Believe the hype.

Believe every second and every word of every overwhelmingly positive review you’ve no doubt read or heard by now on The Dark Knight, and then multiply that by the biggest number that comes to your head, and even then you won’t have a clear idea of just how good and surprising this film really is.

Now, far better than me have been attempting to thrust the film into an unreachable realm of expectation, but let’s face it; the expectations on this film are so high and the buzz around the film so unrelenting, that no movie could hope to satisfy all those seemingly unsatisiable expectations, could it? Well, few movies have stepped up the way Christopher Nolan’s second Batman film does. Let me be clear when I say that, FEW movies have ever, or will ever live up to every ounze of unfair expectation befallen onto it, but The Dark Knight does. And it’s a unique buzz to be sure. It’s not just the rabid comic book geeks (like myself), or the film lovers or merely casual fans of the first film, but also a legion of supporters for the late and great Heath Ledger. Gone well before his time, the actor’s performance as the Joker launched into legendary status within weeks of the actor’s tragic death, but I am willing to bet that had Ledger not passed away, that it would have garnished the same reaction. We’ve all been feasting on the images and trailers and poster art of Ledger’s dark and twisted portrayal of Batman’s arch-nemesis, and as good as it looked in those, its even better on screen.

The plot, of course, follows the Joker’s exploits from the concluding scene of Batman Begins (2005), as he slowly builds a reputation for anarchy in Gotham City. Batman (Christian Bale) and Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) have been tracking him down, and are joined by the new and ambitious District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhardt). Dent is Gotham’s white knight, the city’s true hero and one unselfishly willing to do what it takes to stop the spread of crime and terror in Gotham. The three men combine resources to do a respectable job of cleaning up Gotham’s streets until the Joker comes along and throws a serious monkey-wrench into there plans and begins a psychological assault on the citizens of Gotham, the police, the D.A. and Batman himself, promising to keep killing high profile targets until Batman turns himself in and takes off his mask. His methods are highly effective, and soon the people of Gotham, ignoring all the good Batman has done them, now call for his head on a platter, willing to give in to the Joker’s demands.

But words don’t describe the emotion you will feel while watching this film. The raw emotion will have you buzzing along with the high octane action sequences, laughing at the uncomfortable humor and squirming in your seat, often all in the same scene. Nothing can prepare you for what awaits you when you sit down to watch this movie.

Nothing.

Nolan has crafted the newest masterpiece of our time (sitting side by side with Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy). It’s quite simply one of those once in a blue moon films that comes along at the perfect time and knocks everyone, and I mean everyone, geeks and all, on there collective asses and bends them to its unrelenting ass-kickery and the gut wrenching drama within it. This is more than a Batman movie, more than a comic book movie and more than any other term you want to apply to it.

It’s a compelling and emotional character drama, a wonderfully crafted crime drama on par with the best Hollywood has ever offered, a film about modern terrorism and the price of fighting it in a post 9/11 world and also a wonderful superhero movie. When I say that it comes along at the perfect time, its because I don’t think the pre-9/11 world would’ve accepted this film, at all and especially not as a superhero film, but the world is ready for it now and thats what fuels the fires, so to speak, and what makes the movie so gutwrenching to watch at times. It’s a film completely devoid of hope or redemption and it really sets out to just kick us all in the nuts and leave us numb, to which it succeeds greatly in doing. No matter what Batman or the Gotham police do in the film, things get worse. It’s really a comment on today’s society and how easily the frabic of that society, the glue, can come apart when terrorists know exactly where to hit you. It’s a film about terrorism as much as anything…emotional terrorism.

The Joker isn’t scary because he wants to kill a million people. He’s scary because he kills only a few important ones, dramatically so, and knows just how to push the right buttons to get the response he wants and bring the city to its knees, ready to break at the seams. He is a self-proclaimed agent of chaos, spreading the fires of his soul to the streets of Gotham for no other reason than he wants to do so. He is crazy, psychotic and scary. He is also by far the smartest guy in the room, or any room, and has this shit planned out step by step and is way ahead of the Gotham police, Harvey Dent and Batman the entire film. He’s so far ahead of everyone else, and the audience for that matter, that things seemingly unrelated to Joker at all come back and are suddenly apart of his longterm plan, and not in a “out of nowhere” way either, in a “holy shit! that crafty mother f—er!” way. Joker isn’t just a comic book villian or the “bad guy”, he is pure unadulterated evil, and Ledger plays him as such. Where film villians, especially those in comic book films (i.e.: The Green Goblin) often come off as overplayed and cheesy, Ledger’s Joker is a breath of terrifying fresh air.  The Joker comes off as a wild animal that has been caged up for months, if not years, foaming at the mouth, twitching his tongue and building up the anger and hate and now wants to take it out on you, me and everyone else. And thats exactly how he should be. As Alfred (Michael Caine) points out to Bruce, “Sometimes, people just want to see the world burn.”

Not so surprisingly, Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of the Joker in Tim Burton’s Batman film in 1989 now comes off as clownish and cheesy and well…Ledger’s Joker would kick his ass in a second. Unlike that film, the Nolan brothers (who wrote the screenplay for Knight) don’t bother with a useless origin story for Joker, he simply shows up and starts spreading anarchy in all directions, blowing things up, killing high level officials, and upping the anty with each move he makes. And like all great devilish characters, we sorta root for him, in a way, and we unwillingly start to identify with him each time he tells someone a shocking narrative from his past. The thing to remember about the character, as many writers have always said about the Joker and its certainly the case in The Dark Knight, is that when he tells a joke, he really should be the only person in the room laughing. Perhaps one of the few moments in the film where we’re allowed to laugh with the Joker, is in one of the first scenes, when he performs a gastly “magic trick” in such a casual, unflinching way that we can’t help but uncomfortably laugh. Simply put: Heath Ledger’s performance is something you couldn’t expect, and haven’t seen before and will never see again. It’s pitch-perfect. It’s so perfect in fact, that you didn’t know it before you saw it, but afterwards you’re like “wow, that was the Joker!”

As much as Joker does steal the show, the film is really Harvey Dent’s, it’s his story as much as Batman’s, and just as Nolan effectively made you forget the first film was a Batman movie for the first hour (with the Bruce Wayne origin tale), he makes you forget what you know will eventually happen to Dent in this movie. We know the story, we know who he becomes, but its done so much more tragically in this telling than ever before. It’s like a greek tragedy really, and Aaron Eckhardt knocks his performance as Dent out of the park every bit as much as Ledger does with the Joker. Dent represents the everyman, the blue collar worker and he stands up and fights for Gotham and makes a difference, so much so that he even makes Bruce believe in him and that the city may no longer need Batman. By the time the Joker’s boobytrap does disfigure Harvey you’re invested in him, and you believe in him as much as Gotham does and well…you feel bad for the guy. The physical transformation of Harvey into Two-Face is disturbing, unsettling and gruesome and Eckhardt plays the change very well.

It’s the eerie line the film often crosses, that makes you feel like you’re actually watching the six o’clock news, that makes the film so powerful and so effective. Even when the good guys feel like they’re winning and doing real good, it actually turns out that Joker just let them think that and turns everything on its head again. We may not understand why the Joker is doing what he’s doing (nor should we), but we quickly understand that noone in the film, not even Batman is safe. There are a fair number of notable and surprising deaths in the movie. Through it all, the Joker is unrelenting, as the film itself is also, and just keeps coming at you. The Joker has engaged Batman in a psychological war of wits, and for the entire film, he wins it. His goal in the end, of course, is not to force Batman to turn himself in, but cross the lines he swore never to cross, and each small defeat Batman suffers in the film (and there are plenty) makes him tread dangerously close to that line of becoming nothing more than a vigilante.

Never before has a superhero movie shown such a fallen hero as Batman in this second film from Christopher Nolan. Batman fails in almost every conceivable way during the course of the movie. Every choice he makes is either only a temporary save or effectively spells doom for someone else. It’s alot like the war on terror when you sit back and think about it, and its what the Joker represents. Anarchy. A world without rules. Why terrorists are so effective is they know how to hurt the rest of us. As the Joker points out in the movie, the reason he can’t lose, despite all of Batmans intelligence and strength, is because he (the Joker) has no rules, no codes and no morals. The rest of us and Batman do. The only choice is to give in, thus letting the terrorists win, or keep fighting them and creating more in the process. Its lose-lose. Again, a lot like watching the news nowadays when you think about it.

Not since the first “Lord of the Rings” movie in 2001 has a genre-event film so poignantly echoed the sentiment and realities of the post 9/11 world as well as the events within The Dark Knight. Batman, despite popular opinion (still largely based on the horribly unredeemable 1960’s TV show), has always been like the rogue cop, willing to go out to the edge and do the dirty work noone else can, but while he may teater on the edge of the line, he never crosses it. This film unflinchingly displays the criminal and terrorist reaction to the world fighting back, as was beautifully set up in the final speech from Gordon on the rooftop to conclude Batman Begins. The criminals won’t back down without a fight, and we get caught up in an eye for an eye war with them, we get dragged down to there level. By the end of the film, Batman (and the audience) gets as close as possible to that breaking point and the rules of Nolan’s epic Batman franchise once again shift to the left quite unexpectedly.

As I said earlier, the film is utterly devoid of hope or redemption and will leave you feeling a bit like you just watched your dog get run over and then got kicked in the nuts on a cold January afternoon in a snowstorm. It’s a calculated struggle of good versus evil and the meaning of both. It’s a portrait of the global landscape today and the constant feeling of helplessness at the hands of would-be terrorists. And its simply one of the finest crime drama’s ever made that also happens to be a superhero movie. And in the world we now live in, why would we want anything else from our superhero movies? The Dark Knight is not only the greatest superhero film to date, but easily the best film of 2008 and quite possibly one of the best films ever made.

10 Movies I recently watched, and didn’t feel compelled to write full reviews for, either because I didn’t finish the movie and couldn’t write a full and fair review or because the movie was older and didn’t necessarily need a review, especially in a few cases where I watched them as “catch up” for the pending sequels this summer.

None of these are full reviews, and in the case of the 4 movies listed that I didn’t even finish, it was because they didn’t hold my attention after an extended period of time. I must clarify, that as a film lover, a writer and graphic artist, I usually give films at least 30 minutes to grab me (I call it “the 30 minute rule“), and I try to finish every movie I take the time to start watching, but in some cases the film just is either too boring or just that bad and I don’t feel compelled to finish them. As they’re based on incomplete viewings, the grade suggested is obviously not 100% educated on the entire film.

1. “Batman Begins” (2005)

The highly praised and highly successful relaunch of the once dead Batman film franchise by Director Christopher Nolan, and featuring an all-star cast, including; Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Katie Holmes. By far the most faithful screen adaptation of the often dark and dreary comic books, and setting the stage for what should be an even better sequel. Grade: A+

2. “Hellboy” (2004)

The first film in the often fun Hellboy franchise doesn’t quite have the visual style or weight of the just released sequel, and much of that blame goes to the studio for not giving visonary Director Guillermo Del Toro more creative control and forcing the insertion of the most blatant studio character in all of comic book movie-dom, the Agent Myers character. That aside, the film is still highly enjoyable, even if it does get bogged down with several heavy subplots from time to time. Grade: B-

3. “Ressurecting the Champ” (2007)

A film about an ambitious sports beat writer (Josh Hartnett) who finds a washed up boxer (Samuel L. Jackson) living on the streets and allows himself to believe a fantastic lie, publishes it and must face the consequences of those actions. Love Josh Hartnett. Love Sam Jackson. Didn’t like this movie too much. Very predictable writing and not alot of “oomph” to the drama. Grade: C-

4. “The Muppet Movie” (1979)

I picked up the 50th anniversary DVD for cheap recently out of a sense of nostalgia and watched this for the first time since I was kid and loved every second of it. Great characters, great fun and great songs. Grade: B+

5. “Reservation Road: (2007)

After accidently hitting and killing Joquain Phoenix’s young son in his SUV, Benjamin Bratt wrestles with the guilt and torment over what he’s done and the paranoia that he may be caught. Great performance by Jennifer Connely as the grief-striken mother, but aside from that the film was boring, slow and predicatable. Grade: D

6. “Cassandra’s Dream” (2007)

Dreadfully slow, dreadfully bad and dreadful altogether. Easily one of Woody Allen’s worst movies (and he has made a few stinkers in his time), focusing on two brothers (Ewan McGregor and Collin Farell) who agree to kill a key witness for there uncle (Tom Wilkinson) in exchange for much needed cash, and then are torn apart with guilt over what they’ve done. Great ensemble cast. Horrible film. Grade: D-

(the remaining four films were movies that I disliked so much I couldn’t even finish the film…)

7. “The Ruins” (2008)

So…a group of sexy young hollywood actors play a group of really stupid, naive teens who go on vacation in cancoon and then decide to explore the ruins of forbidden myian pyramids and then they are suddenly in over there head and start a series of cliche horror scenes in which they panic, cry and scream at the camera a lot, even though nothing scary is really happening…yeah, I think I’ve seen this type of movie before. A few times, maybe. (Made it about 1 hour and 5 minutes into the film) Grade: Is there a grade lower than “F”?

8. “Charlie Bartlett” (2007)

Self-assured young teen, Charlie Bartlett (Anton Yelchin) is forced to attend public high school after being kicked out of private school. He begins to council kids on there problems and even help supply them with medications. Got bored with this one quickly, even though I love Robert Downey, Jr. (made it about 33 minutes into the film). Grade: F

9. “The Tracey Fragments” (2007)

Juno’s Ellen Paige stars in the title role of Tracey, a warped and self involved teen who lives in a entricate fantasy world within her own mind. She is on the run and looking for her younger brother, whom she supposedly hypnotized into believing he is a dog and who has run away from home. The film is painfully edited into a series of multi-view, multi-screen, disjointed fragments that get old after the first few scenes of the film, yet keep on going as the film progresses. Love Ellen Paige, but couldn’t watch this movie after awhile, nothing redeeming about it all and had no desire to finish it (made it about 45 minutes into the film). Grade: F

10. “The Omega Man” (1971)

After seeing and loving every second of 2007’s I am Legend, I was persuaded to check out a previous film version, starring Charlton Heston in the Will Smith role. Same basic plot exists, only the older film goes in some wierd directions and Heston is hunting the sick people down on purpose in this one. Didn’t hold my attention very long, which I take the blame for, and I couldn’t get into the cheesy make-up effects and really bad ’70s score. I can recognize what they were trying to do, at the time, and Heston is still Heston, but it wasn’t for me (made it about 45 minutes into the film). Grade: D-

Directed by Steven Sawalich, Music Within tells the true story of Richard Pimentel (Ron Livingston), a brilliant public speaker who enlists in Vietnam to help secure enrollment into college, and who loses his hearing in a bomb blast. He returns from the war and finds his true purpose in life; to help disabled Americans find work and he becomes the voice for there cause.

After surviving both a tramatic childhood and Vietnam, brilliant and natural public speaker Richard Pimental returns from the war having lost his hearing. He enters college and teaches himself to lip read and meets Art Honeyman (Michael Sheen), a brilliant genius stuck in a wheelchair with a disfiguring condition called cerebral-palsy, a condition where the person’s brain works normally, but there body doesn’t. After viewing how Art is treated by the students around them, Richard befriends him and they soon meet Christine (Melissa George), a sexually freeminded young woman who falls for Richard. Soon, Richard finds his calling and begins to help other disabled vets find jobs, and then begins to help all Americans with disabilities. Government begins to take notice, and Richard is tasked with writing a handbook for American companies to follow in hiring disabled Americans. Richard eventually travels the country to help major companies and levels of government to train its employers on how to treat the disabled and how to hire them, and it all eventually leads to the inclusion of the disabled Americans act in the early 1990’s.

At once a highly moving, poignant and incredibly well acted film, Music Within will also most likely make even the most callis person feel slightly guilty. The movie’s message is a powerful one, that you can’t treat people differently just because they don’t look like you, and the elegant writing of screenwriters Bret McKinney, Mark Andrew Olson and Kelly Kennemer drives that point home in a very moving and identifiable way. Like women’s rights, the civil rights movement and all the other struggles of the time, it is easy for us today to forget how it was just a few short decades ago, and that if not for people like Richard, a whole group of Americans would have no voice. It’s a story I’m not ashamed to admit I was unaware of, taking it for granted that the disabled Americans act had always been there and I had no idea it was so recent before they finally found that success. I doubt I am alone in that statement, and its why the film is so important and why the fact that its so well done makes it even more remarkable.

The performances by the lead actors also make the movie enjoyable to watch and very inspiring. Ron Livingston’s portrayal of Pimental is extremely well done, and subtly layered in its deepness, playing both his witty, playful and romantic side with Art and Christine and also his passionate drive, anger and ethusiasm while championing his cause. Michael Sheen’s performance as Art is simply phenomonal, and award worthy. He never comes off as cliche, ridiculous or a figure to pitty, as is usually the case when even the best actors play people with disabilities this extreme, instead he comes off a charismatic and brilliant companion to Richard and steals more than one scene in the movie. Completing the leads is Melissa George, who doesn’t seem as comfortable in the movie right away, but grows with her character and eventually has one of the more poignant scenes with Richard near the end of the film on his front steps. It’s a shorter film, and she plays a smaller role within it, but her character does have the biggest change in the film, which (eventually) George plays quite nicely.

Film’s like this often seem like they’re waving a finger at you, trying to make you feel bad, which at times this one will feel that way, but mostly it is just an inspired story of a true American who stood up for what was wrong and changed it. An emotional, heartfelt and compelling drama that is highly recommended.

Barry Manilow’s classic love ballett “Can’t smile without you” blasts thru the halls of the B.P.R.D. (The Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense) as Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) sing along, naturally out of cue, while drinking beers and each brooding over there own special girl. The scene is wonderful, humerous, touching and well…priceless, and if reading that description raised your eyebrow or turned you off a bit, then I’d suggest skipping this movie.

While that particular level of humor is unmatched in the film (or in many others), the film is largely quick-witted and humerous throughout, often even during the fantastically choreographed and highly entertaining action scenes. It’s a film thankfully unrestrained from studio suits, second guessing or backseat directing, as Director Guillermo Del Toro has, by all accounts and appearances, been given full reign and creative control after his worldwide phenomenon Pans Labrynth of a few years back. And thank the film gods for that blessed miracle, and thank the continued success of the comic book film industry (basically holding hollywood on its back these days) for such a wonderous treat as Hellboy II: The Golden Army.

The sequel to 2004’s Hellboy is both a welcome return to favorite characters and a breath of fresh air to a young film franchise that often seemed to suffucate under its own weight during the sometimes fun, sometimes heavy and boring, and sometimes amazing first film. In the sequel, Hellboy and gang find themselves up against Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) and his army of fable creatures set on reclaiming the earth from the human species they feel has grown greedy and heartless, and who have nearly destroyed the once proud planet, forcing there kind into exile. Hellboy must stop Prince Nuada from finding the location of The Golden Army, a large army of monsterious metal creatures who can only be controlled by the unchallenged leader of the realm. To control the army, Nuada will need to reforge an ancient crown that was broken into pieces millenia ago to prevent the army from being awakened ever again. To stop him, his sister, Princess Nuala (Anna Walton) hides the last piece from him and seeks the B.P.R.D.’s help.

Aside from the Army plotline and Prince Nuada, the movie also focuses on Hellboy’s relationship with everyone around him. His relationship with B.P.R.D. head honcho Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor) has fizzeled since there reconsciliation at the end of the previous film; His romantic relationship with Liz (Selma Blair) is hitting a rocky point, and she carries a surprise for him thru most of the movie, a delightful surprise the audience is let in on very early on in the film. And then there is Hellboy’s need to draw attention to himself, his need to make everyone like him. As a result of his ego, the B.P.R.D. are outed to the public in the first chunk of the movie, making his rocky relationship with Manning even more so, and forcing the powers that be to send a new agent to take over command of the squad.

That new commander is the highly entertaining Johann Kraus (voiced by Seth Macfarlane), who is basically a robotic body with the spirit of a brilliant scientist living within it. He sounds a bit like the robot on Lost in Space and looks like a bounty hunter from Star Wars, only much more entertaining. Another Star Wars cantina-esche moment is when Hellboy, Kraus and Abe enter a warped version of Diagon Alley from Harry Potter, filled with dozens of amazing creatures, all which put anything in the cantina (or anything else in the films) to shame with its level of detail and originality. At least 6 or 7 times in this movie you will see something and say to yourself: “Boy, I haven’t seen that before.”

It’s simply an enjoyable, fantastic adventure story with great characters and great writing. The character designs and visuals are breathtakingly cool, and Del Toro’s visual flair from Pans Labrynth is once again on full display here. Nowhere have we seen such original, interesting and vibrant looking characters. The result is a scope and believability rarely achieved in such fantasy films like this. Even the action is on a level unachieved in many of its comic book film peers, often adding twists to the excitement, such as Hellboy carrying an infant in one hand while hopping cars, buildings and loading very large guns with the other. Mixed with the same trademark humor from the first film and some strong hints at a possible third film, and it all makes Hellboy II the latest in this summer’s trend of spectacular comic book adaptations. A must see!

In efforts to cash in on the frenzy for the upcoming The Dark Knight, Warner Bros. and D.C. Comics have released the third in the newly established D.C. Universe animated movies on DVD, following the footsteps of last fall’s Superman: Doomsday, and this past winter’s Justice League: The New Frontier. The film takes six different stories (and six very different animation styles) centering on Batman, Lt.Gordon and the status of Gotham City since the events in Batman Begins in 2005. Effectively, the collection of animated shorts is meant both to give viewers insight and knowledge that fills in the “gaps” between the two motion pictures Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Think what the Wachowski brothers did with The Animatrix, filling in the gaps inbetween The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded, only nowhere near as cool and nowhere near as watchable.

Batman, when you stop and think about it, should be the perfect candidate for Japanese animation, a.k.a. anime, and yet most of the styles represented in Batman:Gotham Knight are terribly unappealing to watch. Sadly, the better styles are often on the less action-filled pieces and just leave you wanting more and wondering about what could have been. Batman is an iconic character, a majestic character and the appeal to his story (when told right) is the darkness of it, the grittiness of Gotham, its criminals and even of Batman himself. Despite popular opinion (much of which is still based on the terribly campy and inaccurate 1960’s T.V. show), Batman is not a happy story. it is a story about a man who loses everything. His parents are murdered in front of his eyes when he is a young child and he turns that helpless rage into something greater. There is a delicate unbalance within Batman, and its why so few screenwriters have captured the character very well. In Gotham Knight, very few of the stories bother to showcase this, or even make much attempt at action. Much of the 74 minute film is talking heads, which works great when its great actors performing it, but not in an animated Batman film, which makes slight attempts to fill us in on the state of things between films, but nothing remarkable occurs, and my guess is anyone skipping this DVD won’t be missing much, if anything at all. For example, nothing is said or mentioned about either Harvey Dent or the Joker, who was set-up in the conclusion of Batman Begins.

Perhaps the greatest disappointment is the collection of great comic book, and film writers responsible for the six stories, who collectively lay one giant egg. Veteran comic book writers Brian Azzarello, Greg Rucka and others turn in stories that seem like they were concieved on the taxi-ride over to the production meeting. David Goyer, co-writer on both Batman Begins and the upcoming The Dark Knight, does provide one of the only two entertaining stories, entitled In Darkness Dwells, focusing on “Killer Croc” and what the Scarecrow has been up to since escaping at the end of Begins. Aside from Goyer’s piece, the only other entertaining short (to me) was the final, much too short, piece introducing a brand new villian named “Deadshot.” The piece also sets up the notion that the crime world is now on the defensive and are beginning to realize they must rid themselves of Batman to restore things to what they used to be. The remaining shorts, varied in animation quality, all just leave you feeling empty and frustrated. All of them are much too short to accomplish any solid storytelling, and the little tidbits of information that may set things up in The Dark Knight don’t make the film worth watching in the slightest.

The only truely great thing is the addition of Kevin Conroy’s voice as Bruce Wayne and Batman in all six shorts. Conroy has been doing the voice of Batman on all the recent animated series’ from D.C. and Warner Bros., including Batman: The Animated Series, Justice League and Batman: Beyond. His familiar tone does ground any longtime fans of Batman and his animated adventures with a sense of comfort, even if the writing and animation around that voice falls short. Ironically, the best things about the DVD (the single disc version anyhow) is the emmaculate digital preview for The Dark Knight and the 10 minute sneak peek at 2009’s Wonder Woman animated movie, which looks extremely fun, accurate and well casted. Too bad none of the those qualities can be used to describe Gotham Knight, a total letdown and complete waste of time…even for the hardcore fan. Thankfully, The Dark Knight looks to be a true masterpiece for both critics, fans and casual movie-goers and the memory of Gotham Knight will be lost and forgotten quickly.

A dark comedy written and directed by Martin McDonagh, In Bruges stars Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson as two hit men who are sent to lay low in Bruges, Belgium after a botched assasination job for there boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes).

After accidently killing a child, Ray (Farrell) and his partner Ken (Gleeson) are sent to the medieval city of Bruges to lay low while the heat wears down and there boss, Harry can figure out what to do with them. Ray, wracked with guilt over what he’s done, is immediately turned off by Bruges and complains about being stuck there, while Ken quickly discovers all the hidden tourist treasures in the ancient city. The two men not only differ on Bruges itself, but religion, death and the meaning behind the great mysteries of life as they spend time together.

While Ken continues to find fascination with the ancient city, Ray continues to be bored, that is until he meets Chloe (Clemence Posey), a free-spirited woman who, along with her ex-boyfriend hustles tourists for there money. Ray convinces Chloe to go out to dinner with him and along the way his temper gets the best of him, as he gets into a few sorted adventures, most of which center around a dwarf. Meanwhile, Harry calls Ken and asks him to quietly kill Ray, a punishment for his killing the child, and Ken must wrestle within himself to discover wiether or not he can bring himself to kill his friend and partner.

Something I found interesting (and ironic) within the movie, is that Ray is constantly comparing Bruges to purgatory, a place of neverending torment and torture. I found this interesting because that’s exactly what it feels like to watch this movie, which obviously takes place In Bruges. The movie starts dull, ends dull and reaches new points of boredom and dullness inbetween. Not helping is the sleep inducing musical score, and very bleak locales in the movie. While, at times, shot majestically by McDonaugh, they mostly only help to make the viewer, like the characters, feel trapped in this boring city. Now, I realize (and appreciate to a degree) that this is probably a point that someone who enjoyed the film could easily make for liking it. I, however, did not like the film at all, and so enhancing the feeling of entrapment only made things worse. I felt often like the movie had no purpose, no ending in sight and no idea how to resolve itself.

For starters, the plot and characters are dreadfully predictable and unlikable. Even the side characters are unlikable, especially the dwarf, who is a racist bastard hopped up on horse tranquilizers, screaming about the inevitable battle to come between the whites and minorities. Most movies of this sort will at least endow the female lead with some sort of sweetness or innocence to play off the dark hearted anti-heroes like Ray and Ken. Not this film. No sir. Chloe, while insanely attractive and sexy, is almost as bad as the two hitmen, praying on tourists and selling drugs in a city that apparently has no crime enforcement. To be fair, small attempts are made to give some of the characters redeemable qualities, or at least redeemable ideals, but just because an otherwise dispicable character says things like “You can’t kill kids,” doesn’t make them any more likable. It just means they have common sense.

Every plot “twist” can be seen miles ahead of time, so much infact that it becomes frustrating how much behind the movie can get to where you have already guessed it would go. Mainly the problem with In Bruges is that it is essentially one set of poorly written, unlikable characters running into and pissing off other poorly written and unlikable characters, until eventually most of them are dead or dying at the end of the movie. Never before have I even considered so heavily to giving a movie the unheard of “Zero stars,” but I came very close in this one. Basically the presence of the lovely Clemence Posey is worth a “1/2 star” rating on its own, otherwise the movie is utter rubbish.

Directed by Kar Wai Wong, who also co-wrote the screenplay along with Lawrence Block, My Blueberry Nights marks the feature film debut of popular singer and songwriter Norah Jones, who portrays the role of a girl with a broken heart who finds comfort in the blueberry pies baked by small cafe owner (Jude Law) before going on a soul searching trip across the country.

After being mugged in a New York subway and learning her boyfriend is cheating on her, broken hearted Elizabeth (Jones) stumbles into a small cafe and spills her soul to owner Jeremy (Law) over a slice of blueberry pie. She then gets on a bus and travels to Memphis, taking on two waitressing jobs, one during the day and one in the late evening at a bar to keep herself busy. While in Memphis she meets Arnie (David Strathairn), an alcoholic police officer who is having trouble accepting his recent seperation from his flirtatious wife, Sue-Lynn (Rachel Weisz). While on her journey, Elizabeth keeps in touch with Jeremy by sending him postcards, and he begins trying to track her down. Not wanting to stay in one place too long, Elizabeth then moves on and meets a charismatic gambling addict named Leslie (Natalie Portman), who along with all the other offbeat characters she ecounters help her figure out her questions about love and life.

Despite featuring an all-star cast, Blueberry nights is something just on the otherside of boring, and flirts seriously with the idea of becoming a completly horrible and irredeemable film, but manages a few moments, unfortunately very few and far between, that make the movie even somewhat worth watching. First is the plot, well if you can call it that, mostly the movie appears, by what I could tell, to be about nothing. Yes, you can grasp that the Norah Jones character basically snaps after her longterm boyfriend cheats on her and she runs around the country looking for people worse than him to convince her she’s still a good person, but the film just crawls, and I mean crawls along at a snails pace and ultimately gets nowhere in the process. Then there is the non-existent acting ability of Norah Jones herself, who is the main character and the one we’re supposed to be invested in, but who can barely manage an ounze of genuine emotion. I’ve seen people on reality TV with more talent and emotion than Jones could muster in this film, which is sad because she is an amazing songwriter and singer, and I love her music, but she certainly can NOT act.

The rest of the cast has moments, but also mostly seem lost in the script. David Strathairn’s booze-hounding cop comes off as cliche and uninteresting. Rachel Weisz just seems to be screaming all the time and isn’t believable with her cheesy southern accent. Jude Law is barely in the movie, has a few moments of okayness and then mostly seems to struggle with trying to carry Jones thru there supposed tender scenes together. It’s just sad to see this collection of A-list talent and oscar nominees look so lost and confused and…well, bored. You can literally feel the boredom from some of these actors as they read there lines, which makes you wonder if maybe Strathairn really was getting drunk, just to cope with the horrible movie he found himself in. Then, just as you’re ready to give up all hope, the skies clear and the heavens part and lovely Natalie Portman arrives to bring the movie some (and I must stress the word some) redeemable quality. Her character basically sucks as badly as the rest of the them, but Portman seems to try her best to inject some life into it and the film as well, and does better than the rest at carrying Jones thru some scenes.

Overall, the film is horrible and a complete waste of these actor’s talents. I have not seen any of Director Kar Wai Wong’s other films, and this film certainly doesn’t inspire me to do so. Despite some beautifully shot street scenes, Wong just never manages to produce anything compelling or interesting on the screen that makes this film worth watching. Norah Jones should stick to her music, which I have a feeling she won’t have a choice on, and leave the bad movies from singers-turned wannabee actors to Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears. At least we all knew ahead of time there movies would be horrible.

Based off the bestselling novel by Michael Sharra, Gods and Generals is a prequel to the 1993 hit Gettysburg and follows the complex events from the beginning of the U.S. Civil War in 1861 thru the events preceeding the battle of Gettysburg in July of 1863, as depicted in that film. The film was written for the screen and directed by Ronald F. Maxwell, who also directed Gettsyburg, and the film was produced masterfully by Ted Turner.

With a magnificant scope, brilliant cinematography, painstaking detail and a high level of historical accuracy, Gods and Generals chronicles the rise of the Confederacy under the leadership of General Robert E. Lee (Robert Duvall) and General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson (Stephen Lang) in the early years of the deadly civil war that tore the United States apart for four bloody years. The film begins just days after the attack on Fort Sumter, and after President Lincoln has called for 75,000 volunteers to qwell the rebellion in the cotton states. Lee is offered overall command of the U.S. army, but refuses out of loyalty for Virgina, a state about to join in secession from the union and officially join the Confederacy, and who gives Lee command of the army of Northern Virginia. General Jackson leaves his teaching post at the Virginia military institute to recruit and train the Virginia common army volunteers, and the early stages of the war becomes about who will attack first, when and where?

The film focuses on the three biggest and most important battles of the early part of the war, beginning with the first major engagement between North and South at First Manassas. It is there that General Jackson and his brigade earn there reputation and legendary nickname of “Stonewall” and where the South proves the war will not be a quick 90 day affair as many people previously thought. As the following two years progress, so does the status and acclaim of Jackson and his men, as the South wins one major battle after another, including the battles of Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville, as depicted in the film. Chancellorsville is thought by many historians to be Lee and the South’s brightest moment, but it does come at a high cost, one that will drastically affect the remaining years in the war, beginning with Lee’s bold choice to invade the North and the inevitable battle at the small Pennsylvania farm town of Gettysburg, only 2 months after the stunning Confederate victory at Chancellorsville.

Few historic films take the time or take pride in such authenticity as is on display in both of these Civil War masterpieces by Ronald F. Maxwell. The films perfectly capture the times and the struggles this nation went thru to become the nation we are today. It was simply a different time, and these films serve as an invaluable time capsule of information about our past, a past that must be understood to understand our identity as a nation. In those times people lived more simply, yet more passionately as well. By focusing centrally on Stonewall Jackson and the South, Maxwell allows us to see what it was like to be there. For Jackson, like many of the day, his priorities were straight and he knew them well and would die to protect them and his way of life. God came first, his home (in Virginia) second, then his country. People didn’t yet grasp the idea of a truely United States, and thats why this war was so important. You feel the passion and religious ferver of Jackson and many others in the film.

Wonderfully, Maxwell takes time, between battles and military strategy, to focus on the small moments. We see the struggles of the civilians in the South, and spirit of the Southern women. We see the connection the troops and generals have with the civilians and we begin to understand the difference in lifestyles between North and South, and the difference to those fighting it. The North, right or wrong, was the invaders and the South, right or wrong, was defending there own way of life, and there own homes, families and towns. There is an elegance to that way of life on display, the simpleness of it, and it can be sad to realize that way of life is now gone forever. That was the price the South paid for waging this war, they lost there way of life, and the film (produced by Ted Turner) is obviously sympathetic to that idea of loss, and to the mighty Southern cause, but it also understands and illustrates the bold mission of unity and freedom that the North undertakes.

For fans of Gettysburg, the film is a wonderful companion and prequel. While not as condensed, or as long as Gettysburg (which focused on a single three day battle), Gods and Generals is a remarkable acheivement with a tremendous scope to it. As a Civil War buff, it would’ve been nice to see the battle of Antietam, or even the events of Fort Sumter or even view Lincoln once or twice, but the focus is on Lee, Jackson and the army of Northern Virginia, and in that the film exceeds even the most modest Civil War entusiast’s expectations. While central figures from Gettysburg, such as Lee, Longstreet and Pickett (ironically portrayed by Stephen Lang in that film) have been recasted, other actors do return to wonderfully reprise and expand there roles. Brian Mallon does a great job in an expanded role for Union General Winfield Scott Hancock. And indeed the regiment of the 20th Maine, heroically depicted in Gettysburg returns, and we see the formation of that unit and the struggles they endure before that fateful day. Jeff Daniels returns as Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, and again is allowed a few moments to give elegant and masterfully written speeches. C. Thomas Howell reprises his role as Chamberlain’s younger brother Tom, and Kevin Conway again gives a wonderful performance as the fiery irishmen, Sgt. Buster Kilrain.

But the film’s real star, and focus is on Stephen Lang’s awe-inspiring, mighty, tender and award worthy portrayal of the legendary General Jackson. Jackson was a man of high principles. A god fearing, highly religious and highly loyal soldier, Jackson felt it was his duty, and the duty of all southerner’s to destroy the “yankee invaders” who had dared presume to invade there land or try to dictate and inflict there way of life upon them. Stephen Lang does such a great job of portraying the complexities within Jackson. He has so many sides to him, and Lang hits them all perfectly. We see his fearlessness and determination in battle, as well as his hatred of the enemy and his desire to destroy them. But we also see his tender side, both in lovely scenes with his wife, Anna (Kali Rocha), and in heartbreakingly sweet moments with a young southern girl named Jane (Lydia Jordan).

The Civil War is undeniably the single most important event in our history, and its a blessing to us all that there are filmmakers today that realize that, respect that and who are painstakingly recreating that horribly bloody war onscreen for the rest of us, and future generations to see. How important was the Civil War? Yes, it restored the Union and freed the slaves, but it was much more than that. It gave us our identitfy. The great Civil War historian, the late Shelby Foote, perfectly described what the Civil War accomplished and why it is the most central and important moment in our nations history. He said, “Before the War, it was said ‘The United States are.’ Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always ‘the United States is,” as we say today without being self conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an ‘is.‘”

Written and Directed by Harris Goldberg, Numb stars Matthew Perry as a chronically depressed man who suddenly feels the desire to cure himself after meeting the girl of his dreams. The film also co-stars film veterans Kevin Pollack and Mary Steenburgen.

Screenwriter Hudson Milbank (Perry) suffers from a rare mental disorder called acute depersonalization, a disorder essentially leaving him disconnected, devoid of any feelings or emotions. He is obsessed with the grotesque level of sadness he feels on a daily basis and wastefully goes thru the motions. Humerously, he gets thru the average day watching lesbian excercise classes and the Golf channel while downing pill after pill in an attempt to cure himself. Doctor after Doctor seems at a loss to help him and merely throws a new prescription at him, in an attempt to help. Finally, on pure chance, Hudson meets the girl of his dreams, Sarah (Lynn Collins), and tries harder to cure his condition and win her over.

A dark comedy to be sure, Numb still does have some light humor within it and does a respectable job of showcasing Matthew Perry’s trademark wit and dry humor that made him so popular on Friends and in The Whole Nine Yards, however Perry never quite does reach the level of greatness he achieved in those past roles. In this role he never quite seems to “go for it” as an actor, the script often calls for him to be alone and brooding with some emotion or another behind the surface, and Perry’s lack of ability to convey that second layer, that deepness within the character is disappointing and often frustrating.

However, Perry’s chemistry with Lynn Collins is very good, and she brings a great, much needed upness to the film. She is impossibly adorable in the role, as her character attempts to both understand what Hudson is going threw and help him move past it. Her speech about what she thinks love should be is incredibly sweet and moving. As a result, I found myself rooting for them as a couple, more so than Hudson himself. I wanted him to move past his condition so they would suceed, and Sarah would be happy more so than Hudson, and perhaps thats a failing in the movie or perhaps my failing in identifying with him. Either way, it didn’t work the way it should’ve and that brought my opinion of the movie down considerably.

Overall, it is a okay (but nowhere near great) film that is extremely serious with some light humor and some cute moments sprinkled in. I think its main problem may’ve been its attempt at balancing the humerous moments with the serious, dry portrayal of Hudson’s condition. The viewer can sometimes be at a loss as to wiether or not its okay to laugh with Hudson or laugh at him or laugh at all. The direction just gets so serious most of the movie that the intended thoughts and emotions don’t quite come across very well, and to me, when you can’t clearly express where you want the audience to go emotionally, then you’ve lost them.

Based off the novel by Steven Gould, Jumper is directed by Doug Liman and adapted for the screen by David Goyer, Jim Uhls and Simon Kinberg. It tells the tale of a young man who discovers he has the ability to teleport anywhere in the world with only a thought, and the ancient society that has hunted those like him for centuries.

David Rice (Hayden Christiansen) discovers at a young age that he has some sort of genetic anamoly which allows him to teleport anywhere in the world. Irresponsibly, he uses his abilities to rob banks and live the high life style in a New York penthouse, which attracts the attention of a secret society, called Paladins, which have been hunting down Jumpers for centuries. He returns to his hometown in Michigan, and unwittingly drags his childhood crush, Millie (Rachel Bilson), into the mix and is approached by another Jumper, calling himself Griffin (Jamie Bell), who has been waging his own war against the Paladins for years.

Often told by frustratingly bad narration by Christiansen, Jumper is another example of movie that just aimed way too low. The premise is sound, and should’ve made for a much grander and more excting movie than it actually is. The special effects are nifty, but even those get used to an excessive degree as the movie rolls on and the “jumps” become much more frequent. Perhaps the movie’s main failing is the numerous loose ends and unexplained plot twists. Also, the movie’s central plot, Sam Jackson hunting Hayden Christiansen down, begins so quickly in the movie, that the film ultimately becomes your standard “run and hide” movie until it becomes the even more cliche “time to save the girl” movie in the end.

The three young stars all seem over there heads in the movie. Jaime Bell was awful and outacted by everyone in 2005’s King Kong and he just comes off as a mumbling bafoon in this movie. Rachel Bilson did a remarkably good job in The Last Kiss, but just seemed to play the sexy damsel in distress in this one, and had no character depth what-so-ever. Then there’s Hayden Christensen, who many people ceaselessly attacked for his performance as Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels. As a Star Wars fan, I actually liked what he did in those films, but he comes off as dry and confused in this movie.

Sam Jackson is about the only redeemable thing in the movie, even if he does look ridiculous with the white hair, but regardless adds much needed depth to an otherwise poorly acted film. But alas, not even the great Sam Jackson can save an otherwise dull sci-fi wannabee, that obviously banked on its young hearttrobs and dazzling effects being able to mask a poorly crafted, poorly written and poorly executed flop. In short…it didn’t.

Written by Barry Levy and Directed by Pete Travis, Vantage Point centers around an assasination attempt on the President of the United States of America. The high speed political thriller is told and re-told from several different perspectives of those involved and those in the crowd.

In Spain, the President of the United States (William Hurt) is shot before making a speech to promote a peace summit. The paniced crowd runs in all directions, and just as secret service agents, reporters and everyone else are all starting to try and make sense of things, a large explosion goes off, killing many civilians and injuring numerous more. That is the stage for this ensemble thriller, edited with urgency and moving at a mile a minute to slowly reveal the truth behind who did it, why and the attempted cover-up.

Most movies these days have the burden of stretching maybe an hour’s worth of quality story into a full length movie. This is usually accomplished by stretching out an action scene, such as a chase thru crowded streets or a high speed car chase, or adding what I like to call “fluff plot”, where a movie needlessly develops a minor character more than necessary and then kills them off shortly later. Basically, in these cases, the film is banking on gripping the audience by hopefully making them feel attached to certain smaller characters in the movie and then killing them to add a sense of urgency or drama, a feeling that anyone could die at any moment.

In Vantage Point, Director Pete Travis uses the full arsenal, attempting to literally take 20 minutes of story and see how far he can stretch it, retelling the same 20 minutes several times, sometimes to quite annoying lengths. The first time or so, its quite captivating to see the assasination attempt and what occurs afterward and then get the “cliffhanger” ending to that segement and then jump to the next point of view. About a half-hour into the movie, however, it gets really old. Finally, for about the last 35 minutes or so, the movie does break this mold, opens up a bit and concludes the film cohesively, jumping from character to character as the story wraps up, but before that it is an aggrivating political thriller, which attempts to add every concievable twist it can. Wiether this is because the film was just poorly written, or maybe they couldn’t decide where to go and so they did it all, or maybe its just an excuse to stretch the movie out, which is my best guess, but whatever it was, it didn’t work very well.

Filled with many recognizable actors, including Dennis Quaid, Forrest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver, Matthew Fox, Zoe Saldana and Bruce McGill, Vantage Point does sport a remarkably well casted ensemble, however the constant gimics and last second twists to stretch the story is what ultimately hurts the movie. It seems like it would’ve made a great episode of “24″ or another such show, but as movie, it just doesn’t have enough to it to make it very satisfying.

Written and Directed by Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, Toy Story 2), Wall-E is the sixth animated film released by Pixar and Walt Disney Studios.

Over 700 years into the future, Earth has been abandoned by Humanity after the planet has become uninhabitable after Humans have polluted the planet so much with toxic gases and garbage. While Humanity waits it out onboard luxury spacecrafts they’ve left the job of cleaning up the Earth to robots, and now only one such robot remains, an adorable little guy named Wall-E (which stands for Waste-Allocated-Load-Lifter-Earth class) , who has developed one minor glitch in his isolation on Earth; he’s developed a personality. While spending his days fulfilling his duties as a trash remover and compactor, Wall-E also finds little trinkets left behind by Humans that spark his curiosity. In particular, Wall-E seems to have developed a taste for old romance films and seems to long for companionship. Then, one day Humans sends a robot to scan the soil of the Earth for evidence of plant-life, which would signal the ability for Humans to return home to Earth. Wall-E is immediately captivated with EVE (which stands for Extraterrestrial-Vegetation-Evaluator), and attempts to win her over, but when Wall-E shows her the plant sample he recently found, EVE goes into auto-mode and is returned to her ship. Wall-E, believing she is danger, follows her on an intergalactic adventure and wackyness ensues. 

Filled with delightful moments, humor and spectacular visuals, Wall-E is just as exciting and entertaining as the previous five gems that Pixar has released. The amazing level of detail in the film is what will stand out the most while watching it, especially in the gloomy opening of the movie, which establishes the apocalyptic atmosphere of Earth and that of Wall-E’s daily activities trying to clean things up. He has litterally been at this for hundreds of years, and has stacked compacted trash cubes so high that he has equaled the height of the remaining skyscrapers. We see clues as to what happened, that a global corporation named Buy and Large more or less took over everything and helped spiral humanity into a sea of needless spending, waste and enivtably to rendering the planet useless. You can’t help but feel sad and depressed at what you’re seeing, because let’s face it, it’s a real possibility with the way things are going in the world today.  

Accompanying Wall-E on his daily routine is a humerous cockroache, who more than once is hilariously almost run over by Wall-E. It’s a humerous nod to the old jokes about nuclear war and about the end of time, that the only things left on the planet are cockroache’s and the Twinkie snack-cakes Wall-E feeds him early on. That’s not the only wink and nod to pop-culture or classic Sci-Fi films however, the film is litterally filled with references and homages to the great films of yesteryear. Look closely (and often not that closely at all) and you’ll see references to “The Matrix”, “2001: A Space Odyssey”, “E.T.”, “Silent Running” and a few others as well. Homages aside, Wall-E is a tremendous treat and wonderful film to just sit back and experience. There is a child-like innocence to Wall-E and his curiosity is what makes him so compelling and (let’s face it) human. Perhaps the greatest statement that could be made about the film is the fact that 70% of it has no dialogue, just the stellar and outstanding sound effects by “Star Wars” sound editor Ben Burtt, who lent his genius to create the lovable R2-D2 and many others in those films. Burtt’s amazing sound effects, coupled with an amazing musical score and great details, serve to pull the audience in for an amazing ride, and we go along willingly and are caught up in the spectacle, even if an occassional scene seems a tad slow. 

The overall themes and message of the movie is like a punch to the gut. Anyone who doesn’t feel a bit queasy after seeing this movie and thinking about how realistic its possible outcome is just doesn’t have an ounze of humanity within them. It’s ironic and somewhat depressing to witness the whole of the human race literally stuck in a mindless routine, caught up in the ruthless machine of blind consumerism, litterally sitting around doing nothing and expecting robots to fullfil there every need and wim. Humanity is literally a slave to its own creations, and has become a race of mindless, soulless, jaded and self-centered sloths who are barely aware of the world (or ship) around them. Yet, there are still robots who run around with a natural curiosity about them, a childlike innocence that the humans in the film lack. Indeed, its telling that we identify with Wall-E and many of the other robots more than we do the humans in the film. Which is saying something when you recall how little dialogue exists between the robots. It’s there actions, body-language and subtle communication that makes us love them. Who can help but love adorable little M-O when he obessevely runs around trying to clean up Wall-E’s tracks? 

Wall-E may not be the greatest animated film ever produced, nor even the best Pixar film, but it reminds us that sometimes going to the movies can be (and should be) nothing more than just an enjoyable and relaxed event, one that also helps us remember what it was like to see these types of movies with the eyes of our childhood. Movies shouldn’t be these items we ceaselessly evaluate and disect, sometimes we can just be entertained. Wall-E speaks to the inner child in all of us, curious and longing for more.

“Love isn’t always a lightning bolt, sometimes its a choice.” 

Written and Directed by Alex Keshishian, Love and Other Disasters is a romantic dramedy in the tradition of Bridget Jones’ Diary, Notting Hill and Love Actually. The film is set in London, and focuses on Emily Jackson (Brittany Murphy), whom her friends affectionetly call “Jacks”, who is an intern at Vogue and who attempts to help her circle of friends find true love, often with humerous results. Love is an intelligent, fresh and witty comedy that will captivate you from its original opening frames, and clever breaks from reality.

Emily Jackson works in the London offices of Vogue as an intern who spends her spare time devoted to helping her close circle of friends find true love. She lives with her best friend, Peter (Matthew Rhys), a struggling screenwriter who happens to be gay and hasn’t ever managed to be in a relationship. When he has a chance encounter in a hotel lobby with David Williams (Will Keen), and falls head over heels for him, Emily rallies the troops to help Peter get together with him. Soon, news of Peter’s crush is everywhere, much to Peter’s dismay and the group of friends attempts to hook Peter up with David at an auction. When eccentric Talullah (Catherine Tate) makes a scene forcing Emily and Peter to help her home, Peter is crushed not to get the chance to meet David. Meanwhile, at her magazine job, Emily meets Paolo (Santiago Cabrera), who she assumes is gay and attempts to hook up with Peter to help him get over his missed opportunity, not realizing Paolo is actually straight and has a crush on her.

Filled with fresh, smart and original moments in the script, Love and Other Disasters is as entertaining as an ensemble romantic dramedy gets. The film opens wonderfully with the text of a screenplay appearing on screen, almost literally saying to us “If life were a movie…”, as we meet Emily and are thrown into this circle of friends, and almost immeditately feel as if we belong and as if we’ve always been there following these characters’ lives. It is refreshing to see a film, and script with the confidence to take this approach to filmmaking, too often a film like this is dreadfully slow in the opening 1/3 of the movie, taking way too much time to set up the characters and to justify why we should be watching them. Love thrives on the fact that it doesn’t tell us everything about these characters right away, and what we do learn is either done subtly with props or emotions or done expertly within the dialogue as the film progresses. These people feel like real people and more than that, they feel like a real group of friends with a rich history.

Like all great ensembles, the film focuses more on one person, in this case Emily, but also deals greatly with the other characters as well, and where the movie feels connected is within the connection the group has to Emily and the universal theme of relationships in the movie. Talullah, for example, is a total mess. She is obsessing over both a married man she is sleeping with and another man who makes strange calls to her home. She doesn’t feel anything as its happening, but once they end she feels abandoned and escapes into drugs and alcohol. Peter is lost and trying to find both love and his own identity in the world. He puts love, sex and relationships on this pedestal and ends up learning some cold truths. Emily herself hides her own insecurites by trying to help everyone else. She is sleeping with her ex, James (Elliot Cowan), but claims she has no feelings for him. Peter points out to her that she can’t find someone if she’s spending all her time with her ex-boyfriend, and its true. She just doesn’t want to admit it, and is scared to put herself out there again, she can’t allow herself the possibility of getting hurt. These are all very realistic and identifiable problems that we can all relate to, and its what makes the characters and film so compelling to watch.

The film takes some brilliant twists along the way, building to a wonderful ending and has a delightful charm about it. The natural chemistry between all the cast is amazing. The film ultimately becomes a statement about love, how we all define it and how we all need to be open to the possibility of finding it, even if its not in the form or way we were expecting. We just need to have the courage to look for it and to go out on a limb to try and obtain it. It’s a delightful surprise message to a delightfully surprising film. A wonderful script and amazing story, Love and Other Disasters is a highly recommended film to any fan of smart, humerous dramedies with a great ensemble cast.

“Plastic. I’m talking to a plastic tree.”

Oh boy.

The sixth film by writer/director M. Night Shyamalan is undeniably different than his previous five films. For starters, it is the first film that has recieved a ‘R’ rating, and it’s also (surprisingly) a film without any attempt for his trademark twist ending. There’s no attempt to fool you or to pull something from behind an invisible curtain. In his previous films, Shyamalan had a gift for setting things up and layering the events of the movie in such a way that we were surprised by the ending. Everything was important and so every scene was crucial. That is not the case in his latest paranoid thriller, The Happening, which explains the great mystery of what’s going on very early in the film, and the movie suffers greatly as a result.

The film focuses on a high school science teacher, Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), and his estrainged wife, Alma (Zooey Deschanel) as they try to protect a young girl (Ashlyn Sanchez) while on the run from a mysterious natural threat to humanity. An event starts in Central Park where people suddenly become disoriented and lose motor functions and then finally feel compelled to kill themselves in any variety of horrible ways. Theories spread about what could be causing it, the first theory being that it’s a chemical attack by terrorists. A panic ensues and in Philadelphia, Elliot and Alma join Julian (John Leguizamo) and his daughter, Jess (Sanchez) on the first available train out of the city. Shortly later, reports come in that Boston and Philadelphia have both been hit by the same threat and then the conductor of the train loses contact with the outside world and stops the train in a small Pennsylvania town, leaving Elliot, Alma and the rest of the passengers to fend for themselves. Julian leaves Jess with Elliot and Alma as he hitches a ride to go search for his wife, and the three of them go on the run as they try to figure out whats going on and how to survive it.

The Happening is a truely bizzare film. It is very reminescent of the 1950’s apocalyptic paranoid thriller’s about the end of the world or alien invaders. Most noticably, the writing doesn’t seem as polished as in his previous films. I know I am in the minority, but I enjoyed Lady in the Water and think Shyamalan took a step backwards with this film. Litterally about 1/3 of the way into the movie you’re told what’s going on, that it has something to do with the wind and another thing I won’t divulge here. So, from that point on we’re not as scared, both because of what it is and because the mystery is gone. The movie relies on scare moments and the acting of the main characters, which is extremely wierd and hard to watch at times. Mark Wahlberg plays his role with two basic expressions, worrying and thinking about worrying and does both with the same basic intense look on his face. It’s painful to see a great actor reduced to playing an unconvincing teacher with the emotional range of a wet sack.

Perhaps the moment where I started to lose faith in the film is where Elliot and Alma are walking along in a field with other survivors and Alma confesses having gone on a date with another guy she met at work. Firstly, she does it so mousey and so mumbly that it just seems wierd and ungenuine. Then Mark Wahlberg’s reaction is basically to breathe heavily for a moment and cheesily say “You lied to me?” and then continue walking without another word. I’m sorry, but especially under the stressful situation they’re in, any guy would’ve screamed at his wife at that point, or had some reaction. They both just seem so unbelievable in the movie. Don’t get me wrong, both Wahlberg and Deschanel are amazing actors on any other day, but both played there parts in this movie very cardboard like. Maybe that’s what Shyamalan wanted, maybe it was on purpose and it was for some unknown reason that escaped me, but I didn’t like it. Deschanel’s role is attempted to be explained away as her having trouble expressing herself and her emotions to others, but that doesn’t help her performance any. She has the biggest and among the most beautiful blue eyes in hollywood, but they spend most of the movie in an prolonged hightened sense of terror, often for no reason.

Then there’s the needless attempt for a ‘R’ rated horror film, probably just to advertise the movie as Shymalan’s first. Take out a few gory scenes and the film is essentially ‘PG’. However, the horror scenes are quite graphic, sometimes needlessly so and I often found myself missing the more subtle horror in his previous ‘PG-13′ films, which to me was much more terrifying because we were allowed the ability to see what we wanted and essentially scared ourselves. Here it is just all there for us to see. Blood and gore and all. The scenes depicting humans killing themselves in all sorts of different methods are quite disturbing and horrible, as they should be, but the looming big picture threat wasn’t pulled off as well, and often came off as just silly nonsense. Also, the threat occurs so early in the film, that the main characters are essentially on the run the entire film and that gets old after awhile. There’s nothing worse than a 90 minute film with 45 minutes of worthwhile storytelling to accomplish. 

Threat and acting aside, I do like where the movie ended up, and the messages it got across. Besides the obvious one, which will be apparent when you see the movie, I quite liked another scene near the end of the movie, which was the only honest and well written scene in my opinion. Elliot and Alma are in seperate rooms talking to one another thru a pipe in the ground as the looming threat is outside. They start talking about there first date and how Elliot bought her a mood ring, and they begin recalling what each color meant when they looked it up. Finally Alma asks Elliot if he remembers which color stood for love, and he answers very honestly and tenderly, “I don’t remember.”  It echoes beautifully the estraingement between husband and wife and the distance that has grown between them. That scene has layers to it, and its probably only 2 minutes long and was a great subtle message within the overall message of the movie. It’s a shame that Shymalan appears to have been more focused on shock value with the death scenes and not on writing the usually well written and character driven films we’ve become usued to seeing in the past.

Ryan Reynolds stars as a political consultant who attempts to explain his impending divorce to his young daughter in this romantic dramedy written and directed by Adam Brooks.

Will Hayes (Reynolds) has seen his share of disappointments in his life. Both personally and in his career, but now comes the biggest disappointment yet, his impending divorce. His 11 year old daughter, Maya (Abigail Breslin), inquires about her mother and how Will met her and convinces him to tell her the story. Will agrees, but adds a twist, he will tell her a much larger story of the only 3 serious girlfriends he ever had, changing the names of the girls and some of the facts, and its up to Maya to figure out which girl became her mother. A “love mystery”, as Maya proclaims. Will begins to recount his past, and we learn about not just the 3 girls, but where his life has gone from ambitous collegiate to rundown political analyst. We see the choices Will made along the way that got him to this point.

The 3 girls are all very different from another. First is the college sweetheart, Emily (Elizabeth Banks), who stays behind in rural Wisconsin while Will moves to New York to help out on the Bill Clinton presidential campaign in 1992. While working on the campaign, Will meets April (Isla Fischer), a perky and independent minded copy-girl in the Clinton headquarters. Later, Will delivers a package from Emily to Summer (Rachel Weisz), a college student who wants to be a reporter. The three stories revolve around one another nicely, as the girls each enter and leave Will’s life. Each girl also compliments what Will is going thru in each specific time he is either involved with or has a crush on each of them. As he grows up, and the relationships fail along with his ambitions, Will becomes a different person. It’s a story anyone over the age of 25 can very much relate to, as we all know what its like going from 18 and suddenly becoming 25-26-27 years old. Rarely are we the same people, and the movie does a nice job of showing that journey with the Will character, as well as the 3 girls.

It’s also a very insightful film, showing the knowledge that comes after time when looking back at failed relationships. We never see it clearly while it’s happening, but anyone who has looked back with an Ex over a drink or lunch, will certainly understand and relate to the overall theme of the movie. As the story unfolds, we also become invested in the girls, and surely each audience member will choose which one they hope to see Will with in the end. That’s where the film has an unexpected twist. It doesn’t end how you’d expect it to end, at least I didn’t expect it. We almost forget, as we see the dramedy of Will’s relationships unfold before our eyes, that whomever he ends up with in the end, is also the same girl who is now divorcing him, and we can also overlook the fact that for Maya, the whole story is bittersweet. Yes, she’s finally learning how her parents got together, but she also knows that they’re divorcing one another.

The performances are very good from the 3 girls, as well as Breslin and Reynolds, who have a nice chemistry as cool dad and daughter. Breslin in particular does a good job of portraying the confusion an 11 year old must be feeling while her parents are seperating, but also a knowledge that her parents deserve happiness despite the seperation. Reynolds does a fine job as the leading man, but I could easily see why some people wouldn’t like him in this movie. It’s like Jim Carrey, some people liked him in more dramatic roles and some people hated it. What makes it work for me is his natural charm and his ability to convey such dry, sarcastic witty humor, and then balance that with genuinely dramatic moments in the script. He also has proven over the years that he apparently has great chemistry with every woman in Hollywood, and that trend continues in this film. Without giving away who he ends up with in the end, and who the mother is, let me just say that looking back at the film, its obvious who it’ll be just by the fantastic chemistry between Reynolds and this character. The scenes they share are by far the best in the movie, and among the funniest.

All that said, it is not an outstanding film, but it is a very good one. The film does move along at a deliberately slow pace, but overall I’d say the movie is adorably cute, and has its heart in the right place, and there’s something to say for a cute romantic comedy that doesn’t try to be anything more than it is.

The creators of Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow bring us a prehistoric heroes journey about a man who travels long distances to save the love of his life and unite his people in uncertain times. The film is directed by Roland Emmerich, who also co-wrote the script with Harold Kloser.

Well, its good to know that in 10,000 years of human evolution, that its still always, in the end, about a girl. Director Roland Emmerich attempts to dazzle us once again with a visual effects feast, and at least in that regard (mostly) the movie is a success. Sadly, great visual effects does not a good movie make, as many films have learned before 10,000 B.C., and I suspect many will continue to learn after it. The film focuses on D’Leh (Steven Strait), who is your typical orphaned boy-becomes ambitious young man-becomes prophesized hero in these types of movies. D’Leh is the outsider of his prehistoric tribe of men, after his father seemingly abandons his people when D’Leh was very young. As a result, D’Leh is obsessed with becoming the lead hunter and earning the white spear from his friend and mentor, TicTic…not to be confused with TicTac (Cliff Curtis), and earning the right to claim his love, Evolet (Camilla Belle) for himself. Evolet, as it turns out, is from another tribe who, when she was young, were all attacked and killed and she then eventually made her way to D’Leh’s tribe. He becomes captivated with her, and she him at a disturbingly young age. Predictably, the same attackers find them and capture Evolet and many others in the tribe, sending D’Leh off on his heroes quest to save her.

The film does have fun moments, but unfortunetly they’re spread far between bad ones. The film would’ve benefitted from a few more creature scenes. Although, the Sabretooth tiger from the poster looked extremely fake and not convincing at all. Besides the giant kitty, the rest of the creatures, what little we see of them, look breathtakingly cool. The huge Mammoths are wonderfully done, even if the interaction with the actors screams green screen, but still the opening hunt scene is enjoyable and helps hold your attention for awhile. Another good scene in the film is the oversized-mutagen soaked Ostrich-Raptor things attacking them. That is a fun scene. The cinematography also helps redeem the film. The locations are very well filmed, and the film does a good job of giving you a sense that it really does take place in the vastness of prehistoric times. That’s about where the film’s good points end.

There isn’t a speck of originality in the script or film, and as a result, it relies on captivating you enough with the visuals and danger music cues to hold your attention. It is your standard hero film. The outsider loves the hot girl, who gets captured and the hero goes out with his mentor to save her and accidently unites his people along the way. Oops. That’s basically what it seems like, because he is all about the girl and the whole saving his people thing is just an afterthought. Oh, and another cliche is the goofy sidekick tagging along on the journey for no apparent reason. You can literally guess what’s going to happen each step of the way. Except something in the end, and without giving it away, it’s a moment in the final half-hour or so, when a particulary unrealistic and ridiculous big reveal occurs and any enjoyment I was having, and any captivation I felt both melted away when I saw it. I literally said “What?!?” out loud when I saw it.

Being a history major, I took some offense to the leaps they made in that final act of the film. I can buy into all the tribes magically communicating in Africa and coming together to overthrow a foreign invader, I forgive character names worse than those in the Star Wars prequels, like D’Leh and TicTic…TicTic, really?…I can forgive the really bad dreadlocky wigs everyone seems to be wearing, and I can even buy mutant ostriches and the really bad and really blue contacts Camilla Belle is forced to wear, which weren’t actually as bad as the ones Jessica Alba wore in Fantastic Four. That’s fine, but, where they go is just ridiculous and only compounds the other areas in which the film sorely lacks in either originality or spectacle.

10,000 B.C. is basically a summer popcorn movie that was so bad, the studio knew it wouldn’t make any money unless they released it in March. That’s all you really need to know. The movie is about as unstimulating as a would-be Hollywood epic can get. The plot is moved along, inbetween action scenes of course, by convenient prophecy gloobily-gook, mostly in narration. Hint: When a movie needs bad narration to help explain the prophecy its attempting to make sound real, and important and mystical, then the script probably needed some work.