Stuff by Steve

My 30-ish body would like to publicly thank the genius that invented stretchy denim.

And by the way, what are you doing here reading about movies when you should be out watching one?

And now for my favourite thing, where I get to rant about the upcoming winter movies (September to April) without even actually seeing them. Hey, it’s my list. Don’t like it? Write your own.

Night at the Museum
The premise: Ben Stiller stars as a happy-go-lucky security guard working his new job on the night shift at a museum. The twist: when the doors are locked for the day, the museum exhibits come to life. The draw: full-size Ben Stiller being tied to the miniature railroad tracks on the miniature railroad diorama is a priceless scene. The famous line: “Don’t let anything in… or out.” The name-dropping: Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, Robin Williams, Ricky Gervais, Owen Wilson.

Rocky Balboa
Judging by the title, this is to be the franchise’s swan song. I suppose that’s okay, since the movie about the legendary boxer never really had an “ending,” so-to-speak; there was that last film (Rocky V) that nobody watched, but it didn’t really do justice to the tale of Rocky. So, in George Foreman style (sans electric indoor/outdoor grill), we revisit the movie series that has become synonymous with the word “comeback.” On the one hand, I must ask “why?” Stallone is old and washed-up, and this story has been told, oh, five times already. On the other hand, an old and washed-up boxer is just what this story has been missing. So I must reply, “why not?”

Apocalpyto
The surprising-to-everyone-who-isn’t-Christian financial success of “The Passion of the Christ” has allowed Mel Gibson to self-finance his next project, a tale about the pre-Hispanic Mayan culture. Apparently, it is a political piece meant to warn our modern culture about the social breakdown that is presently occurring. Entirely subtitled and without any notable actors, it will be a miracle if Gibson can make this film compelling enough to draw a mainstream audience. If he does, I want to see it, and I mean now. If not, well, I’ll probably still rent it.

Borat
This is the part where I remind everyone about how the movies in this list are not necessarily here because I want to see them. This one is a mockumentary about the titled fake Kazakhstani TV personality, critics are calling it the main competition for “Jackass 2″ because of its low-brow humour. Despite it being brilliant in its own offensive way, I have firmly planted it on my “movies to avoid at all costs” list.

School for Scoundrels
A male traffic bylaw enforcement officer (”meter maid” for short) finds himself shy with women, so he enrolls in a secret underground school for guys like him. The class instructor takes him under his wing, but ends up in a competition with him over the very woman he is hoping to woo. Even if you didn’t like “Napoleon Dynamite,” you may still enjoy Jon Heder as the geeky meter maid; the theatrical trailers portray him as humourously lovable. Billy Bob Thorton seems surprisingly palatable as well.

Hollywoodland
A dramatic retelling of the story of TV’s Superman, George Reeves, and his controversial death. I can’t help but feel that this is another attempt at Hollywood to dredge up drama and intrigue simply for the sake of drama and intrigue. But they say it’s all based on actual events, so who am I to argue? That being the case, I’m still tired of seeing movies about famous people and their screwed-up lives; I know enough not-so-famous people whose lives are even more screwed up that I don’t need a movie reminding me that life can really suck.

The Nativity Story
Everyone seems to think that this is another film by Mel Gibson; not so, despite using the same Italian village for a set. Perhaps this misconception is why the controversy surrounding the movie does not center around the fact that the director is the same one that directed “Thirteen” and “Lords of Dogtown.” Rather, the hoopla seems to stem from the mostly-English dialogue with very few subtitles whatsoever, as opposed to being filmed entirely in Aramaic. Maybe I’m wrong about today’s audience; people seem to want authentic incomprehensibility these days. I admit that I prefer it myself. Anyway, the script writer is a Christian who seems committed to ensuring the project’s historical and theological authenticity. Movie-on-a-mission or not, there is something about The Christmas Story that fills me with a gripping sense of anticipation. Time will tell if this holds up to the power of the Linus (of Charlie Brown) version.

Flyboys
Every time I watch the scene from the trailer where the Lafayette Escadrille’s Nieuport 17’s come taxiing through the morning mist, I get all choked up. Pardon me, that’s just my inner nerd coming out. Ahem. I’ve never been a huge fan of World War I-era aviation, but this movie may change my mind. I like James Franco (Harry from Spider-Man), and the whites-of-their-eyes nature of the aerial combat provides a certain natural viscera (viscus?) to the action. Still, and my brother agrees, I fear the possibility that this will be another “Pearl Harbor.” It’s hard to think about how anything could possibly be that bad, but then, “Pearl Harbor” was.

Gridiron Gang
The Rock (a.k.a. Dwayne Johnson) decided one day that he needed to pay homage to his upbringing. Apparently, he too was mentored into adulthood by his juvie football coach. This movie is a dramatization based on the documentary of the same name. My first thought was, “Why do we need another inspirational teenage football drama?” I mean, can anything The Rock acts in compare to “Remember the Titans”? And yet, these movies always suck me in. I admit it. I am a sucker for inspirational drama.

Crank
This movie will probably be horribly violent and vulgar. Yet, it calls to me. Something about the main character knowing he is going to die (he is poisoned) and using his last hour alive to exact revenge on everyone remotely involved with his inevitable murder. Plus, Jason Statham seems to look really good with his obviously-faked flying roundhouse kicks, and the car chases really caught my eye in the preview. The buzz is that the action is freshly original and, while cheesy, it’s apparently bad in a good-bad kind of way. Here’s hoping.

The Hoax
The byline of this movie is, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” This makes sense when you learn that it’s based on the real-life story of Clifford Irving, a writer that managed to get published his fake autobiography of Howard Hughes. Or so we are to believe. I’m not a big fan of Richard Gere, but he seems perfect for the part of the huckster. I guess Leo Di Caprio wasn’t available (from “Catch Me if You Can” - ha ha).

The Guardian
I like Kevin Costner, but not so much for Ashton Kutcher. They both star in what looks a bit like “Top Gun” for the Search-and-Rescue profession. When was the last time anyone used the “Top Gun” simile? “Backdraft,” probably. Anyway, I digress. The sight of a red-and-white-painted SAR HH-60 (that’s a helicopter - sorry, nerd thing again) being swallowed by a 50-ish-foot wave reminds me of “The Perfect Storm.” Hopefully, this time we will get the rain and wind without the melodrama. Wait a minute, what am I thinking? Oh yeah, I’m thinking of my fantasy world, which I go to in my mind every time I watch Hollywood cheese.

Lucky You
Here we have the ever-charming and apparently handsome Eric Bana opposite Drew Barrymore in a movie that is reminiscent of “The Color of Money” crossed with “Maverick.” Bana plays a professional poker player who wins at gambling but is only so-so at the relationship game. Bring in a little father-son conflict followed by some character development as our protagonist re-learns his priorities and this one is the prime candidate for Go-To Date Movie. The draw for the male audience is the poker theme, which will capitalize on the game’s present inexplicable popularity (yours-truly excepted).

The Prestige
Turns out that both the writer/director from “Batman Begins” and Christian Bale had some time to kill until “The Dark Knight” (or, if you prefer, “Batman Begins 2″). Thus, they decided to give a go to a different kind of edge-of-your-seat thriller. The story is about two Victorian-era illusionists that engage in a rivalry that traverses from friendly to murder (cue lightning and thunderclap). Adding to the intrigue is a mystery surrounding one of the magicians. Like any good magic show, this movie seems destined to keep us guessing.

Ghost Rider
Main character Johnny Blaze makes a deal with the devil and trades his soul for the life of a loved one. The price is high, and apparently there’s no beating the devil this time. Whereas Spider-Man got web-slinging and the cool red suit, Blaze gets to have his head turn into a flaming skull at night whenever evil is present. As well as depressing, the thought of the hero (anti-hero?) having a direct connection to the underworld seems a bit macabre and disturbing. Not sure I’ll see it, but it looks very stylish and interesting. On the other hand, the fact that it got bumped from a summer release to the dead of winter may mean it will soon be relegated to the $4.99 bin at Blockbuster.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Well, the computer-generated turtles in this go-around seem okay, but I miss the rubber suits of the original. Still, there is a certain draw for me - after all, when I was young, I “was” Leonardo (at least, according to my friends). Whoops, geek thing again. It will probably be super-campy, and I doubt I will ever get Danielle to watch it. Woe is me.

Casino Royale
I haven’t seen our new Bond (Daniel Craig) in his other movies, but I’m sure he will be fine, blonde hair aside. I’m surprised that they dumped Pierce Brosnan for a new guy, especially since the problem with their slumping box office earnings was certainly due to the miserable writing rather than the public disliking Brosnan. This episode looks promising, since they are taking the story back to the beginning. This means fewer gadgets (which is a convenient way to stall until they figure out how to replace Desmond Llewelyn as “Q”), although Bond will apparently still have his old tricks. Hopefully, the return to simplicity will mean a return to simpler and more plausible storytelling as well.

Synopsis: A massive cruise ship capsizes, and a motley band of survivors must climb to the “bottom” of the boat to escape.

It can’t be said enough: disaster movies rock. With the notable exception of “Atomic Twister” (hey, I do have some standards), I have rarely met a disaster movie that I didn’t like. I think of them like a woman thinks of a Harlequin Romance novel: cheap, fluffy entertainment that goes down easy and leaves you feeling good about yourself for about two seconds. It’s like candy. Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that I usually enjoy watching disaster movies, even if they are bad. The key is that they have to be the good kind of bad. How do you know what’s good-bad and what’s bad-bad? Allow me to illustrate this with some points about the movie, followed by some counterpoints about films that I did not care for. Good-bad is when the movie characters show no personal growth whatsoever throughout the course of the movie, but somehow you like them anyway. Bad-bad is when the characters are so flat the actors may as well have been cardboard cut-outs (”Catwoman”). Good-bad is when the movie starts fast and ends fast, leaving zero room for plot, but you still feel like you just went on one heck of a ride. Bad-bad is when you are so bored that you want to gnaw off the arm that is holding your wife’s hand, just so you can go to the bathroom and weep (”The Break Up”). Good-bad is when you frequently wonder how the director of “Das Boot” could stoop to make such a cheap and thoughtless film, but you watch the credits roll while smiling and wondering if your wife would object to you buying the DVD. Bad-bad is when you have a sick, desperate feeling in the pit of your stomach as you leave the theatre wondering how you could possibly get those two hours of your life back (”The Brothers Grimm”). From a purely critical perspective, “Poseidon” was a lame duck (go rent the original 1972 version, “The Poseidon Adventure,” for good film-making), but it was equally interesting, exciting, and most importantly, entertaining.

Synopsis: Two people exchange letters through a mailbox of a unique lake house. The twist: they are living two years apart.

Movies about time travel are a modern day Siren’s call; irresistibly appealing, but will ultimately lead to destruction. They always start out with the alluring promise of great philosophical depth; what if you could relive a past haunting mistake, or visit the future to learn what how your current life choices are going to work out? Would you change anything? The problem is that time travel just doesn’t make sense. If you change something in the past, does it change the present? How? Are you still the same person? Is anyone else? What about your memory of your past that is now different? Do you get new memories? Does anyone else? And if things are changing, exactly how much should they change? Would it always end up being an improvement? As movies go, these questions frequently and shamefully go unanswered.

On the rare occasion you get a well-written story that holds up at first glance (”Back to the Future”), but usually all you end up with is a mess (”Lost in Space”). Regardless, the questions always linger - it’s just that the good movies make you forget the questions in the first place. You see, lacking the strength to withstand logical scrutiny, a movie that incorporates time travel must resort to other devices to survive. “The Lake House” attempted to do just that simply using distorted time as a vehicle through which to deliver a timeless story of heartbreak and love.

The story here was about patience; waiting for something you want, even if (or, perhaps, because) it is the most important thing in the world to you. Well, patience and passionate love. Anyway, patience being the theme, time travel seemed to be the natural storytelling tool. What better way to express the drama in waiting than to separate things, not by space or distance, but by time. By the way, I liked the lesson to be learned. Temperance, and even a bit of faith, were played out to be ultimately beneficial, which was a welcome message to hear.

Thankfully, as I mentioned earlier, the time travel element (and, just to be clear, I don’t mean that Keanu Reeves built a time machine; I am simply implying that the two main characters were able to communicate with each other, despite being separated by two years) was somewhat downplayed. There was no moment where the guy tries to convince the girl to tell him who won the World Series in 2005 so that he could bet on it and become unnaturally rich. Having said that, few directors could resist taking the opportunity to play with the audience’s mind, and this was no exception, with a few minor changes being made in the past that magically altered the present. Nevertheless, the emphasis of the story remained centered on the emotional passion of impossible love.

There were some great moments in the film, like the way the director simulated a conversation by having the two main characters read each other’s letters in the same café or on adjacent park benches; it reminded me of what I like about stage theatre. I also felt that the characters had a significant amount of depth; even the supporting characters felt solid and seemed to play a greater role than mere support.

The acting was actually not too bad (you may notice my aghast surprise). Sandra Bullock dropped her quirky tomboy motif and took on somewhat of a Meg Ryan feminine charm. Keanu Reeves seemed to become more handsome with the addition of a double chin (I’m calling it the Nicolas Cage effect, where a man looks more distinguished the older he gets), although he was as inarticulate as ever. On the upside, I’m certain I saw more than two expressions on his face, which is a dramatic improvement (pardon the pun) over any of his recent other work. Still, that’s not saying much, and he remains one of those Canadian exports I am completely fine with leaving down south. I was extremely pleased to see Christopher Plummer who, despite the humanly-flawed character he played, is a consistently brilliant actor.

Another nice touch I appreciated was the treatment of the architectural interests of Keanu Reeves’ character. The director did a good job of conveying his passion for design in a way that you also came to appreciate and even understand it. I found myself wishing for more beauty shots of local buildings, but I am also glad there wasn’t, as that would have become very distracting from the main point of the film.

So, why the low rating? It all comes back to the plot. If you take away the quirky gimmick about the two lovebirds using an enchanted mailbox to communicate through time, all you end up with is a corny-at-times romance story starring a pretty good female lead and a really bad male one. And since the gimmick wasn’t strong to begin with, that’s really how the movie played out. Once I got used to the weird space/time-paradox-in-a-box, I started asking myself how things were possible; finding no satisfactory answer, I tried ignoring the gimmick altogether, only to find that there was not much else there.

I hate to harp on the point, but these six-minute reviews are my movie-philosophy soapboxes. I challenge you to find one movie that involves time travel (or, simply, the ability to alter the past to affect the present) that doesn’t leave you with a myriad of conflicting and ultimately unanswered questions. Go on. I’ll get you started. “Frequency.” Good, yes. Makes sense in the end, no. “The Time Machine?” No. “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home?” No. Even “The Butterfly Effect” did an pretty good job of trying to explain how it all worked, but no. The best I can think of is “Kate & Leopold.” It fell short right at the end by implying that you could both change time and not change it. Some of these were even good movies, but they were good in spite of their subject matter, even when their subject matter was their raison d’être.

Scientists can’t even agree on what effect time travel would have, even if it were possible, so it is a significant stretch to expect that any Hollywood scriptwriter will be able to explain it any better. This is simply a subject that should not be touched. Ultimately, when one part of your story is weak, it can all appear weak. There are better ways to hook your audience, especially with a heart-rending romance such as this one, and most of them make way more sense.

RV (Good)
Family goes camping: hijinks ensue.
Robin Williams reigned himself in and proved that he can be a funny straight man. A clean, wholesome, and completely predictable movie that still made me laugh out loud. Somewhat like National Lampoon but without the bathroom humour.

Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (Good)
Four children join the battle between good and evil in a magical world. From the book by C.S. Lewis.
I was surprised that I didn’t hate it. I liked the kids, and their journey through Narnia was portrayed effectively enough that I recognized much of it. Still, the movie didn’t hold the same impact that the book did. Also, Danielle agrees that the Witch should have had black hair.

Last Holiday (Good)
A woman learns she is dying and blows her life savings on a once-in-a-lifetime vacation.
Does Queen Latifa ever not smile? The acting was flat and the story fairly corny, but overall it was clean, funny, and taught a good lesson (which was appropriate, given the subject). Not a strong film, but you could do worse on a Saturday night.

Failure to Launch (OK)
A woman is hired to remove a thirtysomething bachelor from his parents’ home, but falls in love with him instead.
This movie had great sidekicks. Unfortunately, Matthew McConaughey and Sarah Jessica Parker had no on-screen chemistry. What should have been an above-average romantic comedy turned out to be less-than-standard. Not crap, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

Presenting, in no particular order except that this is how they appeared when I pasted them into an ad-hoc list, my rants on the upcoming summer blockbuster movies (although, hopefully nobody’s kidding themselves - some of these will flop).

Poseidon
A massive cruise ship capsizes, and a band of survivors must climb to the “bottom” of the boat to escape. I’ve actually already seen this one, but that doesn’t stop me from having preconceived notions about it. On the one hand, well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - disaster movies rock. On the other hand, sometimes a bad film is a bad film. I anticipated a flashy, low-substance, yet somehow entertaining action fest starring a bunch of pretty people. What do you think; was I disappointed?

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
Based on the movie that was based on the Disney ride, I was skeptical about this film; how can you top the flourish and charm of the first one? However, after viewing a recent trailer, it looks like this go-around could be even more exciting. The improbable protagonist that is Captain Jack (Johnny Depp) is back and just as unsteady-looking as ever. I don’t like gushing - I’m usually wrong when I do that - but isn’t more of a good thing still a good thing?

Mission: Impossible: III
“This actor’s career will self-destruct in…” You know the drill. I am surprised that this movie was even made. Despite all of the hoopla surrounding Tom Cruise (why more people are not tired of hearing his name is beyond me), the buzz is that, on a scale from 1 to what-were-they-thinking, this movie sits squarely between the fairly intelligent and well-made first movie and the horrifyingly awful camp-fest that was the second.

X-Men: The Last Stand
Sequels, sequels, sequels. Often just a result of having scraped the bottom of all of the barrels known to man, this one is thankfully the natural continuation of the excellent X-Men story. Well, hopefully natural. As with “Spider-Man,” the second movie was even better than the first. It looks like the stakes are higher, plot-wise, in this third episode; let’s hope the efforts were made to match. Some clips I’ve seen look downright kitchy (is that a word?), but my fingers are crossed. With Kelsey Grammer as Beast, things could go either way.

The Da Vinci Code
The buzz about this movie is that it contains most of the important elements from the book - except for the suspense. Despite garnering even more controversy than the “Last Temptation of Christ,” it’s allegedly also just a mediocre film. Oh, and I’ll say it one more time, just so everyone’s on the same page: “When the author of a fictional novel states that something is a fact, that doesn’t make it true” Yes, yes, someone made it all up. Strange, for a book.

The Break-Up
What’s this? A romantic comedy about two people who think they don’t love each other, until they realize they really do? I, personally, am not necessarily looking forward to this film, but I know at least half a dozen girls who are. Yes, I know half a dozen girls. Suck it. Hollywood is humming with rumours surrounding the potential real-life romance between the two leads, but the real question is, does anyone see Vince Vaughn as an attractive romantic lead? I mean, even Tom Hanks (nowhere to be found in this film) is a stretch. Perhaps it’s Vaughn’s trademark bizarre combination of frenetic and monotone. I just don’t get it. Oh well, maybe I should be so lucky.

Cars
The title says it all: it’s Pixar’s latest animated feature about talking cars. I’ve upgraded this one from “Dented Fender” to “Near Miss.” Wasn’t this supposed to come out six months ago? Perhaps they took it back a bit to re-tool the engine and give the paint more time to cure. I’m not one to count Pixar out, so I’m not going to predict a disaster, but nobody’s perfect. They’re ripe for something - anything - sub-par, just to make sure the law of entropy doesn’t take everyone out in some freak accident. Well, low expectations often yield higher satisfaction in the theatre seat.

Superman Returns
Probably North America’s best known popular legend gets the “modern” treatment. Throwing continuity out the window worked well with “Batman Begins,” but I’m not convinced it was the right way to go here. First, the suit. Ew. Second, Lois Lane is pregnant? This is worse than Kirsten Dunst standing on Peter Parker’s balcony in a wedding dress. Sure, it had to happen, but it just doesn’t leave many places to go. The latest trailer is quite riveting, though, and I think there will be some value here, but it will not be in Kate Bosworth’s acting.

Lady in the Water
I don’t know much about this one save that it is M. Night Shyamalan’s latest and is being billed as a movie adaptation of “a bedtime story” he wrote for his kids. Well, at least we won’t have to wonder where the plot twist comes. He brings back Bryce Dallas Howard as the leading lady, something I am pleased about after her insightful performance in “The Village.” I wonder, what bit part will he cast himself as?

Miami Vice
All I’m going to say is this: Colin Farrell in stubble, that ’stache, and awful, awful long hair. Oi.

My Super Ex-Girlfriend
Luke Wilson dumps Uma Thurman and then finds out that she’s got super powers and a taste for revenge. It’s directed by Ivan Reitman, which could mean we’ll get either another “Ghostbusters” or another “Eurotrip.” It sounds interesting, even though I’m not as big a fan of Uma Thurman as everyone else seems to be. Also, what’s with all these movies incorporating superheroes into them? Superheroes go to high school, superheroes teach high school, superheroes raise families, superheroes get dumped… Seems like a poorly disguised way to put a new spin on old material.

Nacho Libre
Jack Black stars as a priest(!) who becomes a pro wrestler in order to save an orphanage. By the same director that helmed Napoleon Dynamite, there is obviously a hope that this will become another cult classic. For some reason I like Jack Black, although I don’t see him as cult classic material. I think there is a line that all actors cross when they become too well known that they are no longer elligible to be called “cult heroes.” Having said that, the movie appears to be weird enough that it just might get shunned by everyone except a very dedicated few.

United 93
As the title suggests, this is the story of the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11. Sound controversial? Theatres are pulling the trailers and threatening not to show the movie. Funny how a movie that contains no religious references is more controversial than The Da Vinci Code. And probably a hundred times the better film, too. Honestly, though, didn’t we just see this in “Red Eye” and “Flightplan?” Let’s not forget the classic “Passenger 57.” All fictional, I know, but considering how little we actually know about the events that occurred on the fabled flight 93, it might as well be made up (think “The Perfect Storm”).

World Trade Center
Continuing the trend of 9/11 movies, here we have the story of two police officers trapped in the rubble of the twin towers. It sounds even more shocking when you hear that Oliver “Mr. Conspiracy Theory” Stone is directing it. Allegedly, it will not be a political piece at all. I guess Mr. Stone tapped himself out filming “JFK.” Well, I’ll believe it when I see it, although I’m not feeling very compelled to see this one. “Daylight” was barely exciting enough as a story about being trapped underground, and that one starred Stallone and wasn’t even based on a true story (in other words, it didn’t suffer from the restriction of reality - although, see my comments on “United 93″ above for more on that).

Snakes on a Plane
Samuel L. Jackson stars as a U.S. Marshal flying aboard an airplane that also happens to be carrying 400 killer snakes. Sounds a bit like “Anaconda” to me, and not just because of the serpentine reference. I mean, if a movie starring Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube, Jon Voight, Eric Stoltz, Owen Wilson, and Kari Wuhrer can be as bad as that, how is Samuel L. Jackson going to do it better by himself? Get this; production was extended to add more gore and an “R” rating. Yay. Perhaps the most telling is the buzz by prospective fans, as follows: “This movie will suck!” “This movie needs ZOMBIES!!!!”

The Lake House
For this movie, I’m thinking “Romeo and Juliet” meets time travel. According to sources (my wife, solely for whom I am including this bit), what we have here is an attempt to rekindle the chemistry that Sandra Bullock had with Keanu Reaves in “Speed.” Smacking of the same theme as we saw in “Frequency,” we are unfortunately saddled with Reaves’ wooden acting and stilted dialogue delivery. And yet, somehow, hope survives - if you have a uterus. The most maddening thing is that the time travel element will hook you into that delicious “what if” mindset, but then leave you with nothing but a hole in your lip as the plot unravels faster than a reel with a busted sprocket.

Synopsis: Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings Trilogy) remakes the 1933 story of a giant ape discovered on a mysterious island who falls in love with the leading lady of a movie that is filming on location there.

Peter Jackson has earned a solid - er, nigh infallible - reputation for himself of late, given the phenomenal success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. For this reason, as well as my opinion of monster movies, I was looking forward to the film. Overall, I was not disappointed; I got a good monster movie, a good adventure movie, and an okay love story in the process. First, the good. The production values in this film were outstanding. From the set design to the special effects, everything blew me away. Kong and, in fact, most of the computer generated characters were animated in a very lifelike and believable manner. Skull Island, Kong’s home, was appropriately remote and creepy, with a “Lost World” feel that was quite enthralling. Also, I admit to having been a bit unsure of how Jack Black would come across in a serious role, but he and the others (yes, even Adrien Brody) pulled it off with style. Now, the bad. This movie was way too long. In fact, it could easily have been three movies. The first would have been called “Prelude to a Romance.” The second, “Adventure on Skull Island.” And the third, “King Kong goes to New York.” Except for the main characters and some loose motivation between the three “acts,” all three bits were distinct from each other. The romance that was built in the first act was never fully realized (maybe so as not to step on Kong’s toes when he himself fell in love with the girl). The middle part of the movie had so little to do with Kong and so much to do with the perils that befell the cast while visiting Skull Island that you almost forgot what the title of the movie was. And by the time we finally met Kong (about halfway through), we were narrowly guided through a series of events that all led to Kong ending up at the top of the Empire State building, like you always see on a poster with Fay Wray. With each of these acts being about an hour (the movie was just over three), they all felt a little rushed, since that wasn’t enough time to flesh out their individual stories. This seems odd since by the end I was squirming in my seat wondering what was taking so long for the end credits to roll. Just to clarify, this was an exciting film. I’d like to watch it again (maybe in three sittings) just to take in all of the wonderment that was so lavishly spread on the screen. But despite the length, the movie seemed to leave out some very important elements, and that made me wonder what the screen time was wasted on instead.

Synopsis: The main characters from the original Ice Age attempt to escape an impending flood - the result of the warming of the ice age they just survived - and make some new friends in the process.

I liked the first Ice Age (the movie, that is, not the geological condition). I thought it was well done for a non-Disney movie which, I admit, is how I evaluate all animated features (Pocahontas notwithstanding). While not really inventive or clever, it combined solid story elements, fairly likeable characters, and a really catchy gimmick in the form of Scrat, a squirrel-like creature on a highly comical quest for acorns. I went into this movie expecting much of the same, and yet receiving little. “Meltdown’s” story was not particularly solid; the flood-escape story had promise, but it was ultimately wasted as it took a back seat to the lame let’s-make-new-friends-and-maybe-some-romance shlock. The characters, while exactly the same as before, were not particularly likeable. Finally, the gimmick just seemed to remind us of how funny the original was and this new movie wasn’t. It was as if they had already thought of all the funny ways Scrat could be flattened, stretched, squished, dropped, and struck by lightning, and they were now scraping the bottom of the barrel for new gags. This pretty much describes the whole movie. It was a collection of second-rate elements that made for an unsatisfying whole. I wouldn’t say the movie was completely terrible - there were a few moments that made me laugh - but Danielle nodded off a few times in the theater, which isn’t a good sign under any circumstance.

Synopsis: A biopic of legendary boxer James J. Braddock.

There are three kinds of dramas that appeal to men. These are a) the inspirational biography, b) the classic sports movie, and c) the inspirational biographical classic sports movie. “Cinderella Man” fell squarely in the third category. A reflection on a rough period in the life of boxer James J. Braddock, the movie told the story of a caring father and husband who fought his way through the Great Depression to keep his family alive. He happened to be a one-time contender for the Heavyweight Championship of the World, an scenario which provided the perfect mechanism for the heart-swelling story that followed. His underdog attempt at a comeback was the focus of the plot, but it could have been any event in the man’s life, as he was shown to demonstrate courage and commitment in everything he attempted. Some weak areas in the film included the contrived villain that, in reality, probably wasn’t as awful and villainous as he was made out to be (although maybe he was, you just never know). Having said that, Braddock probably wasn’t as saintly as he was made out to be, but no man ever is. Still, the thing about this kind of story is that it gives you something to strive for, and it’s refreshing to get a boost of moral motivation once in a while. There were some predictable moments, such as the emotional conflict that centered around his children, but I’m not sure predictability is a valid complaint for a movie based on a true story. Besides, there wasn’t much to complain about in the first place. The story was relevant, the protagonist likable, the pacing deft, the acting superb, and the conclusion satisfying. It seemed a bit odd to see the a native New Zealander play an Irishman, but Crowe delivered a good New York accent, even if he didn’t have red hair. Renée Zellweger and Paul Giamatti were outstanding as well. The boxing itself was well done, and very tastefully so, although violent in nature. I felt the “depression” of the era in every set and period costume, which was really the icing on the cake, as it provided the perfect mood of desperation that made me glad that I live in the era that I do. You know, life isn’t so bad, once you put it in this kind of perspective. Anyway, a fine film.

Synopsis: A remake of a 1977 comedy by the same name, Dick Harper (Jim Carrey) loses his VP job as a major corporation. Frustrated by his misfortune, he and his wife (Téa Leoni) turn to crime to “keep up with the Joneses.” The catch: they are not criminals, just misguided suburbanites.

Somewhat reminiscent of “Trading Places” (Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy), the gist of “Fun with Dick and Jane” was a fairly traditional reversal-of-fortune comedy. You know the kind; mostly cheap laughs gave levity to the main character’s run of bad luck, but after learning that our main man’s misfortune was actually the result of some dirty dealing, a plan was hatched to make everything right with the world by sticking it to the powers-that-be who were responsible for said pain and suffering. Inspired by the recent corporate scandals of Enron, ImClone, et al, the story came across as somewhat of a parody of current events, sometimes bordering on being quite preachy. Ultimately, this proved to be a bit distracting, especially when you wonder, who is this film preaching too; the three people in the audience who are involved in cooking their own companies’ books? And then, seemingly in contradiction, you begin to contemplate how a life of crime can be justified, regardless of the circumstances, and you start searching the screen for some life lesson to reveal itself from the perspective of our protagonist. It doesn’t happen. No matter, though; just shake your head a bit and wait for the next slapstick scene. The movie’s overall tone was light (hello, Jim Carrey), and I laughed out loud a few times more than I was expecting to. Ultimately, this movie was not as deftly pulled off as many classic comedies that preceded it, but you could sure do worse on a Saturday night. In apparently stark disparity with the entire professional and amateur reviewer community, I liked it.

King Kong
His first project after Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson received a hefty $20 million in advance for this project, the highest pre-paid sum for a director. That’s funny, I thought this movie was about a large monkey. In other news, I am intrigued by the idea of Jack Black in ’30s period costumes. I bet he didn’t get paid as much for his role, even though he is playing a director.

Munich
As you may have noticed, Spielberg has a soft spot for filming dramatic Jewish tales. A story about a Mossad agent pursuing the Palestinian terrorists who killed the Israeli athletes in the ‘72 Munich Olympic Games seems to fit this motif. Of course, this is not just a story of a man of a particular ethnicity, but of that man’s struggle to maintain his beliefs while attempting to ensure the survival of an entire culture, two ideals that don’t always mix. Like my older brother, I have a soft spot for watching dramatic Jewish tales. It looks at least interesting.

Cheaper by the Dozen 2
I enjoyed the first movie more than I thought I would. Nevertheless, my rule on sequels still stands in this case. That is, it will probably be terrible, but there is a 60% chance I will see it just in case I am wrong. A point of interest here is that they managed to sign all 14 of the original actors on again for this go around.

Fun with Dick and Jane
Jim Carrey and T�a Leoni star as a married couple who turn to crime in order to “keep up with the Joneses.” The problem is that they are not criminals, just misguided suburbanites. I’m no fan of Leoni, but the scene of her wiping out while sliding over the counter of the coffee bar they are robbing is pretty funny.

V for Vendetta
A license of a series of short stories comes to us from the Wachowski brothers (The Matrix). I’m not sure how I feel about that, since they essentially sold out for The Matrix sequels (or if they didn’t, they sure lost their writing touch). The “1984″/Big Brother concept is intriguing, however. Hmmm… Seems I’ve mentioned that before.

Cars
The buzz is that this will be Pixar’s first ho-hum effort. Maybe the lackluster reaction is due to the lackluster trailer spots. In the past, Pixar’s story concepts tended to be fairly mature in concept, relying on excellent writing rather than gimmicks to appeal to an audience. Yet, this movie seems to be all gimmick, and a poorly done one at that. Hopefully, the car motif will just be a backdrop for a deeper narrative exploration, because the scenes of a goofy-looking pick-up voiced by NASCAR legend Richard Petty just ain’t making me feel the magic.

Date Movie
Knowing this movie is done by the same people who did Scary Movie, my immediate urge is to run away. What could be worse than a parody of all of the famous chick flicks? Although, when you think about it, what could be better?

Ice Age 2: The Meltdown
Speaking of gimmicks in animated films, the prehistoric squirrel, Scrat, was probably the best part of Ice Age. Judging by the trailers, we’ll see him again in his tireless pursuit of the acorn. As far as I’m concerned, the rest of the movie can stink and I will still enjoy it. Well, that’s not actually true, but Scrat sure was funny.