The Benchwarmers

Um.....yeah....not good.

I don't want to go too much into how bad this movie is.

It would be too easy to attack this movie on that level. It's obvious that logic, reality and comedy for that matter, aren't part of this movie's world.

What I would like to discuss is how far the Happy Madison group has slipped.

Happy Madison is the group of comedians which consists of ex-SNL cast members Rob Schneider, Adam Sandler, David Spade, Dana Carvey and Jon Lovitz.....and if one wants to throw Norm McDonald in there too... that's fine .

Make no mistake about it....they are a talented group.

But lately I'm confused about what exactly this group of talented comedians feels is humorous?

Watching a movie like The Benchwarmers, one gets the sense that they don't even think the material is funny.

It's like someone is making them perform at gunpoint.

Indeed, reading a recent review of the DVD, the reviewer noted that David Spade does a less than enthusiastic commentary on the disc.

So what's going on???

The early works of the company like Happy Gilmore, Deuce Bigelow, and Tommy Boy were not admittedly mentally demanding material....thankfully.

They were low budget comedies with silly, over the top skits in absurd, crude, situations.

They were unabashedly stupid movies.

One could tell that the group could care less what the hell anybody thought. To me it just seemed like they were having fun, while trying to make each other laugh.

A movie like The Benchwarmers feels condescending and preachy.

The movie's moral is basically that kids should not be bullies.

The whole movie goes out of it's way to drive home that point....several times.

Are they honestly trying to teach us something.....or more specifically teach my kid something???

Rob Schneider?

What the hell??? I don't want Rob Schneider to teach my kid life lessons.

I'm waiting for the dick and fart jokes.

Since when did this group decide to make After School Specials?

It's like they suddenly care about what everyone's thinking.

What's even more depressing is that, not only does the group care about what the audience thinks about them, they all look like they aren't having fun anymore.

Like they hate what they are doing.

So what's the point?

It's not just this movie either, this has been going on for awhile now. I just caught The Longest Yard on cable the other night, and I swear Adam Sandler is trying to be Gary Cooper.

He wants to be a hero. He could care less if he makes anyone laugh.

I know he did Mr. Deeds and all, but Adam Sandler is not a leading man.

He's a comic.

He should only be concerned about making us laugh, not pulling on our heart strings.

Judging by the reception his movie Click got at the box office this summer, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

The truth is at one point, Adam Sandler was considered the most successful box office star in the world.

It's true, in terms of cost to profit margin his early movies are among the most successful movies....... ever.

But lately, the group has decided to deviate from the blue print.

It seems that lately the group is focused on making big budget so-called comedies....... with a message. An After school message.

The results are disastrous.

Serioiusly, I don't understand why they would think spending more money on special effects, and bigger, star-studded casts, would bring them more success.

If it ain't broke....why fix it?

It's really perplexing. Because the ideas are the same, but the execution is off.

Seriously....really off.

I mean there are fart jokes in the film, but what used to be funny, now feels awkward and mean- spirited. Even surreal moments in the film... like an albino character and a character who wears a speedo throughout the film don't feel like silly off-the-wall fun anymore.

It feels like desperation.

What's happened guys?

I'm trying hard not to be too critical here.

As a fellow actor, I know that comedy is the hardest thing to perform.

To move people emotionally in a drama, all a performer needs are good writing, and a dramatic situation.

Comedy requires talent, timing, and emotional availability....as well as good writing and an interesting situation.

But the truth is that this group hasn't been funny in awhile, and it needs to examine what their real goals in the entertainment industry are. They have the talent, and potential to do interesting, funny work.

But there's no trace of it here.....or any of their recent work.

The truth is the work they are doing now is not only, not funny but it's become insulting, and offensive.

Not in a comedic good way.

So here's hoping they figure it all out.

Because there's another group of comedians....which consists of Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, and Luke and Owen Wilson who'd be glad to steal this group's thunder.

I'm sure to the Happy Madison group....that's no laughing matter.

Jet Li's Fearless

I was lucky enough to get my hands on an import DVD of this upcoming movie release.

The film is being billed as Jet Li's last Hong Kong Martial Arts Epic.

Which to me is kind of a bold statement considering there seems to be such a demand for this kind of material lately. But I can understand why he wants to walk away from this genre. It's almost like the classically trained actor who no longer wants to do Shakespeare. Too many Sunday matinee's wearing tights.

But in Jet Li's case, too many days wearing wigs, hanging on wires, and dressed in period costumes.

Judging from the trailer , it looks like the version I watched on DVD is going to be the same for the U.S. release. Unless..... they dub over the film with English, which would be pretty ridiculous considering the tone of the film.

The movie is a semi-biographical account of the life of Huo Yuan Jia. I can see why Jet Li was drawn to this material, it's an interesting true life story. For fun, I did a quick Wikipedia search to check out just how much of the movie's recounting was real.

Surprisingly enough the movie is pretty accurate in it's retelling of the man's life......to a point.

Apparently Huo Yuanjia was a martial artist who took up challenges by foreign fighting champions who ridiculed the Chinese people during a time of poor Chinese morale. Huo Yuanjia became a symbol of Chinese pride, and was renown for his martial arts abilities, and became the founder of the Chin Woo athletic association. A school that is world famous, and is still in existence today.

Where the film uses some artistic license is in of course....the action sequences. The film's action is choreographed by the world famous Yuen Wo Ping of Matrix and Crouching tiger fame.

The ending of the movie is also a little over the top, and over dramatic. Especially when compared to the less dramatic real life story. It also feels a little out of place, considering the way the film is being marketed....as an action film.

Which is what we usually watch a Jet Li movie for, the action. Which the film does feature. There are plenty of impressive fight sequences, and action. What's interesting is that this film takes a more realistic approach to the fighting then Yuen Wo Ping's other choreographed films. Of course when I say realistic, I mean that this film doesn't feature extensive wire work, and mystical flying sequences.

However what limited wire work there is in the film is pretty great, and the more grounded approach in the sequences is all pretty refreshing, and impressive to witness.

Funny enough in real life many of the fights that Huo Yuanjia allegedly participated in the film never happened, apparently whenever a foreign champion was confronted by Huo Yuanjia they would back off in reverence and intimidation, probably because they were all aware of his considerable skills.

As far as the story's structure....unfortunately it's pretty standard stuff. Although a foreign film, Ronny Yu's movie still feels very much like a Hollywood blockbuster.

The movie is basically a re-telling of the prodigal son.

A man lives a wild, and reckless life until a traumatizing event forces him to flee in shame, until he learns the errors of his way, only to return triumphantly.....A hero.

It's stuff we've seen a thousand times before. I also think that the movie's ending will turn off a lot of his U.S. fans who just want mindless action, and fighting.

They just won't like the melodrama and Chinese nationalism.

It's obvious that the story is close to Jet Li's heart because he produced the film, and chose this story to be the last martial arts epic of his career.

But the truth is that the movie doesn't feel unique or special.

It's ambitious in it's aspirations, but ultimately it doesn't transcend the genre like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and House of Flying Daggers , and to a lesser extent Hero seemed to do.

I recommend watching the film for the action, and fantastic fighting scenes, but don't expect Academy Award type consideration. This is a big Hollywood type movie in the mold of The Last Samurai.....except it's directed by Ronny Yu.

Tristram Shandy: A cock and bull story

Coming to DVD this week is an inventive, and unusual comedy from director Michael Winterbottom.

Tristram Shandy: A cock and bull story starts off as supposedly a film version of the The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentlemen by Laurence Sterne.

This book however has been notoriously referred to by film-makers and storytellers as being a novel which is unfilmable.... by any conventional standards.

After watching the first 30 minutes the audience realizes why.

The book is obviously a satire of procrastination, as the novel pretends to tell a life story of one Tristram Shandy, but in the storytelling, the events are always interrupted by sub-plots, and irreverent information which constantly distract the audience from what it thinks is the main story.

When actually the sub-plots and irreverent information is the main story of the novel.

Taking a cue from the source material, after 30 minutes into the film, director Michael Winterbottom takes a break from telling the novel's story, and then abruptly shifts the movie's focus into a mockumentary about the star of the movie.....real life actor Steve Coogan, and the behind the scenes "drama" of the cast and crew making the movie...... Tristram Shandy... directed by Michael Winterbottom.

Besides the inventive premise, and unusual storytelling. The movie features funny performances from comedic British Television personality Rob Brydon, and actor Steve Coogan.

They share a delightful, and hilarious chemistry that really carries the film.

The movie itself is witty, often times hilarious, energetic.... and very British.

Which is both a good and bad thing.

It's good in that the humor is very dry and intellectual, but the problem is, because it's sooo dry many audience members might feel that the movie is condescending, and pretentious. Especially if one doesn't have any knowledge of the actual novel.

Which is probably 98% of the audience.

But it's hard not to admire the satire, and wit of the film. Michael Winterbottom really nails the irony, humor and craziness of the film business. While Steve Coogan plays the difficult, and pretentious movie star to perfection. It's a brave performance considering he's playing himself so unflattering and petty. Especially for american audiences who probably aren't as familiar with his work. There's a possibility that a lot of people might actually feel that he's really like this character in the movie.

Which is part of the humor.

The movie is challenging and complex on many levels, yet is not afraid to resort to silly, off the wall hijinks, such as when Steve Coogan....the actor, tries to use sense memory to act out a scene which requires a hot chestnut in his pants, and crotch area. Or when he's forced to hang upside down, and inside a giant womb to replicate the birthing process for Tristram Shandy in the film.

It's a movie of many levels and really interesting considering the seemingly lack of originality in today's films. It's one of the reasons why the film has landed on a lot of critics best films list...So far this year.

I was also impressed by Michael Winterbottom's work.

Looking over his IMDB page I was surprised at how many of his movies I've watched, and what is even more impressive is how different they all are. This movie is light years from his most "Hollywood" movie the Claim or his dark mystery I Want You, not to mention the sexually explicit experimental concert film 9 songs. I'd say if one is looking for something in this movie which resembles his previous work, I'd say that the film shares the same frenetic energy of 24 hour party people.

But the movie is uniquely it's own. I'd say the movie is part Adaptation and what Roger Ebert compares the film to, part This is Spinal Tap.

But I'm not sure it's for everyone.

I think if one is in a stimulating mood, and are looking for something fun, different , and challenging, then this movie is for them.

But if they are looking for an Adam Sandler or Nacho Libre type kind of comedy.....then I'd say this movie is definitely not for them.

Overall, it's a fun and interesting film, and a movie I would heartily recommend, if only for the conversation it would spark immediately after.

Hot Clicks on SheNeedsIt.com!!!

     

The Matador

On the surface The Matador is the story of a hitman, and an unwilling accomplice.

But in reality the movie is about the nature of friendship, love, loyalty, and the lengths we go to protect, and honor our relationships.

With such a positive theme it's not surprising that although the film received very little publicity and support from the studio, it was able to generate good word of mouth, and even some Oscar buzz.

The film features an outstanding out- of-character performance from Pierce Brosnan who plays a hitman who suffers from guilt, panic attacks, and anxiety. It's an enjoyably comic performance that really showcases his talents. One minute he's a confident, inconsiderate, jerk, the next a crying, vulnerable, and scared wimp.

What really works for the film is the familiar comic situations the film evokes.

What's unique, and humorous is that Writer/Director Richard Shepard uses such extreme examples to illustrate those familiar situations.

When Pierce Brosnan's hitman character Julian Noble makes a late night visit to Greg Kinnear's nice- guy-next-door character Danny Wright, the audience recognizes the friend-in-need situation.

But what makes it comedic is that Julian Noble is a cold blooded killer, and the man he's asking for help is basically a stranger. Instead of ignoring him like any normal person, Danny is kind, sympathetic and feels obligated to help his fellow man.

As if they were life long friends.

In a way the film shares a kindred spirit with the excellent Kiss, Kiss, Bang Bang. Although not as witty, sharp ....or even as good, The Matador does parody buddy films....although not the same genre that Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang does.

The Matador is a parody of comedic films about loyalty and friendship.

It also shares a twisted sense of humor. Some of the conversations, and discussions that take place in the film are priceless. Again the audience relates to the characters because we recognize the situations, except in this film the cases are extreme. When Julian Noble asks Danny to help him assassinate a mark. Danny responds with the same reaction we'd give our neighbor if they asked us to help them paint their house.

The movie is not perfect however, although the movie is a brisk 97 minutes, the film drags in spots. It's also repetitive, and the so-called mystery in the film is not really that hard to figure out.

Where the movie excels is in it's performances. Besides the excellent Brosnan, Greg Kinnear really nails the good guy role. He has the innocence, and good natured charm that really offsets the rough Brosnan. Hope Davis also turns in a memorable, quirky, and grounded performance that really adds to the film.

Although far from fantastic, the movie is a solid, enjoyable, and unexpected comedy that will be sure to keep you smiling while occasionally laughing throughout.

Superman Returns

Arriving in theatres this week is one of......if not the biggest movies of the summer.

Warner Bros. is attempting to re-launch the Superman franchise, much in the same way that they successfully revived the Batman franchise with last year's excellent Batman Returns. Like Batman, the Superman franchise was effectively destroyed by two horrible movies. In re-launching the two franchises they tried to appeal to movie fans by using young, fresh, attractive actors in the lead, new and interesting special effects....to appeal to the younger crowd, and placed the franchise in the hands of successful, talented independent-film-minded directors who appeal to film geeks, and comic book fans.

But unlike Batman Begins which was a complete reboot of the Batman story, Superman Returns attempts to be a direct sequel to the first two Superman movies, while disregarding the unwatchable Superman 3 and Superman 4.

Tricky stuff, and Bryan Singer almost pulls it off.

Almost.

Superman Returns takes place 5 years after the events of the Superman 2 storyline. Superman a.k.a Clark Kent a.k.a. Kal-el has been away from Earth for 5 years after exploring the remains of the planet Krypton. Upon his return he finds that many things have changed. The world has become a more cynical, dangerous and darker place. Especially now, since his arch enemy Lex Luthor is a free man, and on a personal level, his one true love Lois Lane is now engaged to be married to a good hearted, attractive man. But perhaps most shocking of all to Superman is that Lois Lane is now a mother.

Obviously a lot has changed.

The movie plays out as an attempt to reboot the franchise, yet still pays homage to the first two films directed by Richard Donner and Richard Lester.

The results are mixed.

What's cool about the movie is that Bryan Singer REALLY tries to tie in the first two movies.

The famous John Williams score is in place. The production design harkens back to the first two films. Even the opening credits feature the eighties movie style logo and effects.

I was surprised how sentimental I felt seeing images, and references hearken back to the original films. It's obvious that Bryan Singer really loved those movies.

Which is also a big problem with the movie.

The movie just doesn't feel confident enough to stand on it's own merits. It constantly references back to the original films....to a fault. At some point the audience starts to want something different and unique. It starts to feel like Deja Vu.....the whole movie.

Especially concerning the character of Lex Luthor. For me I would have liked Bryan Singer to reinvent the character completely. What we get here is the same character that Gene Hackman played to enjoyment in the first two movies. A Lex Luthor who is comedic, and hardly a serious criminal mastermind. Not that Kevin Spacey is that bad mind you. But for me, if the character is going to be the same, why not bring back Gene Hackman? What's the point of bringing in Spacey if he's not going to re-invent the character. I assume there was some issues with Hackman's age. But there's even a line in the film where Superman refers to Lex as old man.

Also in terms of story and script, Lex Luthor's motives, and master plan is just ridiculous, stupid and illogical. Especially considering he's apparently come into plenty of money when the movie begins. I know that some of his appeal as a bad guy in the three movies is that he's insane, and a megalomaniac. But when this movie plays out as sensitive and heart felt, it's really jarring, and disappointing that they couldn't have come up with a better motive and incentive for Lex Luthor to cause havoc.

I really think we haven't seen Lex Luthor's menacing side in these movies.

To me, as written, he just comes off as an annoying punk who didn't get enough attention when he was growing up. I think Gene Hackman really nailed the role to comic effect, but honestly Spacey struggles to find the compromise between being enjoyably slimy and insane, and being a serious threat to Superman and humanity.

I almost think.....actually I KNOW that the movie doesn't even really need Lex Luthor. There are plenty of obstacles, and drama for Superman in this film which are a lot more interesting than any kind of global megalomaniac plan that Lex Luthor has.

I think when people say that the movie feels long, it's because of the scenes with Lex Luthor. He really doesn't contribute anything to the main story. He's just a device to create havoc.

I believe the movie would have been fine as it is without Superman having Lex Luthor to deal with. The world in the movie has plenty of catastrophes and drama for Superman to try and resolve.

Especially when it comes to his personal life, which is really what appeals to the audience. It's always been the staple of the Superman story to show how he tries to balance his Clark Kent persona with his true identity as Superman. If one throws in the love story, the triangle, general crime in the city and natural catastrophes....do we really need to see Superman deal with a silly Lex Luthor and his idiotic plan?

In terms of performances, Brandon Routh does a capable job of stepping into Christopher Reeve's shoes. He doesn't have a complete grasp of the Clark Kent character yet.... but hey I'm going to cut him some slack. These are big shoes he's stepping into. Christopher Reeve really nailed the role. And it's admirable that a newcomer like Routh is boldly stepping into those shoes. I'm thinking since this is the first of several Superman movies Routh will learn to make the character his own, and really contribute something interesting to the Superman myth.

Also stepping into difficult shoes is Kate Bosworth. Whom I've always found affable, and capable in the films I've seen her in. I think Margot Kidder really created a fun kind of free spirited dame, that really complimented Superman, not to mention Clark Kent.

Kate Bosworth takes a different approach to the role. She plays her more vulnerable, and down to earth, one can say that Lois is more sensible and mature now that she's a mother, which is ironic considering Kate Bosworth is only 23 in real life and probably significantly younger than Margot Kidder when she first played the role.

Her Lois is also heartbroken since Superman left her 5 years ago without a word. Which really adds an interesting dimension to the film. The stakes are higher now in the relationship, it's not just a giddy crush.

It's hard to say which is a better approach to the character. Certainly Margot Kidder's portrayal is more enjoyable, but it's hard not to appreciate the grounded work of Bosworth.

Interesting.

I think I'll just appreciate both performances, and not really compare and contrast the characterizations. Because they are so different. I'll just say that they are both interesting performances to a complex character.

James Marsden also does fine work here. As the fiance of Lois Lane his portrayal, and the script really make his character affable, and in his own way even heroic. I really appreaciated the care given to his character. I mean it really could have been easy to make him a jerk or prototype deadbeat boyfriend that the audience can root against. But this movie doesn't sink to those depths. As in life, matters of the heart are complicated in this world. Just because one is Superman, doesn't mean he's the perfect man to have as a partner.

In terms of special effects, and action the movie is pretty great. For me it's the best movie of the summer....so far. Pirates of the Caribbean comes out next week, I'm sure that will challenge Superman for that title.

But overall I really enjoyed myself with this film. I admit I was surprised about how sentimental I felt about the Superman films. Which makes me wonder how it plays for the younger crowd, who didn't see the first movies in the theatre. I'd say that overall, it's the second best movie of the franchise with Superman 2 being my favorite of the bunch.

Now....... there is an issue that I'd like to go into that delves into spoiler territory. So if one is reading this and do not want to read a spoiler please stop reading now...... I mean it.




Major Spoiler Alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!****************





In terms of the heritage of Lois Lane's Child, I don't think the twist connects well with the other movies. For one thing, Lois supposedly forgot everything that happened after Superman kisses her in the second movie. All the events of the second film, including the love match between Superman and Lois. I guess one can make the argument that the kiss only erased the memory that Clark Kent is Superman. But how does that make sense in terms of logic? How would she know who the father is, as well as how the baby was conceived? I would think that Superman's fake identity, and those events kind of go hand in hand, don't they?

I guess..... I could be...... overanalyzing a comic book movie....just a little bit. But I wonder why the writer's didn't do something....anything really to explain that hole in the story's logic. To me it's a pretty big hole, that could easily be explained with a short speech.

In any case, it's something for me that needed to be addressed, and I was disappointed that no effort was made to explain it.....hey....maybe on the DVD Singer will say something about it on the commentary track.





End of spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!************




So as a summer movie I really enjoyed myself here, I'm even planning to go watch the film on Imax- 3D sometime next week. I look forward to the future of Superman on the big screen. Although it's a far cry from the amazing work of Batman Begins, and despite the fact the movie has huge holes and problems, it's still significantly better than X-men 3, and Mission Impossible 3, and a movie I recommend for everyone to check out for some summer movie popcorn fun.

Nacho Libre

Nacho Libre is Jared Hess's follow up to his hugely successful Napoleon Dynamite.

Unfortunately.

I watched this movie several days ago, and I held off on writing my review so that I could properly absorb, and consider the film.

What was troubling to me was that so many people in the audience I was in, seemed to enjoy the movie.

I didn't.

It's confusing because I loved Napoleon Dynamite, I thought it was one of the most impressive comedic debuts by a film maker since Kevin Smith's Clerks. I like silly off the wall humor, it doesn't take much for me to laugh. Every time Anchorman is on cable I'll watch at least 30 minutes of it, and get a couple of good belly laughs and giggles.

I'll watch any Adam Sandler or Rob Schneider movie at least once.

My taste in comedies aren't limited to high brow and witty. I love toilet humor and fart jokes. I'm easy to please in that respect.

So I kept wondering why I didn't like this movie.

After days of careful thought and consideration I came to the realization that the movie was just......not funny.

It's also bad.

That simple.

Nacho Libre is the story of Nacho, a cook at a Mexican monastery, who dreams of becoming a famous Mexican wrestler. Also on his agenda is looking after the orphans at the monastary and trying to win the heart of the newly arrived....... nun. That's right....a nun. When an opportunity arises to realize all of his dreams, Nacho takes it, and hijinks ensues.

I guess.

Most of the jokes in the movie are just not humorous. I mean....they literally just fall flat.

Like a brick.

Not to mention that most of the humor in the film is racist, and mean spirited, while the characters are not likeable, and the writing is poor. The so-called comic situations in the film just aren't interesting or even slightly plausible...... even for silly comedy standards.....actually in any sense.

I don't know how much clearer I can state it.

If it wasn't for Jack Black's involvement in the movie, it would truly be a complete waste. The only thing that makes the movie watchable is witnessing Jack Black work his ass off trying to make something from absolutely nothing.

I'm not saying that the movie doesn't have a couple of laughs, it does. I laughed out loud several times. But none of the laughs are satisfying, or add up to anything significant. The movie plays out as a series of short skits with barely anything holding it together.

It's really hard to comprehend, since Napoleon Dynamite was so good. The script was tight, funny, economical, and the story really built upon each scene.

My only theory is that Jared Hess is just a victim of the sophomore slump.

Everything that went right with Napoleon Dynamite, just goes horribly wrong for Nacho Libre.

Take for example, a scene where Nacho rubs shit in the eye of his wrestling partner. With such a disgusting idea, one would suspect a truly hilarious pay off.

But what we get is nothing.

The reason why Nacho rubs shit in his partner's eyes is to temporarily blind him...so that.... um...because A.....so he A....so he.... could temporarily blind him.

Yeah...that's it.

The whole movie is like that.

Things are done, not to set up jokes or story....but just a desperate attempt to get a reaction.

Any reaction.

It's like a two year old who wants attention, and he blows his toy horn because he thinks it's funny.

Just because HE thinks it's funny doesn't mean it necessarily is.

Another troubling aspect of the film is that it seems to be directed by Wes Anderson.....without his consent.

Whereas Napoleon Dynamite seemed to be a slight tribute to Wes Anderson films, Nacho Libre straight rips off his style of movie.

From the use of slow motion, to the use of bright primary colors, and compositions, to art design, illustrations, and use of music. The movie screams Wes Anderson.

All the movie needed was Owen or Luke Wilson.

Who was Jared Hess trying to fool here?

Wes Anderson is a pretty famous film maker. How is it that Jared Hess would think he could pass off this style of film making as his own ?

Who knows. For all I know, they are good friends, and this was a conscious effort to resemble his work.

But if that's the case. It's really annoying, not to mention, not very original.

Just add this to the laundry list of problems this movie has.

I don't know what else to say. The movie is just a horrible mess.

Unfortunately.

The script, the humor, the performances. Nothing worked.

I won't go as far as to say this is the worst movie I've seen this year, (The Producers has that title, by leaps and bounds), But I will say that Nacho Libre is the most disappointing movie of the year for me.

By far.

Running Scared (2006)

Running Scared has such a frantic and panic filled pace, one wonders if the title refers to the characters in the film, or writer/director Wayne Kramer.

The movie is filled with so many camera tricks, special effects, action scenes, and interesting angles that one gets the sense that Kramer is hoping his directing abilities will stay two steps ahead of his mediocre script.

That's not a completely bad thing.

The film has an energy and enthusiasm that reminds Lons at Crushed by Inertia of Tony Scott's early work, most notably True Romance. While I won't go so far as to make that comparison, I will say that there is some interesting work in the film.

Paul Walker, in a surprising role, plays Joey Gazelle, a low level Mafia henchman, who gets in over his head, when a series of events, notably concerning a missing gun, spirals out of his control, and forces not only him, but his entire family, to take things into their own hands in order to survive the night.

Paul Walker, although obviously mis-cast, does his most impressive work to date. Chazz Palminteri is back finally doing respectable tough guy work. Johnny Messner continues to give audiences a glimpse of what it's like being the next big thing, and newcomer Vera Farmiga turns in a solid job as Walker's wife.

But the real star here is Wayne Kramer who does interesting, and eye opening work.

He uses the opportunity here to display all his technical skills and abilities. In a sense, the movie almost feels like it was made just so that it can be a calling card for Kramer to display in the future. To demonstrate his capabilities for higher profile work, and to showcase his visual skill and creativity.

Sort of like what El Mariachi did for Robert Rodriguez.

Although Kramer has a lot more resources, and money at his disposal.

A hell-of-a lot more.

But the film has that same desperate, and hungry sensibility of a student filmmaker who is given a chance, and will do anything and everything not to waste the opportunity.

It's clear that he tries to pull out all the stops, he mixes different genres, creates tension, sprinkles in some drama and laughs, and orchestrates action scenes with skill, and precision. All while working, with a cast of character actors and relative unknowns, with the exception of Paul Walker of course.

Which inevitably, and unfairly brought about comparisons to Quentin T's work by critics.

Although, I halfway expected to see super-titles during the film like in Q.T.'s work, the movie isn't so much a rip off, as it is playing in the same genre or vicinity of Q.T.'s work.

My chief complaint about the film may just be a personal preference.

Most of the script's technique for creating tension, and suspense is based on horror movie cliches. Specifically, the dependence of supporting characters making stupid, and illogical choices to frustratingly propel, and prolong the protagonist fear, while at the same time pushing the plot forward.

It's something that I HATE in horror movies, despise actually, and usually has me reaching for the fast forward, or worse, the eject button on the remote control. (Which I confess, I almost did throughout the course of the film.)

While one can argue that the supporting characters aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. It still doesn't make it any more enjoyable, personally, for me to watch.

There is, however, a interesting subplot in the film concerning a creepy couple, and Walker's wife that really hits all the right notes, and is a welcome diversion, to the frustrating main storyline of Walker tracking down a missing gun.

I'm not sure if it was the characters, the directing style, or just obligation to see the movie through, but there was something about the film that kept me entertained.

Which is a tiny victory for the film.

To be honest, the final act of the film is really silly, and to tell the truth just plain illogical. But, if one is able to hang in there, by the time the audience gets there, it's pretty clear this story isn't taking itself too seriously, and is just meant to be taken in as a late-night dvd popcorn film.

So although, I won't go as far as recommending the dvd, if one is looking for some mindless fun, with interesting visual stimulus, and some cheap thrills, then look no further than Running Scared.

Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang

Arriving on DVD is one of the best movies of 2005.

Unfortunately not many people....including myself.... were able to watch it due to poor studio support, and lousy publicity.

We all missed out....big time.

This is a comic film noir that will undoubtedly become a dvd must have, if not a cult hit for years to come.

I can see the movie generating the same kind of success on DVD as another comic noir film, the Coen Bros movie The Big Lebowski.

Simply put it's one of the funniest, most intriguing, and refreshing films in years.

Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang was written by Shane Black. Who is credited with ushering in the era of "Buddy Cop" movies, which were so popular in the late 80's and early 90's. The screenwriter of all the Lethal Weapon movies, he is also remembered for his ability to get impressive salaries for his screenplays, The Last Boyscout, and The Long Kiss Goodnight.

What's great about this movie is it's ability to parody, yet at the same time celebrate the film noir style, and the city of Los Angeles....more specifically Hollywood, and the movie business.

The Screenplay is razor sharp, quick witted, and brutally honest. There's tons of references, tributes, and jokes at the expense of the city and the genre.

At times it's dizzying because the audience doesn't know half the time whether they should laugh hysterically, or feel empathy for the characters.

Exactly how Shane Black wants it.

The movie even pokes fun at Shane Black himself, well at least the genre of movie that he's famous for writing.

The movie features some over the top action, thrilling sequences, witty banter, clever writing, and suspensful mystery, while at the same time not taking itself too seriously.

It's a wonderful line that he balances the story on. It's one of the aspects of the movie that makes the film so unique and fascinating to take in.

Just when the audience feels comfortable, or confident that they know these characters, and where they are taking us, Shane Black pulls the rug from under the audience, and takes us completely in a different direction.

The film obviously benefits from the affable, and entertaining chemistry between Robert Downey Jr, Val Kilmer, and newcomer Michelle Monaghan. It's obvious that they all share the same quick wit and sensibility. One gets the sense that they probably all had as much fun off screen, as well as on, while making the film.

It's especially satisfying because so often we see Robert Downey and Val Kilmer in movies that don't showcase their comic timing strengths. This movie feels tailor made for them.

I'm not going to spoil the movie, by giving a synopsis for the film. To be honest, it would probably not sound half as interesting, or complex and multi-layered as it really is. Which might explain why the movie wasn't marketed well by the studio.

It's too smart for a three sentence synopsis.

All I will say is that one should run, not walk to the local DVD store....hopefully Laser Blazer.... and pick up the film.

And if one is looking to save themselves some money, I suggest buying the film.

Because if one rents it, they'll just end up wanting to buy it.

I've watched it twice, and I'm on my way to a third. It stands up great to repeat viewing. I think I laughed harder the second time watching the film. I'm giggling just thinking about it.

It's that good.

Mission Impossible 3

My buddy J.B. and I decided to take in this movie after hearing from several sources that this movie was better than both X-men 3, and The Da Vinci Code.
I know...not exactly a high standard.

But hey…. we’re suckers for the Summer Blockbuster film.

Our tastes usually tend to lean towards award season movies, but we like a theatre full of popcorn chomping, audience members applauding in childish delight at explosions, like everybody else.

Mission Impossible 3 is the prototype Summer Blockbuster.

Tons of action, explosions, glamorous locales, physically attractive characters, sweat, blood and a loud soundtrack.
This movie delivers on all those criteria.

It even has a little.... heart…..just a little. Very little.
It’s a little unfortunate that the box office take is being seen as a disappointment. I’m guessing that Tom Cruise’s negative press is having a big affect on his box office popularity.The truth people are missing out, this is the best movie of the trilogy.Not like that’s anything impressive however.The first two movies were uneven to say the least.

This film is the first of the three to really draw on the format of the source material.
Unlike the previous Mission Impossible films, this movie features an actual team of IMF members.
A skilled, affable, enjoyable, team at that.

The first film had an IMF team.....for about 10 minutes, till they are all killed, and it becomes a Tom Cruise star vehicle.

The second movie, on the other hand, was an unabashed one man Rambo-like adventure.
I think director J.J. Abrams wanted to bring the excitement of the original show to the movie franchise.
He obviously realized that, what was great about the show was seeing this elite team working together to accomplish the seemingly impossible, against all odds.
The team consists of the reliable and loyal computer expert Luther (Ving Rhames), Vehicle specialist Declan (Match Point’s Jonathan Rhys Meyers), and skilled team member Zhen Lei (Maggie Q). What they are up against is the formidable weapons dealer Owen Davian, (played by the always impressive Phillip Seymour Hoffman.)

The movie also features strong supporting performances by Billy Crudup, and a surprising Keri Russell (T.V.’s Felicity).

The action revolves around obtaining “the Rabbit’s foot”. A mysterious chemical weapon capable of creating an apocalypse like plague.

J.J. Abrams does a good job of keeping everything exciting, and fast moving. The movie also has a nice sense of being a spy mystery, unlike the other films. There’s lots of intrigue, plot twists, and plenty of gadgets to keep even the most cynical entertained.

Unfortunately the movie isn’t perfect. There are things that will require a suspension of disbelief. Lots of the action sequences are just too fantastical, even for a summer blockbuster movie.

There’s also a major plot line concerning Tom Cruise’s love interest, who is played by the capable Michelle Monaghan, that just doesn’t ring true.

Lots of the movies action takes place with the use of her character as a bargaining chip.

Instead of being a fully fleshed out character, she is simply a plot device. The angel in distress.

It’s also unbelievable, at least to me, that a character like Ethan Hunt would ever commit to someone so deeply.

Given his occupation, and it’s obvious hazards, why would he selfishly involve a normal civilian in his lifestyle.

What is this True Lies?

Even the writers have trouble getting their minds around that fact, as other characters often reference how unrealistic it is to be committed….much less married, considering their lifestyle.
I also had an issue with how the movie was filmed.

For some reason, and I’m not sure who to blame here, the Director, or the Cinematographer. But everything just seemed……too close.

The action is all shot close up, the characters talk to each other close up. Explosions happen close up.
The scope of the film just feels too close.
Lots of times the movie is framed in a way that the characters looked crowded by the art design.
Throughout the film, I just wanted to yell........ back the f*ck up!!!
I was sitting in the back row.....seriously.
Why the hell was the camera so damn close to the action and characters?

There was no sense of perspective in the film.

What the hell J.J? Never seen a David Lean film?

I guess one can argue that he was trying to create a claustrophobic feel to the film, but there’s nothing, absolutly nothing, to support that argument.

I’m thinking…..maybe he’s directed too much television? Maybe he's used to framing things on a small screen.

I guess it’s not anything that can’t be learned, or picked up with experience. I’m going to go ahead and cut him some slack, it’s his first big action film.

It’s just unfortunate because a lot of the action is executed really well….I just wish I could have seen more of it.

But in the end, one can do a lot worse, than watching this movie.
As far as summer blockbusters..... this is exactly what the doctor ordered.
Good and bad.

The Pink Panther (2006)

It's turning into Joe Bob Briggs Drive-In-Theatre around here.

I guess I haven't been in the mood to watch anything demanding, or inspiring lately.

It's not by design that I've been watching crappy movies lately. I have Capote, Squid and the Whale, and Good Night and Good Luck, sitting on my shelves, waiting to be watched for the first time by me, and for some strange reason I'm throwing on stuff like this.

It's just that lately, I've been wanting to just sit in front of my big screen and just......exist.

I just haven't been in the mood to think.

I'm guessing it's because I've been tired from acting in a theatrical production the last month. I've just felt so lazy. But our show closed last week. So I'm guessing I'll start to watch more demanding material, as my energy and strength returns.

In the meantime.....I must pay for my laziness.

First off....wow.

How does one review a movie like this?

It's not that I can honestly critique the story, acting or directing in the movie.

I honestly think nobody really cared.

It's just not that type of movie.

I mean it's rated PG.....I can't remember when the last time I watched a PG movie....on purpose.
It's been a long time, I almost forgot what the initials PG stands for. If I remember correctly this movie is aimed at amusing small children, babies..... and small puppy dogs. Dogs that like loud crashes, and colorful pictures.

Isn't that what PG means? Puppy Guidance?

In any case, this movie is exactly what one suspects from seeing the preview.

Just silly kiddy puppy humor.

Lots of prat falls and one liners that 5 year olds can understand.

To be honest it's not like the original material is sophisticated stuff either. I recently watched some of the movies, and it's not as good as I remember....at all.

I think Shot in the Dark is the best of the bunch, and even that isn't half as good as Peter Sellers and Blake Edwards other movie The Party.

So I wonder why they even bother to make this movie.

The only thing I can think of is that they were hoping to start another series of movies with this franchise.

To try and make some serious cash.

They obviously failed.

First off, the major problem with the film is the casting of Steve Martin. Although Martin can be amusing...... sometimes....I guess. This material is simply not his style of humor anymore. It's been a long time since The Jerk, and the truth is nobody wants to see him do this type of humor anymore.

They want Cheaper by the Dozen Steve Martin.

Chasing kids and changing diapers.

Another problem is....everything else.

This movie has a uninspired script, actors who are obviously around just to pick up a paycheck, and a director in Shawn Levy who's strength is directing movies for kids....or puppy dogs.

I feel guilty for criticizing the movie.

The truth is, I should have never watched this movie.

Actually, this is all my fault. Not the filmmakers fault. This movie isn't made for me.

Who am I kidding, thinking that this movie would have any chance at amusing me in the slightest.

I must pay for my laziness, so I don't deserve the right to criticize this movie.

I will say that Beyonce Knowles and Emily Mortimer are nice eye candy in the movie. They are affable and charming, and obviously more deserving of better material.

Jean Reno....man.... what is he doing in this movie?

The star of Ronin and The Professional?

Seriously?

I guess everytime a movie needs a French actor they call him up. Which is why he's in The Da Vinci code too.

He's a great actor too. I like him in a lot of tough guy movies. I think he's funny too, in movies like The Visitors, and For Roseanna.

I'm hoping that Hollywood finds a way to utilize his talents more effectively, or else I'm sure he'll just give up, and stick to doing just French language films. I know he's not artistically challenged by any of the Hollywood movies they are casting him in.

I think the best thing about the movie is Kevin Kline.

But that's not saying much, he has a small part.

Kevin Kline is another actor who can't seem to find the right role in Hollywood lately. He's extremely talented, and they have him as a comic foil? Why? I don't know.

I'm not really going to go into the story, it would be insulting to do so. I'll just say that it's sort of a comic mystery. That's not too hard to figure out, unless one is a puppy dog....a retartded one at that.

In any case, as the rating says, this movie should only be watched by small children....and puppy dogs.

Like it was designed for.