evey, Hugo Weaving as "V", Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry as Gordon Deitrich

Director: James McTeigue

Screen writer(s): Andy and Larry Wachowski

Official Site: http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

Trailers: None

Status: In Production

Synopsis: Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked vigilante known only as “V.” Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he detonates two London landmarks and takes over the government-controlled airwaves, urging his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V’s mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself – and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plot to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.

Why see it?: Another great movie adapted from a graphic novel, this should add another notch to the belts of DC Comics and the Wachowski's. I'm not worried one bit by the acting of Weaving; although Portman's last movie, Star Wars 3 was a horrible showing on her part, I still have faith in her. Plus who doesn't want to see a shaved Portman?

Upcoming Movie - A History of Violence

2005-07-10T12:38:00.000-05:00

Release Date: September 30, 2005

Cast: Viggo Mortensen as Tom Stall, Maria Bello as Mrs. Stall, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes as Jack Stall, Heidi Hayes, Stephen McHattie, Greg Byrk as William "Billy" Orser and Peter MacNeill

Director: David Cronenberg

Screen writer(s): Josh Olson

Official Site: http://www.historyofviolence.com/

Trailers: Trailer #1

Status: Post Production

Synopsis: 'A History of Violence' stars Viggo Mortensen as Tom Stall, a pillar of a small town community who runs a diner and lives a happy and quiet life with his wife (Maria Bello) and two children. But their lives are forever changed when Stall thwarts an attempted robbery and is lauded as a hero by the media, attracting the attention of some mobsters (William Hurt and Ed Harris) who believe he is someone else. It is adapted from the Graphic Novel of the same name.

Why see it?: This should be a great movie in the same tradition as Road to Perdition. Those none superhero comic books out there are beginning to get some well deserved attention. The actors are all great, the children have yet to prove themselves but I'll not fault the whole movie on their account.

Movie Review - War of the Worlds

2005-07-10T01:07:00.000-05:00

Spoiler alert, just lettin you know.

This movie was fantastically done. Much more deserving of that adjective than the one that bears that word in it's title. But for all the greatness that was this movie, it had two major flaws.

First with what went right. Tom Cruise playing an asshole. I loved it. The whole broken family thing, the whole bad father thing, it really just fit better and made you feel empathy for these three characters, Cruise, his daughter(played by Dakota Fanning), and his son(played by Justin Chatwin). The little buildup time that we were given before the proverbial shit hit the proverbial fan demanded that we be able to relate to these characters quickly. And we do. The acting was great, Dakota was as good as she usually is and Chatwin's part, while not hard, could have ruined it if he messed it up. Tim Robins was, of course, also really good in his role of crazy, shotgun toting lunatic who's gone off the deep end. I could make some inane comment about how that's just him playing himself but I honestly liked his performance and won't stoop to such low class.

This movie was one of those phenomenally visual treats. Seeing this and then seeing the half ass job they did with Fantastic Four and you really get a sense of just how good the special effects are. They even did a good job with the aliens, although the fact that we saw them for as long as we did is another problem entirely. But at least they were great to watch.

They really didn't need to be seen that much though. I know he did it cause he wanted to one up Shyamalan's crappy ass alien in Signs, but honestly, it was much scarier in the movie till we saw them up close. Our imaginations are much better than any CGI effects. With holding back from showing them to us like he did he could have really ramped up the fear factor, no I didn't mean to reference the show. A good example of this common movie principle in action is in Terminator. Arnold is about to cut into his eye socket and expose his red robot eyes. And Carmon was going to show it, but Arnold told him that it would be much scarier, and grosser, if it wasn't shown but implied. And so it was, as no amount of special effects could replace my imagination's picture of him cutting out his own eyeball. So why try? Same goes for something as completely arbitrary as what the aliens look like. I know people would have been yelling bloody murder that he coped out. Yet I still think they would have been fine with only showing the classic last scene where the hand falls out of the ship limply. Which I must comment, was a great ode to the original.

That was the first big problem I had with the movie and the second one would be the Disney ending. Robbie, Cruise's son, lives after deliberately running off into an inferno? *puke* No way. He shouldn't have lived through that. He should have been dead, a lesson to all the stupid ass people out there that a lack of common sense is a detriment to their health. I mean the kid ran off into the middle of a battle with no gun, no armor and somehow he lives after the field he ran onto was set ablaze. I felt betrayed when I saw him alive. I was so touched and ready for the big dramatic dialogue where he has to explain that he lost Robbie and it was taken from me. Instead I got this feeling similar to the one I get when they bring back a character in the comic books after he so obviously died. It's a bad taste in my mouth and leaving the theater with that as my last impression...not good.

It couldn't completely wash away all the wonderful things the movie did right though. Seeing the tripod just start up it's death rays and begin wasting copious amounts of people was nothing short of amazing. All the scenes where the people fleeing acted just like the selfish, mean people that we are was good to see in a weird way. We would act on our instincts and some people would go crazy.

War of the Worlds - 7.8
Ad: 7.5
F: N/A
Ac: 8
D: 8
SE: 9
M: 6.5 (The Disney ending just ruined it)
E: 8

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Comic Book Movie's Report Card

2005-07-09T17:22:00.000-05:00

I've recently seen The Fantastic Four. I enjoyed the movie and you can find the review of it somewhere else on this site. I decided that now would be a good time to look at Marvel's success' and failures' with making movies. It should be noted that no movie made before 1990 was put into this list. The only way to do this coherently is to give each movie a basic rating based off of the following rubric:

Great - Fires on all cylinders, is about as good an adaptation as is possible in a movie. It's acting is well done and it has a good plot. Action and special effects are seamless. A great movie no matter the content.

Good - As a decent adaptation but once or twice it negatively moved away from the source material. Is a decent movie. It has average acting and might have a bad apple or two. Action and special effects are par or below.

Poor - The opposite of a Good rating. It is below par on all counts with one or two bright spots. It has a coherent plot and average fighting.

Ugly - Just crap. Has no concept of the source material. Is a bad movie no matter the context. Has bad acting and an incoherent plot.

These are categories that I place each movie into. They are now to be known as the Comic Book Movie Rating, or CBMR for short. But I also will grade each movie individually with the categories of:

Adaptation - Pretty obvious category, as most of them are. It's understood that adapting a story from one medium to another is never a straight process. Some things must be changed to better fit the medium. But staying true to the characters, tone, and overall plot of the original source material is still very important. Those who do well in this category tend to do well overall because it means they take the story seriously and understand what needs to be done to make it work.

Acting - It's either Great, Good, Poor, or utter CRAP, Ben Affleck I'm looking at you.

Fights - Again, they are either fun, well tailored for the story and coherent; or they can be confusing, needless, or worse yet, boring.

Dialogue - This is basically a critique of the script. This is not how well the lines were said but the lines themselves.

Special Effects - Self Explanatory.

Movie - How well does it do simply in the medium of movies. Is it a well made movie? Kind of a grab all but sometimes a well made movie can have bad acting and so on.

Well now that we've established the parameters for my report card. Lets get to the meat of it.

Great - Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, X2: X-Men United, Blade

Good - Blade 2, X-Men, The Punisher, Fantastic Four, Men In Black

Poor - Elektra, Hulk, Blade: Trinity, Men In Black 2

Ugly - Daredevil, Captain America(1991)

I think it can go without saying that a lot of people are going to disagree with me. That's fine. But I do have a structured way of grading these movies. The biggest thing that most people may argue with is the grade of Poor for Blade: Trinity and Good for Blade 2. Yes Ryan Reynolds was amazing in Blade 3 but it's not the Ryan Reynolds show, or at least it's not supposed to be. And the story for Blade 2 was more coherent, better developed and thought out. The other hard movie for me to out in the Good category was Fantastic Four. It really deserved to be there but my anger for all that it COULD have been really almost had me putting it in the Poor rating. That movie more than any other really was a 50/50 good to crap.

It should be obvious why all of the greats got their grade. Here's the quick 1-10 scoring that I did for each individual movie that was in the Great category. Lastly I give a total averaged number for the whole movie.

Spider-Man - 8.3
Adaptation: 9
Fighting: 7
Acting: 9
Dialogue: 8.5
Special Effects: 8
Movie: 8

Spider-Man 2 - 8.9
Ad: 9
F: 8
Ac: 9.5
D: 9
SE: 9
M: 9

X2: X-Men United - 8.5
Ad: 9
F: 8
Ac: 8
D: 8.5
SE: 8.5
M: 9

Blade - 8.1
Ad: 8
F: 9.5
Ac: 7
D: 7.5
SE: 7.5
M: 9

The system seems to work fairly well in bringing out the correct total averages of all the movies. It should also be obvious to you that if a movie doesn't get an 8 or above in it's total rating then it really doesn't deserve to be in the Great category. I'll always love Blade.

I'll take a look at the Good and Poor in the next blog as I'm running out of time before my date ;). But before I go, let's take a look at the DC Movies that have come out recently and where they fit into the above rankings. Note: Batman, the Michael Keaton original, was made in 89 and so does not make it onto this list.

Great - Constantine, Batman Begins

Good - Batman Returns

Poor - Batman Forever

Ugly - Batman & Robin, Catwoman, Steel

I think the only contention some people might have would be my inclusion of Constantine in the Great category and my allowing Batman Forever to even get a Poor rating rather than an Ugly.

Batman Returns also doesn't get a Great rating because it simply can't be compared to Batman Begins.

So lets take a look at those two winners DC has.

Constantine - 8.7
Ad: 8 (No British Accent is a negative)
F: 8.5 (About as good as I could imagine a Magic movie being)
Ac: 9 (No attempt at a British Accent is a plus)
D: 8.5
SE: 9
M: 9

Batman Begins - 8.7
Ad: 9.5
F: 7 (The only thing that kept this from being the first 9, Nolan just doesn't know how to film martial arts. The ingenuity with the rest of the combat kept the score up though.)
Ac: 9
D: 8.5 (Best line: "I swear to GOD!" Bat says, "SWEAR TO ME!")
SE: 9
M: 9

Ok, lol, Now for the last part, the Indies, British comics, and Graphic Novel adaptations. It should be noted that only movies that made it to theaters are presented here, same for those above.

Great - Road to Perdition, Sin City

Good - The Mask, Casper(It is a good kids movie people), The Shadow, The Phantom, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Mystery Men(Yes, it was based off a real comic book) The Crow

Poor - Judge Dredd, Robocop 2, TMNT:2, Spawn, Hellboy, The Ring, The Ring 2

Ugly - League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Dick Tracy, TMNT:3, The Son of the Mask, Barbwire, Tank Girl

I probably forgot one or two and will update all the lists at the very end as I realize I forgot some crappy as movie here or there. So what's the biggest arguing points here? Mystery Men may not have been funny to you or you don't think kid's movies like Casper and TMNT should be given the time of day. Oh well, go suck it cause they do and here they are. lol I like that argument. Anyway, Spawn and Hellboy being Poor might put some people in a tizzy but honestly people, Spawn shouldn't be that hard to place. Hellboy was decent but fell apart in it's supporting cast and fighting absurdity. Those oldies, The Shadow and Phantom are both decent jobs and stay fairly true to the original.

Road to Perdition - 8.7
Ad: 9
F: 8
Ac: 9
D: 8.5
SE: N/A
M: 9

Sin City - 8.1
Ad: 9 (As close as you are going to get without making it NC-17)
F: 7.5
Ac: 7.5 (Bright spots, Del Toro, Willis, Owen, Over the top acting: just about everyone else)
D: 7.5
SE: 8
M: 9 (It's cinematography alone saved this movie from just Good)

That's it for now. I'll have the next round up soon.

Movie Review - Spanglish

2005-05-29T23:43:00.000-05:00

This was quite the surprise. I had heard that it was good but I had no idea the acting was going to be as superb as it was. Adam Sandler does a great job with these roles. The comedy and the part of an everyday man he has down pat. But what makes him so good for these parts is his romanticism. He comes off as a true romantic and whether he is or not doesn't really matter: all that does is that he convinces me that his character is one. This cements his future in movies that don't involve a sport or acting like a child, not that those movies aren't funny and great.

All three main adult women did a fantastic job. Paz Vega was/is downright gorgeous but she also can act. She did one of those numbers where it's so good that I don't even notice, I just believe she is that character. How can not noticing be a good thing you ask? Because while Tea Leoni did a fantastic job, I kept thinking, "wow, she's doing a great job." And I'd be taken out of the scene for a second. It's not that she's like Keanu where you can tell that he's acting, it's just different. So articulate, I know. Cloris Leachman was the third woman and played Tea Leoni's mom in the movie. She was great, her comedic timing was always on and her stage acting, movements and body language, where all perfect. The kids did a surprisingly good job. The only complaint was that I got a weird vibe from Sarah Steele, Bernice. I just couldn't pin down whether she was being a really good actor or whether she was messing up...as a kid you expect them to mess up but they all could have been her character being nervous as kids are sometimes talking to adults. A small complaint really, but these great movies I've been lucky enough to see afford me little else in the way of bitching.

The plot was good but this was a character driven movie. The characters were so good though that I was left wanting more and more of the plot. Not a bad thing, it's really a compliment. But I still really, really wanted Sandler and Vega to hook up in the end. Alas, they left you hanging with the notion that they probably didn't. Sad but fitting for the characters and keeps the good guys in the movie all that more pure. Spanglish was a feel good movie with amazingly gray villian, and lovable side characters. A must see really, although knowing spanish will make it more enjoyable.

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Movie Reviews - Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith

2005-05-29T04:09:00.000-05:00

You've prolly read about, or seen, Natalie Portman's poor showing. I also had heard such before I actually saw the movie and hoped that maybe they were exaggerating. They weren't. She does a horrible job. I honestly thought I could sense her thinking "I don't want to do sci-fi anymore." She just didn't have her heart in it. Some have tried to blame Lucas for her failings. While I have no doubt that Lucas' weakness is intimate drama, there is no way he is the cause for the cardboard performance she gives in this movie. It's like the wonder is gone for her now that she isn't adorned in full Queen regalia. It does seem that while Portman was getting worse, Hayden Christensen was getting better. He did not give a stellar performance, it also wasn't that hard, but he did do a fine job. Gone are the awkward scenes where you can't really tell whether Hayden is confused, anger, or constipated. Ewan McGregor gives the best performance and honestly, who didn't think he would? The others do a good enough job to neither be mentionable or detractable, just as most side characters should. They should be believed as their characters without taking away from the main characters.

The special effects were good. People falling long distances into holes still seem to be the bane of Lucas' special effects people. They just can't seem to make someone look like they aren't on a blue screen while "falling." But the fact that that is the only point of contention should tell you just how good it was. For those that don't know what I'm talking about with the falling, just look at Darth Maul, the Emperor, and Mace Windu fall. Whatever, like I said, I'm just looking for something to say other than "wow."

The success of all great adventures and stories of this nature have always relied on the story's great villians. Think Artemis, Magneto, Norman Osborn, Agent Smith, Predator, King Edward V??, and finally Lex Luthor. And Star Wars has always had amazing villians, Darth Maul, Darth Vader, General Grievous, Boba/Jango Fett, Count Dooku, Jaba the Hut, and The Emperor. Each a great villian who you love to hate for different reasons; and in the case of Boba Fett, just love. The development of the villian in Star Wars is what Episode three is all about. The creation of Vader.

They do a great job of setting up the fourth episode and for the first time since I watched the originals, I actually was anxious for more after this one. The first two episodes had their own flaws, and they were quite different. But this one suffers no major flaws of plot. It's quick pace and great fight scenes had me wishing only that they would be drawn out longer. So I could relish the battles more. As it were, it ended too soon with one of those classic movie moments where you just want him to KILL HIM! I mean we all know that he's coming back. But we would know this even if the next three hadn't been made yet. It's just a movie law that a great villian left to die is not gonna die. But it really didn't bother me that much this time for some reason.

I really am a big fan of him making 7-9 now. This movie, of them all, might have made a lover of Star Wars out of me. I know why, the villians, but the knowing doesn't make it any less so. I do want more: more villians, heros, battles, and chases.

On a small note, I suggest everyone see the three hour cartoon of the Clone War that took place between Episode II and III that aired on Cartoon Network. They are making a DVD and it was really good. Two whole villians were made and killed off in it. It also explains little things that they added into the movie that you wouldn't notice if you hadn't seen the cartoon. I don't want to give anything away but I will say that the cartoon ends almost right where the movie picks up. On an even smaller note, the cartoon's story was first shown and thought up in the comic book that was made for the same purpose of filling the space between the two movies. The characters are fleshed out much better there than in the cartoon, but I doubt many will see the cartoon let alone buy an actual comic book. The art is a little "iffy" in it but it always has been with the Star Wars comics.

by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)

Cherry Popped, Again

2005-05-27T16:16:00.000-05:00

Well here I sit beginning yet another blog. I think this one will be my main blog. Hopefully I can convince others to come here instead of my myspace blog.

My blog there is http://blog.myspace.com/dexember

I'll be posting a lot of what I wrote there, here. But only the prose and art. Here's a small introduction of myself:

I am an aspiring prose writer who is ambitiously attempting to get my first novel and comic book published with in the next year. I also write poetry and draw but they are both second priority to my prose writing. I make feature films, no not porn, and they have all been comedies so far. They range from twenty minutes to an hour. The lack of any genre but comedy is a sad necessity when I work with such amatuer actors as my friends. I read comic books, philosophy, political journals, history, fantasy novels and poetry. I am politically active and aware. I also love to argue/debate and have no problem defending my beliefs. Feel free to challenge me anytime.

That said, I have to go pick up my mother from the airport. She's getting in from California where she was there for a business trip. I live in Dallas, city of the Stars. Well not right now, now it's the No Hockey League and I'm pretty pissed about the whole thing but God willing, they'll come to an agreement soon. They already pooched the draft...anyway. Nice to meet you and please stick around, there is definitely more to come.