Waterman, you fool. Do you know I've hired a legion of underlings and assigned them all 10 films to review with staunch quotas of interjections and swearwords to pass off as my own. The day is mine...unless you've hired more people. Did you mispell my name this time to get back at me for that other time? If so, John Waatermaign, touche!

Oh yeah, did you still want Sold?

To try to outnumber Myers once again, I'm back from my week off. Expect to see reviews for The Hours, The Rules of Attraction, Cheats and "I'll be back" next week with the Terminator Trilogy reviewed. You won't want to miss it.

Sorry, just can't stop now....

DV with High RPM or Eat Them Words, Boy, Eat em!

A Review/Ponderance of 28 Days Later by Mike Meyer

I just happened to look back at the gigantic Word document that houses all of my reviews and I read through the very first one I did for Filmbrats…a very scathing review of Full Frontal and DV cinematography in general. As you’ve seen, I’m very fickle and just as I buried the hatchet with Soderbergh on Solaris, I see a future tainted with more word eating regarding DV with the advent of 28 Days Later, the first film shot on DV that I loved through and through.

To preface, however, I love zombie movies. From the socially poignant Dead trilogy, to Fulci’s gruesome Zombi, to the even ridiculous and spiteful Return of the Living Dead series, I love them all. I think they trump most other horror subgenres for one simple reason….the story is never about the zombies. Every vampire movie is centered around the vampires themselves. Werewolves, sea monsters, Frankenstein, demons, and various others are hard to pinpoint because they are so scattered in terms of theme and how the creatures are represented so it’s difficult to make a concise comparison. But zombie movies are very concise and never about the braindead walking dead themselves. For the most part, they’re “end of the world” movies. Bleak wasteland which once was America movies. Because really, the only way for these slow, lurking, ultimately harmless creatures to be any threat, is to have them en mass against you and you must have no armed resources. So ultimately, the best zombie movies are hard looks at society at large and what could capably paralyze it, thus making zombies a threat. And 28 Days Later is no different. Though it doesn’t make any great political stance, it creates a physicality to the notion that if you immerse yourself in violence and the awfulness of the world, you’ll become a slave to that awfulness. Any more detail will lead to spoilers and I don’t want to be an Ebert here (By the way, thanks for giving away key details in your review, Bob. Didn’t want to figure that out for myself.)

So let me glow over the aesthetics of this movie. It was classic and astoundingly original at the same time. Danny Boyle has such a great eye for making the drab of London incredibly electric. And nothing helped capture the electricity of this film like his choice of DV. He seemed to use all the setbacks of shooting with DV to his advantage.

1) DV loses 60% of color upon transfer to film at the very least. He used this to give his movie the gray look of London that was so signature to Trainspotting, which is further enhanced by the fact that….
2) DV is very muddy when blown up and transferred to film. This gave the film a more impressionist quality that while it made the picture a little less clear, it neutralized any chance of it having the glitz of a Hollywood film. Even gritty 35mm movies have a clarity and beauty about them that would have destroyed the ambience. And finally…
3) The frame rate of DV and that of film are slightly different so when DV is transferred to film, the picture appears more choppy or is given to “ghosting”. This was the best effect of the film. It gave the impression that the whole thing was shot with a sliver small shutter, giving it a very stark, strobing quality, enhancing the action a million fold.

And all this on top of the fact that DV costs virtually nothing to shoot, so you can have your astronomical shooting ratios at bargain basement prices. This is what makes me so elated about this film. It’s a DV film that’s truly a DV film. It doesn’t try to be film by any special process. Sure, you can say that Harminy Korrine and Steven Soderbergh did the same thing, but they lack one essential element…zombies. There I said it. It’s the spoonful of sugar to the proverbial DV medicine for me. I didn’t have to be forced to appreciate the film because of the use of DV and how it’s awkwardly becoming a viable option for shooting a film. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, dug the zombies, and was intrigued at how well the DV complimented the story. And while I’m talking about using things I once thought silly to compliment a story (as a complete nonsequitor), I love how Danny explored the “running zombie” from the Return of the Living Dead series. The idea of a zombie that can run really fast scares me more than any other hypothetical thing, beating out H Bombs that unleash a wake of knives and government mandated sex with relatives.

There are a few outstanding complaints about this film from a variety of sources. That the story derails in the 2nd act. That the characters are poorly developed. That the one big story payoff (which I won’t tell you because I’m not Bobby “Ruin it” Ebert) is a bit flaccid. I can see where they are all valid in many respects, except where the characters are poorly developed as I thought they developed beautifully given their unnaturally horrid circumstances. But I feel this is a “forest from the trees” situation. Because if there’s one thing I’ve learned from viewing this film and Blue Car, it’s that some filmmaking and storytelling virtues only have 100% virtue to the people who make films or tell stories. Character development is secondary if it gets in the way of telling a rousing story, it’s not at the very center. Some people do value people battling zombies over the people doing battle. The only way the people stories win out is if they’re able to tell the story of the people without interfering with the action. No one loved Blue Velvet for character development or a really tight story. They loved it because it was a dark absurdist work of art. It’s only one example among thousands and I know it’s good to have a set regiment of standards to grade films by, but every now and then it’s just great to be entertained. And that was me, brother, during 28 Days Later. If for no other reason, imagining how much I wanted to be in England under the deluge of rain machines with a DV camera and gallons of fake dark red blood vomit, making strides to further film expression via hordes of running zombies. YAY MOVIES!!!

I also had a haiku about The Italian Job, but in retrospect I think it's a shameful donkey show attempt to try to outdo Jon's mass of reviews. I'll have to fight him eye to eye. Take this.....

Happy Un-Father’s Day!

A Review/Ponderance of The Hulk by Mike Meyer

Ahh sweet sweet baby back irony! What a huge wink to the world when you…less than a week after Father’s Day….release the biggest “I hate daddy” movies of the century. Not since Al Capone and Valentine’s Day.

So, the film itself. I liked it. Didn’t love it, but it didn’t completely piss me off either. Marvel has a hard time doing something 100% wrong. Every single film they’ve put out in the last year has never been below par or really even par. Even lighter fare like Daredevil still accomplished on a small level what the behemoths like Spiderman, X2, and even The Hulk are doing on the Uber Hollywood Puppeteer level.

Ang Lee and his beautiful indie sensibilities really gave this movie something other than just epidermal action action action. He really attempted to how and why the Hulk emerged and acts the way he does. In fact the development of Bruce Banner, the Hulk, and the relationship between the two is the rudder of the film, steering the action and ultimately making it more important than the story itself. What results is a film about dealing with human emotions, trauma, and the catalysts of both, not really about a 15-foot tall bounding green toddler. But not to fret, Ang Lee also uses his keen eye for action and fight composition to give some serious bang to the action sequences. There is one scene in particular…won’t give too much away…it involves the Hulk and some dogs…that will be make you cheer with it’s satisfying brutality.

Some people have voiced that the film gets a little too arty at times. I’ve heard complaints that Ang Lee gets a little carried away with decadently long shots of rocks and slow fades of gnarled trees and extending Hulk “bouncing sequences”, but these at least establish metaphors and do attempt to make physical some change in the characters (if that’s what you’re into.) Story too long for you? You’re not the only one, but I applaud them for at least trying to give people action and a thick story. My biggest complaint about The Hulk was the editing. Taking a nod directly from the Fox show 24, The Hulk utilizes to a sickening extent, interwindow cutting where the action is dispersed into 2, 3, or 15 different windows all happening at the same time. This was done obviously to try to cinematically emulate a comic book, a decision that became the movies most prominent flaw. For a few scenes it proved effective, but for about 80% of the movie it was as grating as it was distracting and unnecessary as it occurred in almost every cut. They didn’t need to spruce this movie up like that. It was fantastic as is. In the end, all this method accomplished was take the audience out of the moment while showcasing a lot of non-descript B-roll footage.*

Having said all that, the true testament to the film’s strength is it was able to shine regardless. All the interwindow cuts and weird composites and wipes, still couldn’t prevent this gem from twinkling. It’s a story about a stirring anti-hero seriously coming to terms with his identity by throwing a few tanks and killing mutant dogs. If that’s not the essence of cinema, then I may as well turn in my club card.

To see tasteful and very effective use of interwindow cutting, see The Boston Strangler (1968).

Okay, I think we're clear of problems now. Let's try this again.

I Can’t Tell You How Awful the Matrix: Reloaded Is. You Must Experience It For Yourself.

A Review Ponderance of The Matrix: Reloaded by Mike Meyer

Hahaaa. What a deliciously clever title for this review. You see….how I took the thing from the other movie…and put it with the thing….yeah? Okay, that was unnecessary, so let’s get down to brass tacks. The Matrix: Reloaded can be summed up in one word…Ow!

As with anyone with a soul and imagination, I was blown away by the first Matrix film. It was a hallmark film for a number of reasons. It was one of the tightest stories, visually and aesthetically, you’ll ever see come out of Hollywood. And it was one of the first films I’d seen to ever use CG not just for special effects, but to enhance the style and aesthetic of the film. Combine that with keen comic book sensibilities of storytelling and composition and you have a movie that offers the best of both worlds…a smart movie with a lot of ass kicking where the smarts and the ass kicking played off of and enhanced each other, instead of each individually fighting for screen time.

But something happened in the 4 years and the billions of dollars generated and spent since the release of the first Matrix. Something got lost. Somewhere between the fan newsgroups and studio-enforced BulletTime quotas and creative hubris and god knows what else, the very heart and soul of the Matrix was buried, and the sequel was resurrected from it’s decaying remains with all of the bells and whistles the first movie brought but without any of the creative core. More appropriately, it should have been called Matrix: Unloaded.

First off, the very heart of everything…the story. It’s one thing to have a loose shaggy story, but plug that into the Matrix realm and what was once shaggy is now sloppy. The archaic start of the film….Neo’s dream…sets the tone for the entire movie with it’s celebratory use of CG over substance. There were but small shreds of story that actually moved the story along and even those were just plain sprawling and “okay maybe that makes sense a little”. It was an acid jazz free form hippy love from start to finish. And all of it was at the whims of the special effects and attempting to create more signature Matrix visuals.

But I’ll get back to visuals in a second. Let’s talk about performances. I’ll leave Keanu to everyone else because he’s a tired tired whipping boy who only actually performed in one film (The Gift) and he couldn’t act in the first one so let’s just say he’s our control element. But Laurence Fishbourne knows how to act…but apparently forgot for a few hours. It’s not a good thing where your character is the film’s center of constancy and wisdom, and your performance is wrought with inconsistency and foolish decisions. Throughout the film, Morpheus would invoke -isms from a wide range of characters from characters as close as Agent Smith to as far away as Yul Brenner’s King of Siam. The only guiding light in this film in terms of performance is Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith. He trumped his performance in the first one, which was already beyond stellar. Too bad the powers that be sought to taint it with that ridiculous street fight scene.

So let’s talk about those visuals now. At best, they were almost okay. I’ll tell you one thing though…there sure were a lot of them. As such, no one really caught onto why the first Matrix had such a visual impact. Because it was the COMBINATION of tight, expressive shot composition and the cool CG effects. For some odd reason the great composition was shoved to the side to make room for more CG. Which is a silly notion if you think about it and not just because I’m a huge Philistine when it comes to anything CG. It’s because here in 2003, BulletTime does not impress people. It’s a huge visual joke that is now just a big a part of the Matrix as all of the things that spoof it. Don’t try to impress me with things that I’ve come to accept as the norm, especially raw with poor composition, but give me a lot of it so it seems better. You’re fooling nobody. You’re not drawing anyone’s attention away from the fact that you have a loose awful story, poorly written characters, schizoid editing, and….OH YEAH….I’m dedicating a paragraph alone to one scene in particular because not only is it bad, it’s downright disrespectful from everyone who saw it to everyone who’s worked in film from today to the Edison studio days. Of course I’m talking about the infamous scene where Neo meets the architect of the Matrix. SPOILERS!

So, after using the key master (who died before he could find Sigourney Weaver, gatemaster of Gozer) to get into the very heart of the Matrix, Neo comes face to face with the architect of the Matrix. In the minutes that follow this man attempts to explain to Neo how the prophecy of the one is just another program in the Matrix along with a lot of exposition about the Oracle, what went wrong, etc. So in this pivotal point of this visually charged trilogy, the filmmakers take both Neo and the architect on a journey through some kind of period-emulation program that allows Neo to see first hand how things went wrong…right?….WRONG! The architect just tells him, droning on for over 10 minutes about technical minutia that the filmmakers made up, never wavering from one of three shots a) the master, b) Keanu’s blank expression, and c) the architect flapping his gums. You sad, horrific people! Show them what you’re talking about SOMEHOW! Don’t tell them. You just basically gave the finger to 100 years of cinema without flinching. And not in a Godard “remove you from the illusion” kind of way. Because why would you do that in a Matrix movie? It was out of pure laziness. And coming from the people who brought you the first Matrix….a film that utilized visuals very successfully to explain itself 4 years prior…someone should have said something. And then FILMED SOMETHING TO PUT IN THERE!!!!

So there you have it. A huge almost Freudian nightmare that the first Matrix had one night. And true to form to nightmares, though it can give you insight into what you’re really about, there is no distinguishable beginning or end and when it’s all over, leaves you with a sense of having braved an awful thing. Unfortunately for this nightmare, you know when the next one’s coming. Should you avoid sleeping that night? You be the judge.

Under the deluge of Jon reviews, I hope people even still remember me. Here's one feeble attempt to appeal to my fans...both of them...thanks mom and dad....

I am Rust, I am Gravity, I am the Best Senior Thesis Film This Year

A Review/Ponderance of Blue Car by Mike Meyer

An interesting thing happened when I saw Blue Car last night which may have “condensed” or “framed” my opinions a certain way. They forgot to change the gate on the projector after the opening commercial spots ran. There was no one there and I was too lazy to get up to correct the situation, so the whole film was projected in a perfect square. But the movie wasn’t a huge sweeping 1930s sword-and-sandal movie so I got to see the essentials at least. And seeing this kind of film in that aspect ratio at least gave physicality to how I felt about the movie as a whole.

But before we get into the thick of it, let’s get the story out of the way. Meg has a shitty life. Her father has left. Her mother works during the day and goes to school at night, leaving this girl to take care of her deranged sister. To help deal with all of this compounded with all the stress of high school life, Meg writes poetry (no, really?) and eventually finds a friend in her creative writing teacher who tries to get her on a more focused track with her writing while helping her out with her personal life. The rest you all should know, but if you don’t, Doug Benson* summed it up best with his review of Blue Car - “The teacher-feel-student-good movie of the summer”.

The creative force behind this film was great. Everyone executed his or her said tasks very responsibly. Not astoundingly, but responsibly. Most notably, David Straitharn delivers a great performance as the sexually inhibited, hollow creative writing teacher Mr. Auster and as did Agnes Buckner as Meg. The only real breakout performance of this film is Rob Sweeney, cinematographer. Rob creates a uniquely bleak film from start to finish without giving into anything outrageous. He subtly washes out all colors except for dirty blues and greens that add immensely to the texture of the film. Hopefully, this film will serve as means to get this Hollywood second unit guy into shooting more films with him at the helm. Karen Moncrieff also gives us a well crafted story that, like it or not, is definitely a solid example of how to write well constructed fiction that has been done a million times before but still has a stamp. You may say, “I haven’t seen too many movies like Blue Car. What are you talking about? I even see a lot of indie movies too.” Well, as I discussed with my friend on the way home, whatever you get from Blue Car depends on what you came into the film with.

Just as my friend said he was shocked at all of the stark real moments in the film, being a child of a not-so-friendly divorce himself, I came away with a very different sense of what the film was. You see, I’m not a child of divorce, but I am a former film student. And anyone who’s gone to film school has seen hours upon hours of just this type of film. It’s every other senior thesis film ever made. Simple movies involving little frail people in horrible real life situations who deal with it by writing, enriched by a lot of “staring out the window in deep thought” shots (although Meg didn’t smoke so it wasn’t a complete relapse). What really added authenticity in this case was Adam Gorgoni’s score with its nondescript piano and electric guitar riffs, emulating every homegrown film school score ever composed. And seeing the whole thing in a square frame, one very similar to all of aspect ratio of a 16mm student film, it was like I was back in Carbondale, IL reliving all of that time in a dark theater/soundstage lost forever to unfocussed shots of people pondering photo albums and warbling voiceover that sounds like the microphone was pressed against the narrator’s Adam’s Apple.

But take my cynicism exhibited here with a grain of salt. As the title and a portion of this review let’s on, it’s still a very well crafted film. Plus, you probably haven’t seen a bunch of student films and you all probably outright hated The Hulk, so my opinion is of no use to you anyway. So this may be a new experience for you, good or bad. Try it and let me know. And if you don’t like it, call me and we’ll watch The Adventures of Baron Munchausen to cleanse the palette.

*Doug Benson is a film reviewer who writes the column “I Love Movies” for www.bobanddavid.com.

Computer problems prevented me from posting this, the third review of the week, on Saturday night. Here you are. Scroll down for "The Hulk" reviewed.

Finding Nemo
Review by Jon Waterman

**1/2

Marlin, a single dad clown fish, travels through the ocean to search for his only son, Nemo. The evil humans captured Nemo, and Marlin won’t stop until he’s found the only thing he has to live for. Along the way, they both encounter some wacky and scary creatures of the deep that both guide and hinder their progress in reuniting. Can Marlin get to his son again? Is Nemo destined to spend a life in captivity?

Pixar is back and at its worst in their latest installment of fun family movies. It’s not that the movie is bad, because actually it’s not. However, Pixar has come forward with hit after hit, producing wonderful stories, and thus has built themselves a huge reputation. The bar has been raised to a pretty high level. Also, knowing that years of work go into animating and story writing, and to have it come out as mediocre as it did was a bit of a let down. So, what went wrong?

First, I think the writing was just off. Like I said, it’s not bad, per se, just…off. The script (by Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson and David Reynolds) told a decent story full of life and adventure. However, it really lacks in the joke department. Perhaps I’m being too harsh, since it does not necessarily have to be a comedy to be a family picture. They try to make it funny. They succeed at times, but the majority of the jokes are too obvious for any parent in the audience to laugh and could actually be over the head of most children watching as well. The real humor comes not from any fish related observation, but from normal character quirks.

I’m surprised it’s not funnier considering some of the stars involved. The leads are played by Albert Brooks (Marlin), who is notorious for his improvisation and Ellen DeGeneres (Dory, the fish with a bad short-term memory), a professional stand-up comedienne. There are also great comedic actors and stand-up people in the supporting cast. Brad Garrett, Vicki Lewis and the incredible Stephen Root. Oh, and Eric Bana who is much better in this than he was in “The Hulk” (even though I couldn’t have told you which character he was). With all these people capable of enhancing the existing script, why was it not funnier? If wishes were fishes.

As far as the animation goes, of course, it looks great. Pixar is by far the premiere computer animation studio. It shows up in the details. I do have a couple of complaints, though. First, the humans were a little too cartoony for me. The divers that caught Nemo were fine, but after that, they were dopey things. I’m sure it was on purpose and part of the subconscious effect or whatever, but it didn’t work for me. My other small gripe was the considerable lack of scales. We all know fish have them, but they weren’t part of the characters. Perhaps the technology isn’t quite there yet. Other wise, the film looks amazing. The little specks floating around in the water, the lighting and all the other little things add to the great looking scenery.

As much as I complained about the film, it was fun. The kids will love it, but it may be best on video, due to the nearly two-hour running time. I didn’t expect much out of “Finding Nemo,” based on the previews (even though I’ve come to expect a lot out of Pixar). I was pleasantly surprised to have enjoyed myself to some extent. Overall, worth the money and time, but don’t expect anything that will blow you out of the water.

Mind numbing was right. Here's the huge review for this huge flop.

The Hulk
Review by Jon Waterman

half star

Jon mad. Hulk suck.

The Hulk is the latest comic book character to be transformed into a movie star (I use that term loosely, of course). A normal Bruce gets blasted with radiation. That interacts with some genetic mutations he inadvertently received from his scientist father. The result is that every time ol’ Brucy becomes angry, he turns into a giant green monster that can out run you, out jump you, out lift you and out eat you. In other words, the oldest story in the book.

Let me “cut” right to the editing. If there is anything that stood out more than the fifteen-foot green behemoth in throwing stuff in the middle of San Francisco, it would be the editing. Spliced awkwardly by director Ang Lee’s go-to guy, Tim Squyres, the film takes on a very comic book feel. At many points, the film shows multiple frames or “panels” on the screen simultaneously to convey the notion that you are watching a graphic novel come to life. While this sounds like an interesting idea (and it kind of is), the execution of this technique leaves much to be desired. The effect makes its point. That’s not the problem. The problem is it comes off as an excuse to use as many camera angles as possible for as long as possible. The problem is it neglects editing for dramatic effect to show-off a cool new way to do something. The problem is in how the swishing panels and dissolving backgrounds distract from the overall experience. I spent too much time looking at all the stuff moving in and out of every scene that I didn’t really concentrate on what was said.

However, when I did pay attention to the dialogue, I tended to zone out because I was so utterly bored. Scenes of exposition were dragged out to ungodly lengths for real apparent reason other than the writers never bothered to trim them down. Ah yes, we have writers to blame. James Schamus (Ang Lee’s go-to guy for writing), Michael France (the upcoming “Punisher” and “Fantastic Four” – I bet those will suck, too, now) and John Turman (producer on “Gleaming the Cube”) all worked together to bring you an excruciatingly long waste of time. It takes about an hour for the Hulk to show up. Why? The movie is named after the damn thing. We all know it’s going to happen. If you really need to explain how he became that way, do it after we see him destroy stuff. When he finally does make an appearance, he’s treated like a 1930s monster: hidden from the audience although his carnage is not. His face kept in shadows as if we haven’t already seen it on posters and fast food places and every other street corner. So, by the time I saw what’s his face…I didn’t care. I just wanted the movie to move faster. And it dragged more and more.

Each hero has a super villain to fight. Spidey had the Green Goblin. Batman has tons of bad guys to beat up on. The Hulk…. He gets the government and three mutant dogs. Woo frickin’ hoo. What kind of crap is that? I don’t want to ruin the end, but if you want to discuss the final 15 minutes with me, email me and I’ll tell you how incredibly dumb that was.

Back to harp about the visuals again. I bet I can count on one hand the number of static shots that were in this film. I understand the concept of an action film always wanting to move, but what is the deal with a rotating camera during the important dialogue? Ang Lee is known for making beautiful films. “The Ice Storm” and “Crouching Tiger” are two examples of this. “The Hulk” contains only a few minutes of truly marvelous Ang-esque material. One sequence is in the last fifteen minutes. The other is when a young Betty is alone at the ice cream parlor and sees the explosion in the distance. That shot is incredibly breathtaking. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is filled with unimpressive standard stuff mixed in with hectic action sequences where nothing can truly be made out. What a waste of talent.

The acting. Before I mention performance. Why was there a separate person cast to play the Bruce that goes off to college? The appearance of an adult does not change that drastically from the time the movie really starts and then. It was pointless and could potentially confuse the audience. Stupid move. Ok…performances. Every single person was the same. All of them were two-dimensional people who spoke in monotone voices. For the men, it was a contest of whose voice could carry the most bass. For Betty (the only female – played by Academy Award winner Jennifer Connelly) it was a contest of whose career could go down the drain fastest. No one put nuance into the acting. It was all cut and very very dry. In fact, I think the computer generated Hulk was a better actor than the rest of the cast. He showed emotion.

Speaking of the namesake. I was actually surprised. Hulk looked better than I thought he would. He integrated and interacted within the frame with live elements pretty much flawlessly. His movements were as smooth as can be expected and like I said, he showed more emotion than his real counterparts. As anti-CGI as I am for things such as this, I can easily say it worked. The part I thought would be the worst turned out to be the best.

So, there you have it. Not much else I care to see other than I’m glad the top half of Bruce’s pants are always made of elastic. I don’t think this film warrants as much attention as I just gave it. Please, see something else.

A little bit of art before the assumingly mind-numbing Hulk

The Pianist
Review by Jon Waterman

****

Wladyslaw Szpilman, a well-known Polish Jewish pianist, and his family get swept up and placed in the ghetto during World War II. As the war progresses and more and more people are sent away, Szpilman must make unbearable choices and overcome seemingly impossible situations to try to stay alive. He faces insurmountable odds and maintains his sanity through his love of music.

One of the things that appealed to me most was the incredible way it was shot. Director Roman Polanski and his cinematographer Pawel Edelman work together to create a muted palette that dulls and livens the visuals at the same time. Even though the story follows Szpilman (played by Adrien Brody) virtually exclusively, there is an overwhelming sense of voyeurism. I couldn’t help but feel I was intruding into his life, despite the fact that the majority of the film is shown from his perspective (of course I don’t mean first person camera work). The audience is as enclosed and as trapped as Szpilman.

We want to reach out and help him. Give him some of the popcorn and candy we eat while we watch him scrounging for food. Invite him to sleep on the couch we observe him from. Yet, while we enjoy the luxuries of our daily life, we can at least begin or pretend to empathize with him, and we can surely applaud the courage required to overcome that unspeakable time.

A lot of credit is due to the actors. Brody is astounding. He not only played a couple of complex songs on the piano, he also played a complex set of emotions: both to near perfection. I never had to question any character’s motivation. All that is required is to look at the actor’s face and all would be understood perfectly. Even the thousands of extras stood out to me as giving great performances. The deaths were not stagy. They were gritty, understated and very effective.

If you don’t know that the film is based on Szpilman’s actual story (his book was adapted by screenwriter Ronald Harwood), it may be tough to believe some of the events. A couple of the situations seemed to be a little too convenient and hard to swallow. However, assuming that the movie is essentially true to life, it makes his harrowing story that much more incredible.

No one my age could ever possibly truly begin to understand what living in a time such as that was like for someone of any nationality, let alone the amazing struggles the European Jewish people had to endure. “The Pianist” is a remarkable piece of work that touches your heart and soul. It’s a film that makes it that much easier to know why what happened then should never have to happen again.

The third review of the week. Just as promised. See you next week!

Bruce Almighty
Review by Jon Waterman

***

Bruce, a wacky reporter that hates life makes God angry when he claims He isn’t doing His job. So, what would God do? He gives Bruce full control over all His powers. Bruce can’t tell anyone about it, but that doesn’t really seem to be an issue as he goes around having fun and causing all sorts of craziness.

I’m going to start with the bad stuff first. Let’s talk about the music for a little bit here. Just because the movie deals with God does not mean you have to include every popular song that mentions God in the lyrics. That just got annoying. It felt like overkill, and the novelty wore off very quickly. He has God’s powers. We get it. We don’t need every damn song reminding us. It’s not funny. It’s not cute. It’s stupid.

You know what else is stupid. The catchphrases. Is there some rule I don’t know about that says every Jim Carrey (who plays Bruce, by the way, if you didn’t already know) movie has to include one or two dumb catchphrases? Here we have “B-E-A-utiful.” Yeah, I know. It makes no sense. Also, we get the cringe inducing “It’s goooooood.” I just want to punch someone in the face every time I hear that. People should lose jobs for thinking that’s a good idea. Holy crap. (Even that would be a better catchphrase.)

Now for the good. Pretty much the rest of the movie is good. The script (written by Mark O’Keefe, Steve Koren, and Steve Oedekerk) includes some great spontaneous moments mixed with some telegraphed jokes that surprisingly still work. Even though the movie is loosely religious themed, the film avoided making it preachy and never used Christianity as a crutch. The result is a remarkably good mix of visual humor (usually with the aid of special effects) and decent comedic dialogue.

The acting, in general, is done rather well (for a comedy). Jennifer Aniston may not have many (or any) good lines, but her performance completely dwarfs Carrey’s. I wish she had a bigger role. The subtle gestures in her movements and words helped to ground the way-over-the-top goofiness of Carrey. Jim seems to want to recreate some of that magic he had in “Ace Ventura” and “The Mask.” However, this is a separate character and should not be as cartoony, nor should it be so flamboyant. There are ways to convey the selfish pompous jerk attitude without going to these extremes. Also, we know he is capable of a better job, so what gives?

This movie is just an excuse to let Jim Carrey let loose like he used to. It’s an excuse to use special effects and give more abstract absurd comedy a somewhat “plausible” explanation. But, you know what? I don’t care. It was still funny, God bless it!

Here you go. Second of the week is finally here. Expect the third (Bruce Almighty) to arrive later tonight/early tomorrow morning.

The Italian Job (2003)
Review By Jon Waterman

*

A group of world-class thieves steal a large sum of gold from Italy by pulling off the most complex heist of their career. Once they’re in the clear, they are ambushed by one of their own. Now, the remaining “good” thieves must try to steal it back from the “bad” thief. In order to do this, they must pull off an even more complex heist than the most complex heist of their career to date. Sound exciting?

The movie was quite boring. Any sense of tension is virtually non-existent. Not only that, but they build up this scheme to get into the house of Steve (the bad guy) to take the stuff. This is what the majority of the movie is about. Then it all gets thrown out the window for reasons I won’t go into here so that those that feel like watching it don’t know too much about the plot. Let’s just say I felt like all of that time should have been cut out of the picture entirely.

“The Italian Job” is an ensemble piece comprised of mostly B-actors (Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron) and those fulfilling contractual obligations (Edward Norton). Of course, each character has a specialty. Seth Green steals the show as the computer hacker. His dialogue is the funniest and perhaps the only intentionally funny dialogue. My big problem with his character, though – he uses a Dell. I have a hard time believing that a professional computer hacker would be using a pre-packaged machine. I understand the concept of advertising in movies, but let’s try a billboard next time. Right, Mr. Important Pepsi Blue Truck?

Now, let’s talk about the action. Like I said before it was boring. Not only that, but it came off about as hokey as a Bond film without the reputation to back it up. What we are meant to take as serious is either yawn inducing (like the car chase) or laughable (like pretty much the whole thing). Not only that, but virtually no damage was done. We are “treated” to a long car chase in the middle of huge amounts of traffic, but guess what. No car crashes. I’m surprised I’m saying this, but I miss senseless destruction and mayhem. It’s not exciting to watch a car squeak by everything. No explosions. Nothing. Blah.

This film, in my opinion, starts off the summer season perfectly. If you thought about it, most of the film made no sense. And, it may have been boring and dumb. But it was still more fun to watch than “Gosford Park.”

My vow to you is to write at least 3 reviews per week on this site (at least during the summer months). In order to accomplish this, I will be delving into my personal DVD collection. Currently I have 125 titles to choose from (including TV and promo material). For my first of the week, a film still in theaters in several areas:

A Mighty Wind
Review By Jon Waterman

*

A folk music reunion show is being planned that would bring all of the top acts from back in the day together to honor the memory of the genre’s greatest promoter.

The fiction film acts as a documentary (known as a “mockumentary”) and follows the lives of several different characters as the show’s deadline approaches. It follows around the son of the famous promoter as he attempts to organize the event, and it follows the three groups as they attempt to prepare for being on stage for the first time in thirty years. The result is an ensemble film that gets to be a little too overwhelming and a little too un-entertaining.

My first thought was that the cast of characters was too large (notice I don’t mention any character names). We are supposed to keep track of twenty-plus lives in a short time frame. However, the over-abundance is not the issue. The back-stories just are not interesting or necessarily fleshed out enough. We are not really given a reason to connect with anyone. Eugene Levy’s (co-writer) character seems to have the most meat, but in the end I really didn’t care what happened to any of them. The character development that was given was not utilized for comedic effect. We learn that one folk singer used to be an adult film actress. After learning that fact, we never hear it mentioned again. It seems like a waste of time if it won’t be referenced later.

As for the genre itself, I can’t really say that the mockumentary has been played out. However, I would like to see a new crew attempt it. ”The Real Cancun” doesn’t count, either. The only mockumentaries put out are by director/co-writer Christopher Guest and the same group of actors in every film. Only about half of the time does it actually pan out. If there were other directors and writers working in the same arena, maybe Guest and friends would be more inclined to try harder in future endeavors. Mockumentaries are not played out. Christopher Guest mockumentaries: maybe.

Is it possible that I don’t enjoy the film because I was not around during the peak folk music era? I doubt it. I hardly knew anything about dog shows, but I found “Best In Show” hilarious. If you need to know about that stuff to enjoy the film then the film isn’t doing it’s job. A true good documentary would explain the scene so the audience understood it. I felt this film did explain what it needed to say, however, the jokes fell flat most of the time. The only character that could consistently get a laugh was Fred Willard’s. He made me double over. Other than that, I wouldn’t waste the time on this one.

I loved the new Matrix. You are both crazy.