Below you will find three reviews by yours truly. They should have been posted much sooner, but the important thing is that they are there.

All the Big Muddy Film Festival stuff I mentioned way back in the day is slowly coming together and you can expect the first of the reviews early on this next week.

Joe is hoarding a slew of my reviews that I wrote over the winter break. email him and tell him to release them from his evil clutches.

Until then. Enjoy the new stuff.
--Jon

Bowling For Columbine
***

Review by Jon Waterman

Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore is back and he’s out for answers. Normally, he likes to go after the large corporations and the “Stupid White Men” that run this country. This time around, he’s still after “Stupid White Men.” He just wants to go after a different group of them. Instead of picking on Senators or CEOs, he’s going after the NRA and the pro-gun lobbyists.

In the film, he poses the question, “Why does the United States have so many more murders by gun than any other super power country?” We have somewhere around 11,000 plus per year, whereas most major countries such as Germany, Japan and Canada have less than 1,000 and usually less than 100. Mr. Moore wants to find out what makes our country so much different from the rest of the civilized world.

On his journey, he focuses on two school shootings: Littleton, CO and near Flint, MI. How did the kids get the guns? How far down the chain should we carry the responsibility? Is it the parent’s fault for living in the area they live in or not being there? Is it the government’s fault for sending the parents so far away to work, even though the parents still can’t make enough to pay the bills? Is it Dick Clark’s fault for lending his name to the restaurant the parent works at?

Yes, we get to see Dick Clark…briefly. Moore seems to think it’s a good idea to confront Dick about the Michigan shooting, due to the chain of reasoning mentioned above. To be fair, he doesn’t expect Clark to take responsibility. He’s not asking him to do so. He wants Dick to help change the system around so that history doesn’t need to be repeated. However, D.C. drives off, because a normal visit from Michael Moore is an attack towards you and your business practices. To me, his confrontation with Clark’s vehicle was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at getting a celebrity into the film.

Another celebrity encounter that could have been handled better is the one with Charleton Heston. I would call the meeting utterly pointless to capture on film were he not the head of the National Rifle Association. For no good reason, Moore verbally attacks Heston. He starts by asking Heston the question he’s been asking everyone: Why is America so different? Why so many murders with guns? Heston thinks it over and gives an answer he feels is adequate. Michael persists. What makes him think he can get a more solid answer from Heston than from any other person in the film is beyond me. Moore’s only viable line of questioning concerns the NRA holding meetings days after the school shootings occur in the same town. Michael gets a political answer and doesn’t back away. His tactics were childish and rude and the situation was poor. Moore tries to wrench your heart, but the sequence essentially shows him cranking the vise.

Not all the celebrity appearances are as malicious. Matt Stone (co-creator of South Park, from the Columbine area) and Marilyn Manson (singer/songwriter/scapegoat) get ample screen time to speak their piece and relay anything that may aide Michael Moore’s position. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. What they have to say makes perfect sense and we are better off hearing it. However, had they tried to argue with Moore, they wouldn’t get as much screen time.

His intentions are also quite transparent when he shows the history of U.S. “relations” (read: bombings/executions) in foreign lands to the song, “What a Wonderful World.” Had a less obviously oxymoron-ish song been chosen, the sequence may have been more effective. The images with the captions and pure silence could have made watching that part strikingly moving.

Speaking of emotional content, the film contains some graphic and disturbing images worth showing. In order to report on the horror of these kids getting guns, one needs to demonstrate the destructive power of the weapons. Foreign assassination pictures and security footage from inside Columbine High School during the rampage are brilliantly juxtaposed with stock footage of classic commercials for toy guns that look just like the real thing.

The film isn’t all horrific imagery. We are treated to a specially made cartoon detailing the history of the United States. It, like the rest of the film, deals with the notion of Americans acting out of fear. It is insightful and hilarious. However, the funniest part of the film does not belong to Moore himself, but to footage of a Chris Rock comedy concert in which he tells jokes about raising the cost of bullets to combat crime.

Now, the film is not bad, despite what I’ve made it out to be so far. The film is poignant, thought provoking, discussion starting, entertaining and enlightening. In an age full of people getting their news from “The Daily Show,” it’s good to see someone bring important issues to the surface in a relatively mainstream way. Moore honestly tries to discover what makes this country different from the rest. His problem lies within thinking it is one specific factor. If all the elements of the film are put together to form the argument, then the whole piece accomplishes his quest nicely.

Just Married
*

Review by Jon Waterman

Sarah and Tom have had a perfect relationship so far. After being together for a little less than a year, they decide that nothing can end that happiness and, so, get married. They’re off to Europe for their honeymoon and, uh oh, mishap after mishap ensues. What shall come of this marriage if the zany adventures don’t come to an end?

The story is told as a flashback. Tom sits at his radio job as a traffic reporter (a detail completely irrelevant to understanding anything about him) and remembers the horrible events that took place prior to his return. The movie works just as well, if not better if told as a straight narrative. The beginning of the picture lets us know that the two are on the rocks. If that realization is brought about nearer the end of the film, we, as an audience may care more. Instead we are sitting there waiting for this falling out to occur.

I’m really beginning to question the appeal of goofball, prat fall comedies such as this one. As a general rule, physical comedy is only funny when there is an element of surprise. This particular script, written by Sam Harper (“Rookie of the Year”), tends to set up the joke for about a minute or two with verbal and visual clues, thus stripping the joke of any actual effect. Had all of this been cut out, the film would be about a half hour shorter, and only slightly funnier. Surprisingly, I don’t really care about the unbelievability of the situations. I’ll let it all slide based on the concept of “suspension of disbelief” and the fact that I’m talking about a nonsense comedy.

Everything about this film could be called sub-par. Shawn Levy’s (“Big Fat Liar”) proves that pacing and coaching actors are not his strong suit. I’ve mentioned the script. Ashton Kutcher (Tom) feels that the only way to get a joke out is to yell it at the top of his lungs, which is something he learned from Adam Sandler and then butchered. Brittany Murphy (Sarah) has the goofy grin thing going but comedic timing isn’t a strong suit for her either. I felt the chemistry between the two characters worked well, even if I didn’t care about them at all.

Perhaps I was pulled out of it, because the commercial shows all the jokes. However, I didn’t laugh at the commercial, either. Not only that, but if the thirty second spot gives away the “best” parts, then how good can the movie be to begin with?

The Lion King
****

Review by Jon Waterman

One would be hard pressed to find a film that enthralls audiences of all ages as swiftly, completely and unmistakably as “The Lion King.” The majestic orchestration of the film’s main thematic song “Circle of Life” heightens as animals from all over the land culminate to Pride Rock for the great ceremony taking place. The emotions on their faces register nothing but awe and respect as they bow down to pay homage. The choir reaches the crescendo as the wise baboon raises the newborn lion cub, the son of the current king. Suddenly, the title slams onto the screen in big red letters against a solid black background and everyone watching is stuck to their chairs for the duration.

For those that haven’t seen the movie yet, the storyline goes like this. Mufasa, the king, had a son named Simba. The king’s brother, Scar, gets upset now that his next-in-line position for royalty has been pushed back to number two. Scar utilizes his intellect and some hyenas to devise a plan that will get rid of the current king and his successor. I won’t tell any more, because you already understand that the film (like all Disney fare) is essentially the struggle between good and evil.

Disney has a formula for making their pictures. Good versus evil; catchy, potentially award-winning songs; a love story; goofy characters for comic relief; etc. “The Lion King” plays off of that last one and takes it one important step further. The quirky characters, most notably Timon and Pumbaa, do provide plenty of laughs. What separates them from other film sidekicks is that they were alone at the start of the picture. The second (and third) banana status was acquired later out of actions stemming from their own personalities. Virtually none of the characters in the film are dependent on another (Timon and Pumbaa and the three hyenas always stick together). Each individual is simply that: individual. Giving each name a personality is key in making character motivations more realistic and in making the film more entertaining to watch.

The talented actors give nice, normal performances. James Earl Jones (as Mufasa), Jonathon Taylor Thomas (as young Simba) and Matthew Broderick (as grown Simba) are the most toned down despite the high-stature of their parts. On the border lie Robert Guillaume (as Rafiki, the wise baboon) and Nathan Lane (as Timon). They jump over the top every once in a while to get the joke across but they also know when subtle is best. Standing at the opposite end of the spectrum are Jeremy Irons (as Scar) and Ernie Sabella (as Pumbaa). The two of them never seem to get out of over-acting mode, which sometimes detracts from their appeal.

The film should be noted for the outstanding direction by Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff. Each shot works perfectly with the preceding and following shots. The symbolism included, young Simba stepping into his father’s paw print, for example, is simple enough for the young kids to understand, yet still powerful and poignant. The film is treated like an epic and looks more beautiful than many of Hollywood’s attempts.

“The Lion King” is not just one of the greatest animated films of all time; it’s simply one of the greatest films of all time. It is quite possibly the most cinematically conscious feature that Disney has ever produced. Outstanding artwork, unforgettable songs, fantastic acting, and an engrossing story make this film an instant classic.

first of all I have to say that I just watched the Rules of Attraction with the Carrot Top commentary. Genius! Now here is another boring review by boring ken, so if your bored have fun...

Old School
**
Now I’m not sure why I had such high hopes for Old School? Maybe it was simply the premise of the film that hooked me in? A group of aging men try to escape the boredom of adulthood by starting a fraternity and reliving some college glory days. As I have recently departed from my “glory days” I would be lying if I said I didn’t relate to the real world hating theme of this movie. So all of you armchair psychiatrists might know why I was so excited for this film, but it won’t take a degree in armchair psychiatry to know why this film fell short of mediocrity.

The story is simple enough, Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughn, and Will Farrell establish a fake fraternity outside of a local University, and memories of Porky's come flooding back. Will Farrell is a newlywed trying hard to adjust to married life, Wilson has recently broken up with his cheating girlfriend, and Vaughn is just not satisfied with his electronics business and two children. Well what is the problem? Perfect casting with some great actors should save any movie, right? Wrong.

This film unfortunately dropped the ball with these three wonderful actors. Maybe Todd Phillips simply did not know how to handle such a funny cast. Vaughn is the quintessential dry witted player, Farrell is the wild man, and Wilson is the lovable loser with a broken heart. It’s funny, it is almost as if I’ve seen these actors play identical roles in the past, again and again.
On the outside this film has huge potential. A wonderful fish out of water story about losers living out past glory, like Billy Madison meets Animal House. While sophomoric, those films captured lovable characters that made us laugh but did not cross the line into the dreaded generic comedy zone. We never grow to love any of the characters of Old School, we simply watch them stumble from party to party and occasionally laugh at a cheap joke.

In its defense, the movie delivered on every promise made by their funny commercials. The three old men did start up a fake fraternity, Will Farrell did get drunk, and there were some naked young women. So what else could you ask from a generic comedy? Not more than you could ask of The New Guy or The Hot Chick. Unfortunately, I though this film would be better than those films, I was wrong.