Don't You Forget About Me **** (rave)

When I first started this blog 6 months ago, I made a list of possible topics I would maybe one day like to write about. Included in this list was " John Hughes films ." So when my friend told me she saw a great documentary on Rogers on Demand about a group of filmmakers from Toronto who drive to Chicago in 2008 (in the hopes of interviewing the elusive John Hughes), I couldn't have been happier to punch in my secret Rogers code and watch the movie on my big screen T.V. As soon as Simple Minds began singing, a smile spread across my face, and it stayed there for the hour and a half duration of the film. I loved this movie!

Yes, part of the reason is simply because I got to see many clips from all of my favourite teenage films from the 80s. Movies like The Breakfast Club (that made me want to kiss a "bad boy" because really underneath it all he's just misunderstood), Pretty in Pink (that taught me being different is okay but red-heads really shouldn't wear pink) and Some Kind of Wonderful (that showed me that tomboys can be desirable -which sparked in me a mad crush on Eric Stoltz that has been going strong for over 20 years now). All of these life lessons topped with a great day of playing hookie with a guy named Ferris. What more could a teenage girl ask for?

After watching Don't You Forget About Me, I realised that I was not the only one who cherished John Hughes movies. I assumed the other
(a-hem) 40-somethings would share some fond memories, but when I saw present-day teenagers being interviewed and expressing their connection to Hughes' beloved characters, I was surprised. And I couldn't have been happier.

This documentary is a testament to how Hughes' films have stood the test of time. Even with all the technological advances we've made in the last 25 years- and the effect that that has had on how teenagers today are socialized and communicate with one another- it seems that teenage angst really hasn't changed that much since I wore tight jeans with pumps and plastic turquoise earrings. (Just as I found someone in a Hughes film that I could identify with, and thereby help me with my angst, it seems his movies still have the power to do that today). One teenager interviewed in the documentary explained how Hollywood movies today really don't relate to real teens and real teens' issues. "I have never had sex with a pie" he states "But I have skipped school on occasion".

The disconnection between teens and teen movies nowadays is explored further throughout the documentary through interviews with various film critics (including Roger Ebert) and present-day filmmakers (including Kevin Smith). And their insights made a lot of sense to me. Because I don't watch a lot of teenage movies anymore, I wasn't aware of how much the formula had changed. But as one film producer explains, a movie like The Breakfast Club would never get made today. A script with age appropriate actors sitting in a room and talking for two hours would be deemed slow and boring. It wouldn't matter if the script was good. It wouldn't matter if the young actors were talented. It wouldn't matter if the subject matter was relateable to the audience. Teenagers talking in a room just doesn't pique anyone's interest anymore- or so the movie makers (or should I say money makers?) in the industry believe nowadays.

However, as the filmmakers of Don't You Forget About Me are on their road trip driving to Illinois (taking the occasional pit stop to explain how their 2 and 1/2 year journey has brought them to John Hughes' door) they continue to discount the theory that teens today don't want another Hughes' film. Sure the clothes and the great 80s soundtracks of John Hughes movies might be out-dated now (although those 80s styles do keep coming back - whether or not we want them to), the stories and the characters are still considered genuine. And when you think about it, this does make sense - What geeky guy doesn't want to get the girl? What popular girl doesn't feel social pressure? What kid from a 'not so perfect home life' doesn't want to lash out from time to time? And who wouldn't want to have one perfect day away from it all? ( I know I still do!). This documentary explores all of this.

I won't tell you how Don't You Forget About Me ends (whether or not they get the John Hughes interview) because I want you to punch in your secret Rogers code (or find the DVD somewhere) and watch the movie in the comfort of your own home. I will say though, that after seeing the movie it made me sad all over again about John Hughes' death, and it made me want to revisit ALL of his movies. Of course, I will start with my personal favourite (which, if you haven't guessed by now, is The Breakfast Club). I know we all have our personal favs and when people ask me why I pick this particular Brat Pack film I have to say that part of the reason is I distinctly remember where I was when I saw this movie for the very first time... It was 1985 and I was sixteen years old. I went with some friends from school. And I got all dolled up and gelled the sides of my hair back. When we got to the movie theater it was packed and we had to sit in the very front row with our heads looking up to the screen and our feet resting on the stage. When the movie ended and the lights went up I cheered like everyone else and I thought it was the coolest movie I'd ever seen.

25 years later... it's still on my top 20 list. Needless to say I've seen a lot of movies in the last 25 years (and I've got the movie blog to prove it!) But I guess what has stayed true to me, in all of this time, is I still believe that in each of us you can find a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess and a criminal. It is one of the many things John Hughes' movies has taught me. It is without a doubt the film I related to the most as a teenager. To quote (the then skinny) Anthony Michael Hall ..."Does that answer your question?"

John Hughes, you will be missed! SVFRRIS!

2012 *** (rave)

If you like disaster movies you will like this film. It has everything you'd expect from 'an end of the world' thriller - great visual effects and a weak story line - some familiar faces and a bunch of unknowns who have about 5 seconds to live - some crazy scientific explanation for the cause of all the destruction, and really exciting scenes of tidal waves rising up and crashing down on everything. 2012 delivers no more than what you'd expect, but it is a visual roller coaster ride that should be seen on the big screen and enjoyed like a fun day at a theme park.

This movie was directed by Roland Emmerich, an expert in the disaster movie genre who also brought us Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. John Cusak and Amanda Peet are reunited again (both starred in Identity) as the stars of the film who play one of the family groups trying to survive 'the end of the world as we know it'. Oliver Platt (my personal favourite from Lake Placid) plays the selfish/bad-guy politician. And Danny Glover (who 20 years ago claimed he was "getting too old for this sh**t) really had to deal with it as the President of the United States. The film has many co-stars of all nationalities and varied life expectancies. Some play scientists, some live on a mountain top, some are entertainers on a cruise ship and some have paid a lot of money to try and ensure their survival. Not everyone endures the same fate, but when you know the world is coming to an end and fire balls are exploding all over the place, the odds for most aren't good.

The general plot of 2012 goes something like this... the Mayan people's prediction of the end of the world has come true. Scientists have found the something something earth's crust displacement theory something is happening, and happening much sooner than originally expected. Only a selected few of the world's population have been informed of humankind's impending doom and they have spent a whole lot of money to board a vessel when the time comes that will hopefully ensure their safety.

John Cusak's character, Jackson Curtis is separated from his wife and 2 kids but when he hears of the end of the world predictions from a conspiracy theorist hippie played by Woody Harrelson, Curtis immediately goes to collect his family and then they journey to find these rescue vessels. Meanwhile, the chief science advisor played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, is struggling to keep the White House informed and prepared while still maintaining a sense of decency and humanitarianism.

What I enjoyed most about this film was the fun and excitement of Jackson Curtis' family flying through all the disaster scenes. I was also pleased with all the special effects, and was happy that 2012 did not contain the really bad CGI created dogs that The Day After Tomorrow had to offer.

What I least liked about this film was the length. It felt too long in the end. Apparently, it wasn't enough that the world was ending and crumbling down before everyone, there also had to be multiple problems with a door on a rescue vessel. Personally, I thought the earthquakes, fireballs and tidal waves were more exciting obstacles and the rest just dragged the movie out unnecessarily.

Overall though, I did enjoy watching 2012. It was like a fun ride at a theme park. And, as long as you know what to expect, I would recommend that others buy a ticket.

Three Must-See Documentaries

With Halloween fast approaching, I thought I would review a spooky movie this week. Although I saw Zombieland (and found it entertaining) and re-watched a couple of horror classics, I wasn't inspired to write about any of them. Instead, I realized that the scariest thing I've come across over the years (through my love of documentary films) is the American judicial system. So I decided to rummage through my movie collection and recommend my three favourite crime-themed documentaries that should definitely succeed in scaring you sh**less.

Each film, in my opinion, does an excellent job at illustrating all the injustices that can occur due to shoddy police investigations, questionable eye-witness testimony, fear tactics and emotional juries. Although I highly recommend you watch these films (because they are all important and extremely well made), I don't recommend watching them with the lights off. These things really did happen to both the victims and the accused -which in itself, makes these stories all the more terrifying.

Two of these films show graphic crime scene photos. One of the films deals with the murder of three eight year old boys. But if you can brace yourself for some upsetting images, I hope you will watch these films and find them as fascinating and enlightening as I did.

THE THIN BLUE LINE (1988) *****

This documentary film directed by Errol Morris relays the details of how Randall Adams found himself convicted of the murder of a police officer in Dallas County in 1976. Adams, who was a drifter was picked up by a teenage runaway (David Harris) one night while walking towards a gas station. Their night together ended with a police officer being shot and killed on the side of the road. The events of that evening are described in detail through Adams' recollections, interviews with David Harris, the police, the lawyers involved in the case and the three eye-witnesses who testified against Adams.

Morris' style of this film incorporates re-enactments of the events of that night giving the film a very unique look into various possibilities of what may have happened. Adams, who was 28 years old at the time always insisted on his innocence. While Harris, a 16 year old juvenile delinquent convinced the police of Adams' guilt and became the County's star witness. This documentary was ground-breaking both in its narrative techniques and the effect this film had on Randall Adams' fate.

MURDER ON A SUNDAY MORNING (2001) *****

This film won an Academy Award for Best Documentary in 2001. The director, Jean-Xavier de Lestrade films the trial of Brenton Butler. Brenton, a 15 year old black male is accused of murdering Mary Ann Stephens, a white tourist visiting Jacksonville, Florida. She and her husband were robbed at gunpoint at their motel and when the robbery went bad, Mrs. Stephens was shot and killed. Although Mr. Stephens witnessed the murder (and identified Butler as the assailant) and Brenton signed a confession, his lawyers Pat McGuinness and Ann Finnell are convinced of his innocence.

This movie follows the court room drama as it unfolds, and interviews McGuinness extensively. Both lawyers, though public defenders, are passionate and determined to prove that Butler had nothing to do with this crime. Instead, they insist he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time when picked up by the police. As McGuinness gets closer to the truth through his own investigations and cross-examination skills, you will be left stunned by the revelations he uncovers one by one. If I were ever in need of a criminal trial lawyer in Jacksonville Florida, this guy would be first on my list!

* If you pick this movie up, make sure to watch the special features as well. The additional interviews are just as interesting as the ones that made it into the film. Interviews with some of the jury members are also included so you can find out what they thought about what they heard in court and why they delivered the verdict that they did.

PARADISE LOST : THE CHILD MURDERS AT ROBIN HOOD HILLS(1996) *****

This HBO film follows the trials of 18 year old Damien Echols, 16 year old Jason Baldwin and 17 year old Jessie Misskelley Jr. for the murder of three 8 year old boys who were found naked and hog-tied in the woods in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993.

The State is convinced that the murder of the young boys was part of a Satanic ritual killing. The three victims were found beaten and sexually mutilated. The three accused teenagers were viewed as outsiders by their Baptist community- They wore black, listened to heavy-metal music and possessed books about the Wicca religion. They were picked up by the police one month after the murders occurred.

The film begins with the trial of Jessie Misskelley. Because the 17 year old (who has an IQ of 72) signed a confession to the murders, he is tried separately from the other two suspects. The film follows both trials and interviews both the victims' families and the families of the accused.

This film is fraught with grief, fear, out-rage, disbelieve and multiple theories of the events of the crime when there is little to no physical evidence at the scene of the murders.

The graphic nature of the three young victims' demise is extremely disturbing. The outcomes of the trials are astonishing.

Away We Go ***1/2 (rave)

This is a great quirky feel-good movie to rent! Sam Mendes (who directed American Beauty) did a wonderful job with this comedy. I didn't make it to the theater to see this one but while I was combating a cold and lying on my couch, it definitely perked up my spirits when I watched it a couple of days ago.

The movie stars Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski. Their characters Verona and Burt are living in Colorado and expecting a baby. When they find out that Burt's parents are moving away from Colorado before the baby is born, the two decide that it's time for them to move and figure out where they would like to make a home for themselves and their unborn child. They decide to visit other family and friends to see what kind of homes and families they have built for themselves. And as they reconnect with some people from their past, their travels take them to Arizona, Wisconsin. Montreal and Miami. With each visit Verona and Burt witness the parenting/relationship skills each of their friends possess and/or lack. And with each revelation of seeing what their friends are doing wrong, they hope to discover what will truly be right for them.

The supporting cast in this movie is awesome. Catherine O'Hara and Jeff Daniels who play Burt's parents set the tone as the first eccentric pair we meet before Burt and Verona set out for their travels. And the eccentricity doesn't stop with them. Allison Janney plays Verona's ex-boss who can't get enough to drink and can't stop talking about all the things that are wrong with her kids. Maggie Gyllenhaal steals every scene she's in as a pretentious hippie who abhors the use of strollers ("I loooove my babies! Why would I want to push them away from me?") and Melanie Lynskey's character does an impromptu dance to express her sadness that is slow, quiet and poignant.

But it's the strength of the relationship of the main characters that makes this movie work so well. Burt and Verona are a couple of odd-balls in their own right. Burt uses a fake persona when dealing with people at work and Verona paints images of people's brains. But as you watch them together and intermingling with others, there is no doubt that it's the two of them against the world and you can't help but root for them as they try to find their place in it. Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida who wrote the screenplay, incorporated hilarious and intimate scenes for Krasinski and Rudolph in the film that really allowed the audience to appreciate their character's connection and love for one another. Nothing about this movie was sappy. Instead it was lighthearted and genuine.

Like I said, I watched this movie a couple of days ago but I can't stop thinking about it. The characters have stayed with me and I find myself giggling to myself as I replay certain scenes over in my mind. Now I know I have a head cold but I really do believe it's the movie and not the cold medication that's keeping me happy. And I can definitely state you don't have to be sick to enjoy it (maybe just a little mental).

If you liked Garden State, you'll like this movie. If you like to laugh, and possess a kind of off-the-wall sense of humour you'll like this movie. If you like original scripts with quirky characters you'll like this movie. And if you need a great soundtrack playing in the background to really enjoy a film. Well let me assure you, you too will like this movie.

Surrogates **1/2 (rant)

Surrogates, the latest Bruce Willis film, was not what I had hoped it would be. (And I didn't have the highest of hopes in the first place). But what surprised me about this sci-fi /thriller directed by Jonathan Mostow is it fell short in a way I wasn't expecting...

This film is of course set in the future. And in this particular future the majority of citizens in the world have opted to have robots live their lives for them. Average citizens, from the comfort of their own home, plug into a neural contraption that allows them to control the 'better looking' robot versions of themselves out in the real world. Everything seems safe and perfect until the murder of one of these surrogates actually causes the death of the human puppeteer. Willis, playing Special Agent Greer and partner Peters, (played by Radha Mitchell) desperately try to solve this homicide case before any other human life is at risk (Even though every human now lies around at home in their bathrobe looking like complete crap -for the preservation of humankind, I'm assuming- it's still important to the FBI to save them).

Being a fan of Bruce Willis I wanted to see this film on the big screen because I hoped that even if the story line was weak I would enjoy Willis' performance. And I expected to be entertained and impressed by some of the special effects. Turns out the opposite was true. Although Willis didn't let me down (except for the really bad toupee), the story line did entail some interesting concepts and it kept the twists and turns of the 'whodunnit' investigation suspenseful. But surprisingly it was the special effects of the movie that really disappointed me. Certain scenes had great potential but everything looked fake and none of the action scenes had a 'wow' factor that CGI technology is more than capable of producing nowadays.

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't find the script to be particularly great or original. Actually, the premise reminded me of I Robot, starring Will Smith (robots made to improve human's quality of life but then suddenly turn dangerous). This association was clinched for me when I saw James Cromwell from I Robot once again playing the mastermind behind the future technology. (It seems Cromwell has been type-casted as a really smart futuristic guy). But the Surrogates script did have some uniqueness to it. While the FBI investigates who would prosper from either the robot technology or the demise of it, the movie shows the possible effects advanced technology could have on the military, powerful corporations and rebellious citizens. And it did a good job at showing how scary some of these effects could be.

Overall, I didn't hate this movie but I still can't decide if it's worth seeing on the big screen. One thing I can say for certain however, is Bruce Willis' latest movie is no "Yippee Kaye Mother F******"

The Time Traveler's Wife * (rant)

I really don't know why this movie was made. And I really can't believe it's still playing in the theaters. The Time Traveler's Wife, which is based on Audrey Niffenegger's best-seller, did not succeed as a romance film nor did it succeed as a sci/fi film. Maybe if it hadn't tried to be both, it would've succeeded at one...Maybe.

The story revolves around Clare (played by Rachel McAdams) and Henry (played by Eric Bana). Henry is a time traveler (due to some kind of genetic anomaly) and Clare, who first met Henry when she was a child, falls in love with him despite his condition and eventually marries him. The movie spans over many years of their lives together and as the plot unfolds we, the audience, are shown clips of the past (in the hopes I'm assuming that we'll piece together why the two fell in love in the first place) and are shown the struggles the two face in their present life together. -Struggles which include: will Henry be present for the marriage ceremony? (seeing as he has no control over when he leaves or where he evaporates to). Will he be around for Christmas this year? How does Clare cope with waiting for his return? And whether or not the two of them can produce a 'time travelling love-child'.

This movie was so wrong on so many levels. First, I still don't know why Clare fell in love with a man who's never around when she didn't strike me as the 'independent woman' sort. Aside from getting to see Eric Bana naked a lot (he always loses his clothes when he travels) he was a very serious and somber man. Clare is in love with him the first time we meet her and it seems only she knows why. Granted, I guess time travel can be a very serious business. But it's a business the movie never explains. There's a geneticist (played by Stephen Tobolowsky ) who apparently is there to help Henry and find out some answers. But after the doctor conducts one test, we never find out any real results nor is it ever discussed again. Instead, we watch as various Henrys from various times pop in and out of Clare's life. She never seems to know when he'll leave or appear again and yet she still manages to have clothes waiting for him in various locations. Lucky for him, I guess.

The love story wasn't convincing and the time travel parts weren't nearly as confusing as they should be. Not once did the film address whether or not Henry affects the present by revisiting the past. We are told that even though he can revisit certain places time and time again (I can't help the pun) he can't change the course of bad events that have happened. Apparently, he's unable to get there just in the 'nick of time'. Even Jean Claude Van-Dame's movie Time Cop addressed the possible confusing affects of time travel. The fact that this one just decided to ignore it was more than disappointing. (The fact that I've had to mention a Jean Claude Van-Dame movie as a means of comparison of something that is better is embarrassing).

I have not read Audrey Niffenegger's book but after seeing the movie version, I can only hope that many more questions are answered. For instance; how did time traveling affect Henry's childhood? Why is he always getting shot at or beat up when he travels? What does Clare really do for a living? Do Henry and Clare have any real friends? And I sincerely hope one important question is answered ...when Clare claims she had no free-will in deciding whether or not to spend her life with Henry, what the heck is she talking about?

Inglourious Basterds **1/2 (rant)

Although I'm a fan of Quentin Tarantino's, I'm sad to say I did not enjoy this film. With a running time of over two hours, the film felt long and dragged out to me. This movie is no where near as entertaining as Tarantino's previous work. And although there were a couple of exceptional scenes, I was left missing the extraordinary screenwriting skills I associate with his other movies.

Inglourious Basterds takes place in German-occupied France in the early 1940's. The film follows two stories: The escape of a Jewish woman Shosanna Dreyfus (played by Melanie Laurent) from the hands of a Nazi Colonel, Hans Landa (played by Christoph Waltz) and her eventual plans of retribution. And the Jewish-American soldiers, called "The Basterds" who hunt down and kill any Nazi they find (with the goal of scalping one hundred Nazis each). The Basterds are led by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (played by Brad Pitt) and once enlisted in "Operation Keno", their mission of destruction eventually coincides with Shosanna's.

This movie started out strong. The opening scene which introduces the Nazi Colonel was tense and I was transfixed by the dialogue. I don't believe any other present-day screenwriter can write dialogue as well as Quentin Tarantino. (The fact that he could make a movie about a diamond store robbery that you never see so absolutely riveting still blows me away. If you haven't seen Reservoir Dogs, you don't know what you're missing!) But in this film, once he introduced "The Basterds" I was disinterested in the story. Brad Pitt, as the only real "star" in the film, stuck out like a sore thumb to me. And I couldn't decide if I just didn't like his silly Tennessee character or if it was the way he was playing him that I found silly. I didn't care about any of "The Basterds" and I found it difficult to view them as "the good guys". - Which is strange considering they were a huge part in the plan to take down Hitler. I'm not sure if I was suppose to cheer when one of them beat a Nazi to death with a baseball bat, but I didn't. And I found the drawn out lead up to that scene - the clanging noise of the bat hitting the inside of a tunnel- not at all suspenseful. (I guess the close-up of Pitt making yet another stupid facial expression didn't help).

I did enjoy the story that revolved about Shosanna's plight, however. Laurent's acting was solid. And Waltz, as the maniacal "Jew hunter", kept me in a constant state of unease. Although there's a great scene in a basement club in the film, there were too many other elements of the movie that I didn't enjoy for this one scene to redeem the whole film for me.

After seeing Inglourious Basterds, I'm inspired to watch Pulp Fiction again. I haven't seen it in years and I still consider this to be Tarantino's best film to date. Although I can't rave about Inglourious Basterds, I am still a fan of Quentin Tarantino's and I will always look forward to seeing what he does next. I just hope Brad Pitt's not in it.

Anvil! The Story of Anvil ****1/2 (rave)

I don't like heavy metal music, but I'm a big fan of documentaries. And when this film was recommended to me last week, I decided to give it a go. I loved loved loved it!! The only reason why I can't give it 5 stars is because I don't like heavy metal music and I had to listen to some while watching the movie. (not the movie's fault; I know, but still..)

This great documentary, directed by Sacha Gervasi (who was at one time a roadie for the band), follows the original Canadian band members Steve "Lips" Kudlow and Robb Reiner as they embark on a European tour in the hopes that finally -THIS time -they will find fame and fortune in the music world. After 30 years together and sharing this dream since they were fourteen, the lead singer/guitarist, and drummer of the group Anvil wonder if this tour will be the one!

As the film follows the band (being led by a rather inept manager, Tiziana), Gervasi tries to find out why the band didn't make it so many years ago. He interviews other successful metal musicians, and shows clips of Anvil's glory days. (clips of what "Lips" likes to refer to as their 15 minutes of fame). Highlighted, is their concert in Japan in 1984 where they got to play alongside Scorpion, Whitesnake and Bon Jovi. These now successful bands felt like Anvil were the players to beat -and beat them they did.

So what went wrong? -Gervasi lets each audience member of this film decide that for themselves. And that, for me, is what made this documentary so good!

Watching "Lips" and Robb once again struggle with the music industry and each other gave me a glimpse into their brotherhood and missed chances. The two band members, although both Jewish and from Toronto, could not be more different. "Lips" is emotional, the leader and passionate. While Robb is quiet, gifted and likes to paint (his favourite piece is something that will get people talking...) The two love each other and fight; and love each other and fight. And as the struggles of the tour are exposed, part of me thought they were both crazy for holding onto this dream (they're both in their fifties, putting their families on hold, in debt, rejected time and time again) and yet another part of me admired the courage, passion and determination they both possess (and need) to keep this dream alive.

As one famous musician says in the film...there are only a couple of groups that have stayed together for over 30 years: "The Rolling Stones", "The Who" and "Anvil". Although I'm not a fan of Heavy Metal music, after watching this film I'm convinced that's got to count for something!

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince **** (rave)

What can I say?...I love Harry Potter! I loved all the books and I think the movies have all been entertaining and true to the stories. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the sixth installment translated onto film. It is directed by David Yates, (who directed the fifth film, Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix) and stars all the original cast members we've watched grow up over the years. And like each of its predecessors, it introduces a couple of new faces to the screen. One of this film's new additions includes Jim Broadbent- playing the potions Professor; Horace Slughorn. He was a humorous addition to the Hogwarts clan and a delight to watch.

In this film, Harry, Hermione and Ron return to Hogwarts for their sixth year of schooling. Harry has been asked by Professor Dumbledore to befriend the new potions professor, in the hopes that Harry may retrieve a very important memory Slughorn has kept suppressed about the dark lord, Voldemort (oops, I mean...he-who-must-not-be-named). During the course of this quest, Harry also conducts Quidditch try-outs, sees flashbacks of Voldemort (oops, I said his name again) as a youth, witnesses the effects of love potions being passed around school, and suspects a very distracted Draco Malfoy (Harry's nemesis) of being up to no good (as Malfoy works on a secret mission of his own). As with every Harry Potter story, the film follows the characters throughout their year of school and concludes with secrets being revealed, plots exposed and some kind of climactic confrontation between good and evil.

Because this movie was based on one of the lengthy books in the Potter series, written by J.K Rowling, it had to cut some stuff out while maintaining focus on other parts of the story. Although, a bit too much attention was focused on 'snogging' for me, I agreed with many of the decisions made by Yates, and I enjoyed the flow of the story-telling. As to be expected by the Harry Potter films; the sets, costumes and special effects were great. And when you've got a stellar cast which includes, Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, and Alan Rickman, how do you not enjoy their characters? As for the acting skills of the younger cast members...although there are still moments when I find each of them a bit stiff, ( Bonnie Wright, playing Ginny Weasley, in particular) I think they've all improved over the years. - I've journeyed with them this far so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt . A real stand-out for me in this movie was a new-comer Jessie Cave, playing the love-struck Lavender Brown. Evanna Lynch playing Luna Lovegood, who won me over in the fifth film, was a treat to see again. And because Rupert Grint who plays Ron always gets me laughing, he remains my personal favourite.

Only one more Harry Potter story left to be told on film now. And I'm glad Yates, who is returning as the director, has decided to shoot this last installment (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) in two parts. There's a lot of ground to cover in this final chapter and one movie would not do it justice. I can't wait to see them. But I have to admit, I'll be sad to see them finished. The Harry Potter series, since I picked up the first book years ago, has been truly 'magical' for me. And as I sat in the theater on a Saturday afternoon, surrounded by other 'muggles', I was pleased to see all the other grown-ups who came without kids. Part of the love I've always had for Rowling's stories is you don't have to be a kid to enjoy the imagination, adventure and wizardry these stories have to offer. Luminos!

Public Enemies *** (rave)

Chicago: depression-era - is the setting for Michael Mann's new film Public Enemies, starring Johnny Depp (as 'Public Enemy #1', John Dillinger) and Christian Bale (as the determined FBI agent, Melvin Purvis). The film depicts the last year of Dillinger's life, and through the lens of a digital camera, we follow the notorious bank-robber's escapades; meet his crew; his love interest; and ALL the people trying to catch him.

As a fan of Mann's previous work (The Last of the Mohicans/ Heat/The Insider) I anticipated his filming style would be both interesting and unique. With Public Enemies, I both liked and disliked the filming techniques he chose to use in this movie. Shooting with a digital camera, allowed Mann to get extreme close-up shots that kept the movie tense, and permitted the audience to follow ever so closely and freely with the 'gang' (some of the confrontation scenes between the 'cops and robbers', he filmed, were spectacular). But, the footage went in and out of a grainy resolution and occasionally, the sound would increase quite drastically. I found these glitches distracting from the story, and I had to wonder - if Mann's intention was to incorporate a grainy feel to the film, to accentuate the time era, why didn't he maintain it throughout the entire film?

Johnny Depp's acting is solid. And although I've enjoyed many of the quirky characters he has portrayed on film in the past, it was a pleasant change to see him playing someone 'somewhat' normal.(Dillinger might be a killer; but he's no 'Sweeney Todd'!)

Although Christian Bale, had me worried about his acting abilities during his first scene (I wasn't sure if he was trying to do an accent or not), he eventually grew on me. Although his character was ultra-serious and bland, I realised that a man with the name "Melvin Purvis" probably couldn't help but take himself too seriously, and so, I found him believable.

Dillinger's love interest, Billie, is played by Academy Award winner Marion Cotillard (La Vie En Rose). Mann's camera loved her. And she was absolutely stunning.

My biggest critique about this movie, was there were far too many cast members. The cast was vast! And it was very confusing sometimes, trying to distinguish between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'. They all dressed the same (fedora; with long coat), many were fair-haired, and they were all carrying heavy artillery. Basically, if I didn't recognize an actor from a previous role, I couldn't keep track of which side they were on while they were engaged in a 'cops and robbers' shoot-out.

Overall, I did enjoy this movie. The sets were great and I liked the pace of the film. I would recommend seeing it on the big screen, just to see some of the impressive footage I mentioned earlier. You'll enjoy it - but don't expect to be "wowed".

In my opinion, while this movie was entertaining; it is not "one of the best pictures of the year, so far".

Personally, I'm still holding out for that one...

The Proposal *** (rave)

This is my first 'chick flick' review - I was in the mood for a little light entertainment and I picked "The Proposal" starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds to see today.

I've got to say... I really liked this one.

Yes, it inhabits the familiar 'romantic comedy' formula we've seen a million times, but the chemistry between Bullock and Reynolds made it really enjoyable for me.

In it, Bullock plays a 'dragon-lady' book editor. She's Canadian (from Toronto, no less), working in New York, and is informed that her Visa has been denied. - She's going to be deported and lose her high-power job. In an attempt to save her position, she coerces her assistant (played by Reynolds) to marry her so she can stay in the country. He agrees to the fake arrangement and takes her home to Alaska, where she meets his family, in the hopes that getting to know him better will help them convince the State that their "love" for one another is real.

I picked this movie because I've always been a fan of Sandra Bullock's. Like everyone, she's made some bad movies (anyone seen "The Net?") But I've always found her funny. And I like that she's one of the 'beautiful people' that can take the piss out of herself. She has no problem acting silly or being vulnerable, and she just strikes me as someone I would like if I met her on the street.

As someone quite unfamiliar with Reynold's work, I was surprised with how taken I was with his character in this film. He was charming, quick-witted, thoughtful, and not too hard to look at either. The two of them kept a stupid grin on my face the entire time I watched their comical escapades and I was really rooting for the 'happy ending' for them (that, of course) I knew I was going to get.

Betty White is one of the co-stars (playing Reynolds' Grandma Annie) and she's got all the unabashed one-liners you'd expect from her. Her character in this movie is very similar to the character she played in "Lake Placid" (except 'Gammie' likes to chant in the woods occasionally).

Watching the film, although it reminded me of another Sandra Bullock film - "While You Were Sleeping" (another movie about a fake relationship leading to a fake marriage), I couldn't help but enjoy it. As far as romantic comedies go - there are no new ideas. Every thing's already been done. But I did find the dry humour throughout the film refreshing. And even though there are parts of the movie that are over-the-top silly, I REALLY liked the characters.

I wanted some light entertainment today, and that's exactly what I got. And I'm happy to report that when I got the 'happy ending' that I knew I was going to get; I couldn't have been happier.

The Taking of Pelham 123 **1/2 (rant)

Remakes...hmm...
I can think of a couple I liked ('The Thomas Crown Affair', for one). But generally, I don't think they're a good idea: especially when the original film got it right the first time. As a fan of the 1974 version of this movie (starring Walter Mathau and Robert Shaw), I was kind of dreading watching this remake. I think John Travolta tends to over-act his 'bad-guy' characters, and I wasn't looking forward to watching him in this role. But, I've enjoyed some movies directed by Tony Scott ('Enemy of the State'/ 'Man on Fire') and I usually like Denzel Washington (except when he over-acts his 'bad-guy' roles), so I thought I'd give it a go.

My overall feeling about this particular remake...I didn't hate it - but I won't remember it.


The Taking of Pelham 123 is set in New York. The story is about a small group of criminals who board a subway and take a section of it, with its passengers, hostage. They demand a ransom and co-ordinate a deal with the mayor, the police and a metro representative. The city has an hour to pay up; or a hostage will be killed each minute. (In the original film, a million dollars was the price tag - Now, in 2009, with the cost of living exponentially higher, it's ten million).


Once again, Tony Scott incorporates his high-tech cinematography style- shaky camera; over-lapping images; blurred action scenes. I get a bit frustrated when I can't see what's actually going on during chase scenes (especially, when the dialogue is boring and I need something to concentrate on), so I wasn't too happy with not being able to follow anything going on above ground.


Below ground: the film tries to concentrate on the relationship between Travolta (tattooed 'bad-guy') and Washington ( 'average joe' guy, trying to right a wrong from his own life). The script just wasn't good enough and the supposed connection between the two wasn't genuine for me. It just made me miss the original film.


Back in the day (I know I'm sounding like an old-timer now) screenplays usually allowed us to get to know the characters a little bit before the crisis happened: we'd get invested in them and care if they lived or died. Now, the action has to start right away (or God forbid we lose interest) and the screenwriter hopes that the dialogue that ensues between two characters while all the action goes on will make us get to know them and care about their well-being. In this film; that just didn't happen for me. There wasn't anything unique or original about these characters and because I already knew how the story was basically going to play out, I didn't care about them.


The film had a lot of challenges to face in 2009 that the original film didn't. -New York, post '911' is very different (someone takes someone hostage - are they a terrorist?) - everyone has cell phones and computers with webcams (probably why the ransom had to go up). - And the whole time the film was going on, I couldn't believe the SWAT team couldn't take down 4 guys with guns.


Generally, this movie isn't terrible: it's got its moments - but it's definitely a renter.


I wanted to write this review because I want everyone to see the 1974 version. They got so many things right with it...Who doesn't love Walter Mathau, for one? (and his 'average joe' character outshines Denzel's) - New Yorkers back then, weren't afraid of everything and the hostages in the subway are actually characters in the film who often times get sassy with their captors - Politically incorrect humour is abundant in the movie and it makes the film funny- The three other bad guys have roles, and the audience gets to know them- The New York cops and the Mayor are animated and interesting in their own right - And finally, the film isn't handicapped by present-day technology ( you actually believe four guys with guns, in a dark tunnel where no one can see what they're doing, are a threat).


If you insist on seeing only the 2009 remake of 'The Taking of Pelham 123', be warned: Travolta saying "mother f*****" a ton of times does not put him in the same caliber as Robert Shaw's cool, calm, calculating 'bad-guy'. If you don't see the original; you'll really be missing out.

Revisiting "The Big Lebowski"

What is the big deal about "The Big Lebowski?" Eleven years after its release, I still hear about this movie everywhere. When people find out I'm a movie fan, they ask if I've seen this one. And just about every guy I know includes this film in his top ten list. Last week at the theater, one of the ads (before the film I was about to see) was promoting Canadian athletes and Sara Renner (cross country skier) stated it was her favourite film. "Again?", I grumbled. "What is so great about this guy named "Dude?" As I sat in the theatre, I recalled the time I did try to watch the film in 1998 but turned it off because if I heard them say "dude" one more time, I was going to kill someone.

Generally, I'm a Cohen Brothers fan. I love the way their movies are shot. Their use of vibrant colours and original camera angles make the scenes in their films interesting and often times, beautiful to watch. I have raved about some of their films ("Raising Arizona"/ "Miller's Crossing"/ "Fargo"). And over the years, many of the zany characters and off-beat dialogue incorporated in their movies have had me roaring in my seat. But I've also found some of the brother's films forgetable and I was disappointed in their Oscar winner "No Country For Old Men".

After hearing yet another endorsement for "The Big Lebowski" (and by a Canadian Olympic Athlete, no less) I decided to rent the movie and give it another chance. "I'm eleven years older now", I thought "Maybe I'll catch something I missed back then". So I made myself a white russian, put the DVD in, and pressed play.

Although my tolerance for the word "dude" had gone up and I could sit through the whole movie this time, I still didn't love this film. I liked parts of it: It was visually stunning (especially in the bowling alley). I liked Jeff Bridges, and John Goodman made me laugh. But I guess the story line didn't really grab me and I wasn't laughing during many parts where I'm sure the Cohen Brothers would have wanted me to.

I'm not going to dissect the whole film. I know that the people who love it, LOVE IT! And I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind. I'm just not one of those people; so we'll have to agree to disagree. (Although I did wonder if I would have enjoyed it more if I were a guy, smoking pot while sitting on my couch in my boxers)

I won't watch this film again. One and a half times was enough for me. However, I am glad I picked it up just so I could see John Turturro in a purple jump suit. I didn't make it through to that scene the first time and I thought he was hilarious! In my opinion, he stole every scene he was in. For me, he was "the dude" of the movie.

Gran Torino ***1/2 (rave)

Rent this movie! It finally came out on DVD today and it is definitely worth a watch. At 78 years old, Clint Eastwood still captivates the screen with his 'tough guy' persona we've all come to know and love.

In "Gran Torino", (directed and produced by Eastwood), Clint plays a Korean War vet named 'Walt Kowalski'. Walt has just recently lost his wife and is estranged from his two sons and their families. He insists on staying in the 'old neighbourhood' in Detroit, even though he's the only 'white american' left on the block. As an unabashed bigot, Walt wants nothing to do with his neighbours nor the Catholic priest who's trying to help Walt release some of the burdens from his past. When the teenage boy, 'Thoa', from next door tries to steal Walt's prized possession, (as part of a Hmong gang initiation), Walt's secluded life and his prejudiced views are challenged and changed forever.

Once again Eastwood does a great job with character exploration. Like "Million Dollar Baby", "Gran Torino" delves into personal relationships and the power of 'unlikely' friendships. As Walt grows to understand and care for his neighbours, we see the chips in his armour that make him human and good. Even though he unapologetically utters every racial slur in the book, you still know that he's an invaluable person to have in your corner.

There's a lot of humour in this movie; which kind of surprised me. I knew there would be action and dramatic scenes, but I wasn't expecting to laugh out loud. And yet many of the scenes Eastwood has with Thoa (played by Bee Vang) were touching and poignant through their humour. Watching Walt trying to 'make a man' out of Thoa kept me giggling and enjoying the film all the more.

Ahney Her plays Thoa's sister 'Sue'. She too has great on-screen chemistry with Eastwood's character. Although she doesn't have the same amount of screen time as Bee Vang, I thought her acting chops outshined his.

I think this film would appeal to both men and women; so it's a good "date night" pick. It's dramatic; but not overly so - It's got action; but it's not all action. - It can be touching in parts; but not enough to make you guys throw up. (I know I'm stereotyping male/female tastes in film, but you get the idea)

And if you want to make it a "Directed by Clint Eastwood" night at the video store: pick up "Unforgiven" (for the fellas) and "Bridges of Madison County" (for the gals).

-Just try not to argue over which movie is going in the DVD player first.

Drag Me To Hell *1/2 (rant)

I can't tell you how disappointed I am to have to write a rant about this film. I was excited to see this movie. The approval rating on 'Rotten Tomatoes' is really high (93%). You hardly ever see such a thing for horror movies. I was psyched! I got ready to take the plunge and prepared myself for being scared shitless. Even though horror movies aren't my favourite genre of film, I can really enjoy the thrill of jumping in my seat and laughing nervously beside my fellow movie lovers. So I curled up in my chair, wrapped my jacket around me, sat in the dark and waited...

"Drag Me To Hell" revolves around a loan officer named Christine, played by Alison Lohman. She refuses to help an elderly gypsy woman extend her mortgage loan in the hopes that making this 'tough decision' will help her get a job promotion. After being rejected by the bank and 'shamed' by Christine, the 'one dead eye' gypsy places a curse on her -making Christine's life a living hell. Haunted now by an evil spirit that wants her soul, Christine enlists the help of a seer, played by Dileep Rao, in order to stop the haunting and improve her fate.

I hate to say this but I didn't find the movie scary at all. I always knew when the next thing was going to jump out at her and I felt like I was seeing a movie I've seen a hundred times before. Lohman's acting was painful to watch and I wasn't too impressed with the supporting cast either. Justin Long ( the 'mac' guy) played the 'devoted boyfriend' role but I wasn't convinced he actually cared about what was going on with his tormented girlfriend. Instead, he waited in the wings while she sorted her 'crazy shit out'.

Another disappointment for me was the movie didn't make me laugh. You expect the cheesy one-liners from horror movies to give you some comedic relief between scares. Okay, there might have been a couple ("that's the last of my hair you're getting!") but not enough to keep me invested in the film and by that time, I'd had enough and just wanted it to be over.

In my opinion, Sam Raimi's film was filled with bad Halloween costumes, gimmicks that didn't work (the evil handkerchief) and the same horror film formula we've seen time and time again. The only original thing about the movie is perhaps Lohman now holds the record for having the most gross stuff spewed on an actress' face.

I don't know what other reviewers have seen in this film. Maybe they're all "Spiderman" fans and want to give Sam Raimi a break. Maybe they think this movie is campy enough to become some kind of cult classic. But I didn't get it. I guess my expectations were too high. I was hoping for another "The Ring" and instead I got another "The Ring 2".

Why I Feel I've Been Betrayed By Michael Moore:

I have to start off by saying I was, at one time, a HUGE Michael Moore fan. I'm a liberal thinker: I root for the 'little guy' and I think corporations are big, bad entities that manipulate and oppress the average consumer/worker. (Before you even begin to debate this statement, watch "The Corporation" and "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" and then get back to me).

I use to take great delight in watching Moore's films. I'd cheer him on as he pushed his large body and microphone into the faces of powerful people and demanded some kind of justice for the wrong-done-by 'average joe'. I've probably seen "Roger and Me" ten times. I found Moore's narration in the film humorous, insightful and humanistic. I cared for the GM assembly line workers who lost their jobs in Flint, Michigan just as much as Michael wanted me to, if not 'moore' so.

His second film, "The Big One", had me cheering in my seat. Although this documentary didn't become as renowned as the first, I loved his attack on Corporate America. It was the first of its kind I'd seen and watching him burst into large, cold buildings and calmly asking , with camera by his side, to speak to the man in charge (with the intent of challenging his 'downsizing policies') was priceless to me. I'd laugh and shout "take that, you bastard!" Because this film represented political views I align myself with and the humour brought back fond memories of episodes from Moore's television show, "TV Nation", and it's caped crusader "Crackers"- the corporate crime fighting chicken, I didn't sit and watch it with the skepticism I now embody while watching or reading anything that presents itself as 'news' or 'truth'. Instead, I let Moore's witty voice-overs, entertaining film edits and ballsy moves while combating 'the big, bad world' wash over me. He had me hook, line and sinker. I recommended his movies to everyone and read his book "Downsize This". Even though I didn't always agree with him on everything, I still applauded his overall messages and thought his attempts at stirring things up was admirable. I knew that what he was doing wasn't 'true documentary' but I thought, "hey, if it gets him more main stream attention and a wider audience for his films; all the power to him. The 'little guy' can use all the help he can get".

My love for Michael began to falter after seeing "Bowling for Columbine". (Which is kind of ironic seeing as this is the film that got him huge recognition and an Oscar for "Best Documentary"). I host an Oscar party every year and you'd think I'd be the first person applauding when he won that night, but I wasn't...Doubts and cynicism were setting in and I felt uneasy.

Don't get me wrong. I still agreed with a lot of the issues he addressed in the film: Why do Americans feel the need to bare arms? Why are other countries, like Canada. safer to live in? What is up with Charlton Heston? But his narrative in this film set off some alarms in me.

I found Michael's voice-overs in "Bowling for Columbine" contained an extreme 'emotional' slant. He stopped using humour and facts as his weapons and instead, replaced them with contrived emotional response tactics. I felt manipulated as I listened to sad music and watched Moore gingerly place an 8x10 photo of a dead girl on the steps of the now senile, Heston's house. I thought it was beneath Moore and I was disappointed in him. It reminded me of John Stewart's complaints when he saw footage of 911 being played back over and over on the news with sad music playing in the background. "I'm not an idiot", he stated during one of his shows. "you don't have to play sad music in order for me to know these images should make me feel sad." I felt Moore was doing the same kind of manipulation. I thought that entire scene with Heston was over-the-top, insincere and irritating.

My support for Moore's films continued to diminish after watching "Fahrenheit 911". Once again, Michael's tone of the film was filled with, what I deemed, contrived sentiment. When the camera zoomed in while he comforted a mother who lost her son in the Iraqi war, I wondered if Moore really cared about her or just wanted to get 'the shot'. It seemed to me that 'Michael' now was the star of his documentaries, not 'the cause'.

Moore's voice-over during the scene when Bush was sitting in a classroom after having just been informed of the attack on the World Trade Center made me angry. Obviously, as a 'lefty', I am not a Bush supporter. (The man can't put a sentence together and his laugh is just plain creepy). But why couldn't Moore just film Bush's reactions and non-reactions and let the audience come to their own conclusions? I felt like he was talking down to us now; preaching to his own choir and trying to glorify himself as some kind of 'working-class hero'. I wasn't buying it and I no longer viewed his actions as admirable.

Then I heard Moore only wanted "Fahrenheit 911" considered for "Best Picture" at the Academy Awards and didn't even enter it for "Best Documentary". He had won the "Palm D'or" award at Cannes for the film and wanted Americans to accept it as the most important movie of the year, as well - This was the film that was going to wake Americans up and get Bush out of office. That reeked of ego to me and I think that move really bit him in the ass: "Fahrenheit 911" didn't get nominated for "Best Picture" and George W. got re-elected for another 4 years.

So I was disgruntled with Moore. Where I had once viewed him as a witty, smart, brave activist, I now feared that fame and Hollywood popularity had made him too attached to the sound of his own voice and incapable of even trying to show the other side of the political issues he covered in his films. I realized he wasn't interested in opening up a forum for debate or letting people think for themselves. Just as "Fox News" tells its conservative audience 'how it is', Moore had nominated himself as our liberal preacher. I don't like to blindly follow other people around, so I took Moore off of the pedestal I plopped him on many years ago and, in protest, refused to see his newest film "Sicko".

Then I came across a documentary about Moore called "Manufacturing Dissent" (not to be confused with Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"). This film, made by Canadian filmmakers Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk, really opened my eyes. In it, Melnyk follows Moore around the States trying to get an interview with him. She starts off as a fan of Moore's but as he continues to avoid her, she gets a little ticked off and starts doing some digging around about him and his movies. Some of her findings included:

* Moore is not from Flint, Michigan

* He consistently mixes up the chronological order of events in his films

* Many people from his movies feel like they've been misrepresented by him and some have sued (including an Iraqi war vet)

* He has manipulated scenes (in "Bowling for Columbine", for example, he set up the scene of buying the gun in the bank. The guns are not kept at the bank but in a vault miles away. Moore insisted they bring a gun to the bank so he could walk out immediately with it for that scene).

* He has fabricated stories. - Heston did not go to Flint for a gun rally days after the young girl (8x10 photo) was shot there.(Which is what his interview with Heston was fuelled by).

And the clincher for me...

* While his first film "Roger and Me" showed failed attempts by Moore while trying to get an interview with Roger Smith, (the CEO of GM Motors: The person Moore held accountable for destroying his 'home town', Flint), in actual fact, Michael did meet Roger Smith and interviewed him. This interview was documented and Moore asked a friend to suppress it.

I was disheartened to find out that fame and popularity were not what changed Moore. Instead, he was manipulating his material and fabricating facts from the start. When there is little truth in your documentaries, how can you respect the filmmaker?

I realize Melnyk had her own agenda while filming "Manufacturing Dissent" and she may very well have just been one pissed off lady who really wanted an interview. But, she's from Canada eh? And typically, we're nice and try not to make a fuss unless absolutely necessary. So, in the hopes there can still be some truth found in documentary films, I do give her and her film the benefit of the doubt.

I did eventually rent "Sicko". (My curiosity got the better of me). Once again, I agree with the 'left' view that a country should take care of it's citizens and this includes health care. But as I watched the movie, I wondered if the 'facts' presented by Moore were the facts and if scenes in the film were genuine or set up days in advance. I wondered if Moore really cared about the group of people he was filming, who couldn't receive proper medical attention in the States, or if they were just an excuse for him to get in front of the camera and use a bullhorn while charging around on a boat.

After watching "Sicko", I thought the subject matter was important and I was glad the film was made. But because I am no longer proud to have Michael Moore represent us 'lefties', I wished someone else had made it.

Angels & Demons ** (rant)

So, I finally got around to seeing Angels & Demons today and I thought I'd write about it now before I forgot about it tomorrow. It was truly, a forgettable film.

As a fan of the Dan Brown books, I was once again disappointed to see that an attempt to translate another one of his stories onto film had failed. I wasn't expecting much; I'd heard about poor reviews. But I'd hoped that because this story was a fast-paced, page turner it was going to be an improvement on "The DaVinci Code" movie. Boy, was I wrong.

In this film, Tom Hanks reprises his role as Professor Robert Langdon. This time he is called to Rome in a time of crisis: The Pope has just died and four Cardinals (the front-runners to take the Pope's place) have been kidnapped by a secret brotherhood (a 400 year old enemy of the Catholic Church) called the"Illuminati". Langdon, with the help of a Priest, played by Ewan McGregor, and a physicist, played by Ayelet Zurer, must follow clues throughout the Vatican in the hopes of preventing the Cardinals' deaths and the impending detonation of an anti-matter bomb.

As each hour passes, a different Cardinal's life is at risk. Time is of the essence! Langdon must try to figure out different clues in time to make it to various destinations in the hopes of saving each of them and saving Rome.

Sounds like it could be good right?

So, what went wrong?

Well... although I was happy to see Tom Hanks without the weird hair from the first movie, he still played the 'religious symbologist expert' as the most boring person in the world. As the Langdon character, Hanks, with monotone voice and permanent grave expression, once again stopped in front of every statue and symbol he came across and told whoever was standing beside him what it meant (regardless of whether or not they were interested).

For me, all the religious history and conspiracy theories, worked in the Dan Brown books: It's what made his novels both entertaining and informative. On screen, however, it just didn't work in either film. I know Brown didn't create an 'Indiana Jones' kind of professor character in his stories, but Hanks and the screen writers of "Angels & Demons" could have at least made Langdon seem a little bit excited about his life's passion. Instead, they had the audience listen to, and follow, a guy who probably puts his class to sleep with each lecture. -I'm not a huge Nick Cage fan, but I would rather watch "National Treasure 2" again (and it was painful the first time) than see Professor Langdon solve a puzzle or try to save anyone ever again.

I'm not going to blame everything on Tom Hanks. (I actually love Hanks and I own a lot of his movies). The whole movie was slow and boring. And this is what I didn't get...Here's a movie that has constant time pressure: lives depend on reaching certain destinations by a certain time. And yet even the way the film was shot was slow. Several times in the film, as Langdon and others are driving around to save a life, the camera drifts away from the action of the chase and slowly floats off, up over the sky, to show us the roof of a church or a crowd of people protesting something. Who cares! Keep us in the car and make them drive faster! (And, of course, Langdon could always find the time to painfully describe the origins of some clue he held in his hands while sitting in the passenger's seat).

The movie also had a lot of continuity issues for me. Somehow within each hour, Langdon would have the time to go somewhere, research something and still make it to his destination. And as the film goes on he's getting shot at and at one location almost set on fire (you would think that would make the film more exciting -but trust me, it doesn't). All of these scenes are in Brown's book and while reading them, they were somewhat believable. But on film, it just didn't make sense. At one point, Langdon is trapped somewhere (I don't want to tell you everything in case you're actually going to see the movie after reading this) and yet once freed, he has seven minutes remaining to get to the newly discovered location. While watching this scene, I thought "hasn't he been stuck in there for at least an hour?". But in hindsight, maybe it just felt like hours because everything he did or said seemed to take forever.

Another complaint I have about both films (don't worry, I'm almost done) is about the female co-stars. In each movie, Hanks shares scenes with pretty brunettes who have no personality nor seem capable of making any kind of facial expression. They're serious and boring and don't make any impression with the small screen time they inhabit.

Finally, I have to say I preferred "The DaVinci Code" to "Angels & Demons" for one reason: "The DaVinci Code" had a really good bad guy. Paul Bettany did a superb job playing a creepy, albino monk in that film. Watching him flog himself made me feel sick, but at least it made me feel something.

In "Angels & Demons" there's no such sensational guy to hate. Without telling you who the villain is, I will tell you that once he's found out, a room full of Cardinals stand together and stare him down with no dialogue. I guess Ron Howard, the director of the film, was hoping that scene of silence would be tense enough for the audience to go "oooohhh". Instead, I rolled my eyes and muttered under my breathe "you've got to be kidding".

In case there's any doubt, I do not recommend this movie. But I am still a Tom Hanks/Ron Howard fan. So I would suggest that instead of going to the theater to see "Angels & Demons", spend a night in and rent "Apollo 13". They both did a great job with that one. And even though I'm not sure why one of the co-stars, Ed Harris, got nominated for an Oscar for simply wearing a beret in "The Truman Show", he definitely deserved the nomination for his work in "Apollo 13".( As the "lucky vest" wearing optimist, you can't help but cheer for him. He's one of the many elements of the movie that make it enjoyable).

My three favourite "sleeper" crime films

This week, because I couldn't make it to the theater to see either "Terminator" or "Angels and Demons" (and now I'm not sure I want to spend the money to see either film), I decided instead to recommend my top three "sleeper" movies to rent.

Anytime I meet a fellow movie lover, I ask them if they've seen any of these films and if the answer is "no", I quickly dig them out from my vast DVD collection and place them in their hands. I enjoy sharing a good movie with someone just as much as a book I love. And, as with books, I'm curious to see if the recipients of these found treasures of mine will appreciate the stories and characters, as I did, or if they'll return them, somewhat dissatisfied. Either way, it always leads to an interesting conversation. I'm a little disheartened, of course, if they didn't like a film I recommended but I do get to know the person a little bit better when I find out why. And on occasion, the answer is they simply don't know their movies. If for example, I recommend a great classic like "All the president's men" and the person returns it with a shrug stating they'd rather see a film that has a monkey playing hockey in it, I know not to take their critique to heart. And since I don't own any movies starring monkeys, I stop lending films to them.

My three picks for this week are all crime genre films. I know this doesn't appeal to everyone but for some reason (perhaps I was a detective in a past life) I'm really drawn to them. I love to see how the good guy catches the bad guy, what makes a bad person "bad" and all the tangled webs that are weaved in the process. If you too are a fan of this genre, you should definitely check these film out...

Citizen X (1995)

This HBO film is based on a true story and stars Stephen Rea as police detective, Viktor Burakov who, while living in communist Soviet Union, spends ten years tracking down a serial killer. Donald Sutherland plays his superior and while you have to get use to both of them doing their best Russian accents, their on screen chemistry and acting (especially Rea's, as the tormented sleuth) make up for that. The story takes places mainly throughout the 1980s and not only does it depict the painstaking efforts it takes to collect viable evidence, it also shows how frustrating it must have been then to acquire the resources needed from a communist government, when they firmly believed serial killers were a "western phenomenon".

Because the killer, Chikatilo, took the lives of over 50 people (most of whom were children) in a very savage way, this film is not for the more sensitive viewers. The movie does depict some of these killings and I would highly recommend that you prepare yourself: A little desensitization could come in handy.

Max von Sydow plays the psychiatrist who constructs the first "psychological profile" ever offered to the field of detective work in The Soviet Union. His on screen time is short but profound.

This movie is tense, well -acted and gives the audience a glimpse into the "psychology of a killer"

If you like detective stories (and can handle some disturbing images); you'll like this one.

Auto Focus (2002)

In this film, (also based on a true story) Greg Kinnear plays Bob Crane the star of "Hogan's Heroes" a popular TV show which ran through the 1960's and 70's. Kinnear does an excellent job portraying Crane as the "all american guy" whose affliction as a sex addict, lead to his eventual unemployment, divorce and possibly his murder. ( I don't believe I'm giving away a spoiler here, as it is a true story).

Willem Dafoe co-stars as Crane's friend "John Carpenter" and (surprise, surprise) convincingly depicts a creepy guy who likes to capture naked girls on video. Kinnear and Dafoe, in their 60's garb, inhabit these characters and show the audience how an interest can turn into an obsession which can cause a downward spiral. (One that the characters are unaware of and yet are incapacitated by).

The sets are great in this film and the re-enactments of the "Hogan's Heroes" show are light and entertaining. A juxtaposition as you watch the deconstruction of Crane's life. Here's the story of a guy who "had it all" but just couldn't stop taking pictures of women's breasts.

Although the film doesn't delve into the investigation of Crane's murder, I include this one as a crime film because it shows the progression of "bad thoughts" turning someone into a "bad person".

Would this "bad person" from the 60's be deemed "bad" now? Watch it and decide for yourself.

Zero Effect (1998)

Here's my comedy/crime pick. A light hearted, with twists and turns, private detective story. Why this movie didn't do better at the box office is beyond me.

Bill Pullman plays " Daryl Zero" an eccentric private detective who doesn't know how to function in the real world. He never meets his clients face to face and instead has his assistant, played by Ben Stiller, fill in for him.

For this particular case, Zero is hired to help a man, played by Ryan O'Neal, find his keys. The search for such keys leads Zero to the discovery of a blackmailer who is up to the task of not getting caught.

Pullman's wacky portrayal of "Zero" is hilarious. Even his hair gets funnier with each scene. Stiller plays the Stiller you'd expect, but the two of them have got some great scenes together. I can't tell you a lot about the plot, without ruining it for you but I can tell you, what a joy it was to find this movie, many years ago. It's original, it's funny and it's well written.

And if you start the night with the first two heavy-duty films I recommended, you'll be due for some comedic relief.

This movie will gladly give that to you.

Star Trek ****1/2 (Rave)


I loved this movie! Finally a sci-fi/action film that didn't spend all it's focus or money on special effects, but actually took the time to cast it superbly, give us characters that would make us laugh and give us a plot. An honest to God story line with a beginning, middle and an end. And it kept me entertained all the way through. People like George Lucas could learn a thing or two from J.J. Abrams.- Just because characters have been around and loved for years, doesn't mean you can simply put them in costume, place them in front of a blue screen and hope for the best. You need human interaction and you need a good story!

J.J. Abrams knew this and took the beloved Star Trek characters and made them all new and delightful to me again. I've never been a die-hard Trekkie but I've seen enough of the shows and movies to know about the characters and I found myself getting more and more excited to see who would be playing what role and getting more and more elated when each actor nailed the character, bang on. Karl Urban playing "McCoy" and Simon Pegg playing "Scotty" were the highlights for me. Suddenly, I was a little kid again and full of glee while hearing lines like, "I'm giving her all she's got captain!" and "Damn it man! I'm a doctor, not a physicist!"

The other beauty of this film is you don't have to be a fan of Star Trek to enjoy it. It's got all the ingredients of any well made sci-fi/action film. The effects are great: There's plenty of crisis, monsters and fast-paced action for everyone who's a fan of this genre of film. But be warned; you may not go in as a Star Trek fan, but you may very well leave as one. The characters with their "campy" humour and on-screen chemistry would make it tough for even the biggest cynic not to care about them. (Unless, of course, you're a nasty, bitter Romulan).

This one is definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go out, pay the twelve dollars and fifty cents and live long and prosper...




~ Rent the documentary "Trekkies" if you want to delve deeper into the minds of the die-hard fans. You'll visit the wacky Star Trek conventions, see interviews with the original cast members, and see just how far some of the fans will go to become "Vulcan" and "Klingon". Definitely entertaining and brings a whole new meaning to being "out there".