Looks like we need more MOVIE TRIVIA!

Unbelievable the support and enthusiasm I had for the last movie trivia post I did back in April. Unbelievably lame, that is.

Come on people! I know those questions were not easy but at least y'all could have given it a shot!

OK. Here's 10 more questions this time (instead of 20) plus a bonus question.

1) What is the name of the secret candy Willy Wonka created that Charlie wouldn't accept from him?

2) What actress appeared in all of the following films: Dick Tracy, A League of Their Own, Body of Evidence and Shanghai Surprise?

3)Name the film whose tag line stated, "You won't believe your eye."

4)Name the rocker who played the Acid Queen in the Who's Tommy

5)Name the film that Matthew McConaughey did not appear in: A Time to Kill, Gangs of New York Contact, Amistad or Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.

6) Spencer Tracy won the Oscar for Best Actor two years in a row, in 1937 (Captains Courageous) and 1938 (Boys Town). Name the only other actor to do it and the films for which he won:

7)A tagline for this 1984 film exclaimed, "The Heat Is On!" Name the film.

8)Name the actor who appeared in all of the following films: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Return of the Jedi, Leprechaun, and Willow.

9) What was the name of Humphrey Bogart's character in "The Maltese Falcon?"

10) In what film did Robin Williams make his big screen debut?

bonus) Name the actor who has appeared onscreen with Jennifer Aniston, Rachel Weisz, Jennifer Connelly, Reese Witherspoon, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jennifer Garner.

Spirited Away

SCRIBE'S...UM...I GOT NOTHIN' REVIEW:

One thing I love about this blog is that it often forces me to watch films I’ve wanted to see for years but have never been in the mood to actually watch. “Spirited Away” actually played in an art theater not far from my house but I could never get anyone to go see it with me and, eventually, I forgot about it. It sat on the shelves of my video store and my library but I never took it home until I was challenged to review it.

What a great film. For those unfamiliar with Miyazaki’s work, he is often referred to as the Walt Disney of Japan, although I find that to be a highly insulting comparison. Miyazaki is a true artist, an originator of images and concepts that Disney would have disregarded in favor of profit and exploitation of children, whom he secretly despised.

The film’s plot concerns a young, whiny girl whose parents are forcing her to move to the country. On the way to their new home, they stop briefly at a place that looks like an old, abandoned amusement park. They soon discover piles and piles of apparently fresh prepared food and start eating…and eating…and eating until they are turned into pigs.

From there, the girl finds herself thrown into a whirlwind of other dimensional creatures and customs that make absolutely no sense to her. Just being a human in this place is like bringing a new disease and so she must seek out work for protection while trying to find a way to rescue her parents.

Miyazaki’s animation runs wild and free of the physical constraints he imposed upon himself in “Princess Mononoke.” Here he creates a vivid world entirely different from our own that seems to never stop building into newer and more fascinating images of three-dimensional weirdness. And through it all, the human component is never sacrificed or lost.

When I found out Disney was the U.S. distributor for this film, I blanched. Then I shuddered, vomited violently and passed out for hours. However, their involvement is actually a good thing. The voice actors are phenomenal, no surprise since Disney uses only the best when it comes to that. One of my chief gripes about great anime' films has been the mediocre voice-over work.

Some parts of the film get a little slow, but each time you might think you’re growing bored, some new development occurs that breathes new life into the story. The arrival of the character known as “No-Face” alone is worth the entire movie! If that part doesn’t grab you, there’s also the train ride sequence, which is stunningly rendered.

I’m not sure I’d recommend this one for small children, though. Unlike Japanese kids, American kids are sheltered from everything to the point where the mere sight of blood can cause lifelong trauma. Sure their video games are gory but there’s no personal involvement in what’s going on like there is here.

See this one!

***** out of *****

GREEN’S BEING HUMAN IS LIKE HAVING A DISEASE REVIEW:

The first time I watched “Spirited Away“ was about four or five years ago. It was being shown on Cartoon Network and my daughter wanted to watch it. Previous to this, I had never heard of director Hayao Miyazaki or seen any of his other films. Since then I’ve seen this movie many times. Thanks to my daughter, this and several of Miyazaki’s other films are a part of my DVD collection.

The story is about a ten year old girl named Chihiro, whose parents are forcing her to move to a brand new house in a brand new town with a brand new school. And she’s not very happy about it at all. On the way to the new house, they take a wrong turn and are forced to stop at the end of a clearing in the woods. At the clearing there’s a building with a solitary, tunnel-like doorway.

Out of curiosity and due to the smell of food, Chihiro’s parents wander through the tunnel and across a field and end up at what looks like an abandoned amusement park. Chihiro reluctantly goes with them.

Walking through the empty streets of the park, Chihiro’s parents find mounds of steaming hot food at one of the restaurants and begin to eat and eat and eat and eat. Chihiro refuses to join in and runs away. As the sun goes down, the abandoned theme park comes to life with spirits of all kinds. When Chihiro returns to her parents, she discovers that they have been turned into large, ugly pigs.

Chihiro must now discover why her parents were changed into pigs and try to rescue them. She is befriended by a boy named Haku who tells her to insist on getting a job in the bath house, so she can continue to look for her parents in the spirit world. The bath house is run by an evil witch named Ubaba who controls the creatures who work there by stealing their names so that they forget who they are. Humans are not looked upon fondly in this spirit world. Chihiro is given the new name Sen.

There’s more to the story, but you’ll have to watch to find out more.

Yes, this is an animated movie, but please don’t let this hinder you from watching it. In comparison to the more familiar Disney or Warner Bros. styles of animation which we‘re used to, Japanese animation has the look of moving artwork rather than a cartoon. Miyazaki’s characters have depth and his storytelling ability is excellent. Disney has cultivated an excellent working relationship with Studio Ghibli to bring Miyazaki’s movies to the United States. They’ve done a masterful job with the English language version of this and other Miyazaki films, making them more appealing to American audiences by using well known English speaking voice talent. This is much better than keeping the original Japanese and using English subtitles.

This film is just over two hours long but you wouldn’t know it because the story is engrossing. This movie is not just for kids, adults will enjoy it too. If you haven’t experienced a Miyazaki film, you are missing out. “Spirited Away“ is an excellent choice to start with.

***** out of *****

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

GREEN'S HOW TO BE AN INTELLECTUAL TERRORIST REVIEW:

Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"
Dr. Richard Dawkins: "No, n-n-o, no, no, nor has anybody."
Stein: "Nor has anyone else."
Dawkins: "No."

Of course, Stein's "it" refers to the origins of life.

Dawkins goes on to say that he thinks God is about as unlikely as fairies, angels, hobgoblins, etc. and that anyone who has a belief in God or religion is irrational.

So Richard, if you nor anyone else supposedly in the know (that would be scientists, in case you were wondering) has any idea how "it" started, then why not Intelligent Design or, dare I say, God?

This is a fundamental question I've been asking for quite a long time but have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. This is the same essential question Ben Stein is trying to have answered in this documentary movie.

Stein talks with scientists in academia who have lost their jobs not for teaching intelligent design but for the mere mention of it as an alternative to Darwinism in papers that they've submitted. Of course, these great academic institutions of higher learning deny this as the reason for the firings, otherwise they'd be facing lawsuits up the wazoo for discrimination. Wow. If Darwinism and evolution are undoubtedly true, what does the scientific institution have to worry about? If evolution is on such rock solid ground, why use strong armed guerrilla tactics to suppress alternate ideas?

This documentary is not, I repeat, NOT about the right to teach Intelligent Design over Darwinism in schools and Universities. Rather, it's about the suppression of ideas and freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment. Restrictions on rights that shouldn't be infringed upon in a supposedly "free" country. This infringement is akin to censorship and reminds us of those wonderful regimes who brought such good things to world history. Regimes such as communist China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Regimes that officially banned religion as state policy.

Stein interviews scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism and the theory of evolution and some of those who are its most ardent supporters, including Dawkins himself.

Stein also delves into the question of how Darwinism leads to atheism, with Richard Dawkins as the star witness. This is not to say that all those who believe in evolution as fact are atheist or will become atheist, but that's the road that Darwinism inevitably leads down.

Stein, being of Jewish heritage, tours some of the WWII concentration camps in Europe. He takes some time for personal reflection about the horrors committed there thanks to Darwinistic thinking and "preservation of the superior race" as popularized by Chucky D from his little book and carried to the extreme by the Nazis. Truly the most somber section of the whole documentary.

One of the things I wondered about while watching is if you were entrenched in your position on the side of evolution and watched this documentary, would you be swayed to consider the alternatives or would you remain steadfast in your beliefs? Do you let your science take you where the evidence leads, no matter what or do you let your world view shape your science? I think I can guess the answers for most of you who will read this.

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" asks excellent questions and raises good points for discussion. It is well thought out and well written. I thoroughly enjoyed watching this documentary and I believe you will too.

***** out of *****

SCRIBE'S HOW SERIOUSLY CAN ONE TAKE A FORMER NIXON SPEECHWRITER & COMEDIAN WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE REVIEW:

As it turns out, Ben Stein, the conservative Nixon speechwriter turned comedian/actor has an ax to grind with academia. As shocking as this, it also turns out he is pissed at those who claim Evolutionary theory is more logically sound than Intelligent Design. And here's the real head turner...he decided to make a movie about it.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is Stein's attempt at getting to the bottom of the firings of certain teaching professionals around the nation who dared mention the mere possibility of Intelligent Design in regards to the origins of humanity. It is actually a noble aim on the surface because the true aim of academic research is supposed to be the ability to ask questions no matter where they may lead.

Stein takes his cameraman all over the globe in search of a reason behind why people are being silenced and losing their jobs. Is there a Darwinian Industrial Complex? I made that term up.

The evidence Stein uncovers would seem to indicate there is one, sadly. Science has become a realm of narrow thinking bureaucrats hell-bent on preserving whatever they hold to be true rather than allowing for alternatives in thought.

Ironically, Stein the so-called "comedian" is rarely funny or amusing in this documentary or anywhere else for that matter. He's about as dry as day-old toast and in no way compelling enough to carry us through his film, a stark contrast to the robust screen presence of Bill Maher in his superior film, Religulous. In fact, Expelled works best when other people are doing the talking... Of course, some would argue that all documentaries should work that way but Michael Moore might kick their asses.

When Stein is interviewing stuffy university department heads blustering on about why these people lost their jobs or talking to scientists who implied an Intelligent Design possibility that doesn't even necessitate the existence of God, that's when the film is at its most compelling. When it tries to tie in fascistic regimes and politics, it fails on all fronts.

Stein's visit to the Concentration Camps is a heavy-handed attempt to make a point he doesn't seem to realize he's making without this side trip. Maybe I should do a documentary some day on the evils of unfettered capitalism by visiting slavery plantations and the Bastille since I am mixed with both heritages. Stein loses momentum during this portion of the film to the point where his big "Roger & Me" moment with Richard Dawkins lacks much of the significant punch it could have packed had we not sat through the high school civics lesson.

By the way, Richard Dawkins is a piss poor spokesperson for not believing in God. Holy shit in a shoebox! Perhaps he is an intelligent man in his own regard, an idiot savant at the least, but he comes across as a yammering halfwit when confronted with the simple questions mentioned in Green's review. In fact, he basically admits the possibly of Intelligent Design by the end, implying an alien life form or intelligence could have been the originator... Bastard stole my belief system.

At the end, Expelled does what any successful documentary should do. It leaves the answers up the audience~

*** out of *****

CLASSIC REVIEW: To Live and Die in LA

SCRIBE'S DESCENT INTO MORAL AMBIGUITY BY WAY OF THE SEWER REVIEW:

It’s funny to see one of your favorite childhood movies again as an adult many, many years later. A certain measure of nostalgia naturally occurs, but very often you find yourself watching the film from an entirely different perspective. In some cases, unfortunately, the films don’t hold up to the test of time and become a symbol of regret followed by a pointless wish that you could forget you’d watch it as an adult and hold onto your memories instead.

To Live and Die in LA is one of those films.

Featuring for the first time in film history a group of modern-day bad-ass Treasury Agents, this film was the Eighties equivalent of The French Connection with William Petersen in the Popeye Doyle role. Except, this law enforcement official is really no better than the psychotic counterfeiter he’s chasing, played by an intensely evil Willem Dafoe. What makes him so bad, you ask? He’s a slave-owner.

No, seriously. He keeps a former prostitute as his own personal squeeze toy. The woman (Darlanne Fluegel, the official Eighties cop flick wife) basically exists to pleasure him when he needs it and serves as a sounding board when he needs to unload what little feelings he has. He’s also breaking in a new partner and seems bound and determined to turn him into a bitter, hateful bastard as well.

The film is sufficiently violent and gritty but what it’s sorely missing is a personal stake on the part of the viewer. One of my short stories was recently criticized because it didn’t have any likable characters in it and, while I strongly disagree that that’s a necessity, we should at least be interested in what’s happening. I’ve never really considered counterfeiting to be a heinous crime so Dafoe’s character seems a bit over the top. Besides, unless you’re a law and order type, there is no one to root for and nothing to care about.

To Live and Die in LA is an Eighties film featuring a Seventies style anti-hero but somebody forgot to make him even remotely relatable. What results is a series of well-crafted, pre-CGI stunt and action pieces punctuated with reprehensible human beings trying to kill each other for personal beefs that don’t translate well on screen. There is a shocking moment in the film that is still very effective where, without giving too much away, the dynamics change dramatically in an instant. But again there’s no emotional investment.

Still, if you’re looking for a morally bankrupt tale of avarice and human vice, look no further. Eighties Brit Pop group Wang Chung’s musical score serves the film well as it elevates some of the moments from cheesy to transcendental. It is, ironically, the only thing about this film that holds up, which is probably why it’s still one of my favorite soundtracks.

Sometimes memory lane is not the street we remember.

** out of *****

GREEN'S "YOU'RE WORKING FOR ME NOW" REVIEW:

This movie was recommended to me by a couple of my friends at work back in February. Naturally, having never seen it before, I was willing to take a chance.

The story begins when a secret service agent is killed investigating a counterfeit operation who gets too close to the bad guys in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Enter William Chance, played by William Petersen (of CSI fame), a fanatical, live by the seat of your pants secret service agent who seeks revenge for the murder of his partner. Eric Masters, played by Willem Dafoe, is the artist/counterfeiter/bad guy du jour. Chance's new partner is the straight laced John Vukovich, played by John Pankow. Chance vows to take Masters down any way possible, dragging Vukovich along for the ride.

The story has a gritty, live feel to it. Thanks to the benefit of twenty four years and an excellent "making of" featurette included on the DVD, we learn that much of the movie is improvisation and shooting on the fly by director William Friedkin. Many times Friedkin told his actors that they were doing a rehearsal but had the camera rolling and captured many scenes on the very first take.

This is not your typical buddy-buddy cop film or good guy-bad guy film. Both the good guys and bad guys are extremely flawed, driven by greed, hubris and a lust for money and power. There is a fine line separating the good guys from the bad guys which make the characters interesting because you never quite know which way a scene will turn until it's done. The car chase sequence is excellently shot and edited. You can feel the fear of Pankow's character sitting in the back seat of the car being jostled about during the chase.

Petersen is excellent in this role and Dafoe is one of the most fluent actors working today, being able to play both good guys and bad guys with equal ease and believability. The supporting cast is also excellent and features John Turturro, Dean Stockwell, Darlanne Fluegel and Robert Downey, Sr.

The plot twist Scribe mentions above certainly threw me off. I totally was not expecting to see what I saw. Nor was I expecting, but might have predicted had I thought about it, the scene at the end of the movie, from which I drew my title for this review.

Before I read that Wang Chung, that crazy 80's British one hit wonder band, did the soundtrack I hardly would have believed it. Yet they did an admirable job with it.

I found this film to be exciting and edgy and well worth the $10 I spent to buy the DVD.

**** out of *****

Star Trek

SCRIBE'S SPOCK'S A PIMP IN AN ALTERNATE REALITY REVIEW:

Ok, so I probably gave away the plot in the title of my review but so what? This is one of those films which, if you're any kind of Star Trek fan, you want to know the plot of before you plant your no doubt well-sculpted rump in the theater seat.

In a nustshell, JJ Abrams and his "Fringe" writers found a way to re-imagine Star Trek without affecting the originals' accepted history. For those who don't know the origins of Kirk and Spock, much of this won't come as a surprise but those who do the first few minutes will be shocking.

When a Starfleet vessel encounters a mysterious and incredibly advanced ship emerging from an apparent black hole, its commander demanding to speak with "Ambassador Spock" whom no one on the Starfleet ship had heard of, it's already obvious something is amiss. Basically, events in the future (Star Trek's future, not ours) have caused the creation of an alternate reality wherein our beloved characters are slightly altered due to the events of that fateful meeting.

Bear this in mind: This crew is the original crew in name only. Aside from a new cast of actors, the changes made to their timeline create a new starting point for most of them. This provides Abrams and company ample opportunity to do something new without pissing on previous Trek series and films.

The acting is top notch, the direction is as well. Only tight-asses incapable of accepting difference won't like it. I have already seen it twice and am planning to go back.

***** out of *****

GREEN'S "WHY WON'T YOU TELL ME YOUR FIRST NAME?" REVIEW:

I've never been a die-hard, fanatical Trekkie, as some people are. I can certainly appreciate the Star Trek genre and the impact the iconic show (even with the cheesy special effects) and spin offs have had on American culture in the last 40+ years. However, I must admit that when I learned of JJ Abrams plans to make a new Star Trek movie, I was a little more than a tad skeptical. I wondered if the movie would be any good or that a story could be found worth the telling in the Star Trek milieu, figuring with the television shows and all of the other movies in the series that we'd just about seen it all.

Now I'll bet you didn't realize that JJ Abrams was the producer of one of my favorite television shows "Alias" and also of "Lost" and that the script for Star Trek was written by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who each wrote ten episodes of Alias.

This edition of Star Trek is a prequel to the original television series and original cast movies (which Scribe and I reviewed in this space last year - see the sidebar to check out those reviews) and tells the story of the origins of James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine), Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) and reveals how Kirk meets Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Checkov (Anton Yelchin), Sulu (John Cho), Bones McCoy (Karl Urban), and Mr. Scott (Simon Pegg) as they work their way through the ranks of Starfleet and how they all come to be serving together on the USS Enterprise.

More than this about the plot I'm not going to say because I don't want to spoil it for you. I did have one major plot question regarding Spock's mother and the planet Vulcan which I hope will be addressed in the sequel prequel.

The story is excellently written, moves at a great pace and is full of action and super special effects. It's obvious that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman hold the Roddenberry's ample legacy in the highest regard. That's a good thing. I'm definitely going to buy this DVD when it comes out in a few months, with all of the special features and the making of documentary stuff that I like. However, this is a movie that must be - needs to be - experienced on the big screen of a movie theater.

As my brother said to me a few days ago - this may be the best of all the Star Trek films. That's a big leap to make... and I just might have to agree with him. In any case this film holds its own with those that have come before.

***** out of *****

To Die For

GREEN'S STRAIGHT FROM THE PAMELA SMART SCHOOL OF MANIPULATIVE BITCHINESS REVIEW:

A work friend of mine suggested this movie one day when we were talking about - what else - movies. Of course, I had never seen it before a few days ago when I watched it for this review. But I really didn’t need to. See, I knew the basic story already because this film is based on the real life story of Pamela Smart (pictured at her 1991 trial, below left) and it happened right across the border in Derry, New Hampshire, during the time when I was in college. I got the real life version in the news for several weeks (months, with the trial and all?) Believe me, the coverage around these parts was huge.

Of course, for this movie they’ve changed some of the details and the names of the characters involved. In real life Pam Smart was a teacher, in the film Suzanne Stone is an aspiring television personality. Even the city and county in New Hampshire are fictitious.

Nicole Kidman is excellent as the narcissistic, manipulative Suzanne Stone. She won a Best Actress Golden Globe for her performance but strangely was not even nominated for an Academy Award in 1995. Matt Dillon is good as her blindly loving husband, Larry Maretto. Illeana Douglas gives a very emotional performance as Larry‘s sister Janice. The movie also features a young Joaquin Phoenix and Casey Affleck. Director Gus Van Sant for the most part does a good job keeping the story moving, though I thought that the beginning of the movie dragged in a few spots.

I liked the documentary “after the fact” format Van Sant utilizes to tell the story. It makes the movie more interesting instead of using the traditional third party point of view or the first person point of view.

This is an entertaining film that I think you’ll enjoy.

***½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S WHY WERE NINETIES TEENS SO SCREWED UP? REVIEW:

This is one of my favorite movies. I knew it was based on actual events but had no idea Green was involved...wait, I just reread his review...scratch that last part. Sorry, Green.

This was Nicole Kidman's bid for legitimacy in the acting world and she nailed it. As the bitchy, covetous, manipulative and yes, very sexy media member wanna-be Suzannae Stone, she brings a stunning amount of depth to an otherwise vaporous character.

The documentary/talk show format Van Sant uses is a brilliant choice and now typical of the Nineties outlook on intrusive media (see Natural Born Killers & The Chase for examples). Were the film made now there would no doubt be some web cast references and nobody would be all that phased because everybody is Suzanne Stone now.

What was once shocking is now normal. Stone's belief that we're nobody if we're not on TV because nobody's watching is so ingrained in people today that the film seems at times more like a period piece than a timeless cautionary tale.

The acting is great. Matt Dillon plays good-natured dumb-asses better than practically anyone and a young Joaquin Phoenix brings a psychotic innocence to the teen boy who eventually does Stone's bidding that is compelling the way of a car accident. Casey Affleck is also very good although not given as much to do.

I want to read the novel now. This is a great film and deserved the Oscar much more than Fargo, which pains me to write as I am a huge Cohen Brothers fan~

***** out of *****

KISS KISS BANG BANG

GREEN'S "DID THE DOG JUST EAT MY FINGER?" REVIEW:

Harry Lockhart (Downey, Jr.) is a small time New York thief who ends up at a party in Hollywood after stumbling in on a movie audition and winning a call back. At this same party is his childhood friend Harmony (Monaghan), who is trying to make it as an actress, though he doesn’t realize who she is until later that night when they meet at a club. Harry is offered detective lessons to help with his acting in the movie by Perry (Kilmer), a gay LA Private Eye. When Harmony’s little sister is found dead in a LA hotel room, Harry, Perry and Harmony get caught up in a real life murder mystery/conspiracy that parallels the Johnny Gossamer crime novels that Harmony loved so much as a kid.

I found “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” in the $5 DVD bin at Wal-Mart a few months ago and bought it without ever having seen it because it looked interesting but primarily because of the excellent headlining cast of Robert Downey, Jr. and Val Kilmer. I’ve enjoyed their movies for almost twenty-five years, starting with Downey, Jr. for his bit part in "Weird Science" and Kilmer for the excellent but underrated "Real Genius" (both came out in 1985.) Having Michelle Monaghan in it, to me, was a bonus. She's excellent in this film - a great casting choice here. This is the third movie that she’s been in that I’ve seen, and I thought she was good in one and decent in the other.

Shane Black, whose writing credentials are unquestioned, having written the first two immensely popular Lethal Weapon films (and writing credits on the others), makes his directorial debut with this film, which he also wrote. Black handles himself well in the director’s chair, keeping the story crisp and at a good pace. I’ve often said that it helps when the writer of a story/screenplay is also it’s director, and this movie is no exception. Black has come up with a story that won’t surprise you, because you’ve seen this kind of film before. The story is engaging, the dialogue is sharp and witty and you feel invested in the characters. I find many films with narration to be incredibly annoying and distracting but here, the off-beat, incidental narration by the main character enhances the story.

If I had any problem with this film at all it would be that Val Kilmer is unconvincing as a gay man. Aside from the Gay Perry joke and the interesting place in which he keeps a small pistol, this tidbit really does nothing to add to the story. It is also a bit disappointing for me that Harry and Harmony don’t make it as a couple at the end, since they were childhood friends and there seemed to be an unspoken attraction between them throughout the picture.

Right from the opening credits this is a very enjoyable film. With a run time of 103 minutes, it's well worth your time to rent. If you can add "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" to your DVD collection for short money, like I did, even better.

**** out of *****

SCRIBE'S I WANNA BE A SUAVE GAY PRIVATE EYE REVIEW:

It happens every once in a while. Green and I are in almost total agreement!

I loved this film. The acting was top notch, of course, considering two of our greatest character actors are the stars. Michelle Monaghan was also excellent and quite the feast for the eyes.

Shane Black was always the bad boy screenwriter, having commanded the first million plus dollar deal for a writer with the original Lethal Weapon. His years of perspective have yielded a minor masterpiece.

My only disagreements come from the fact that I found Kilmer very much believable as a tough guy who is also gay and the fact that the film was better served by the fact that Downey and Monaghan don't wind up together at the end; it is the perfect statement on the transitory nature of Hollywood and the relationships that form there. Also, the lack of surprises is intentional because this is supposed to be a living Shane Black/Joel Silver type acton film.

I had trouble writing this review but Green's overview helped me out quite a bit. Sadly, this is the whole review because it would just be redundant if I went on.

**** out of *****

The Girl Next Door

SCRIBE'S THANK GOD FOR TIMOTHY OLYPHANT REVIEW:

Green wanted me to see this movie so badly he bought it and mailed it to me. Apparently, he thought I’d enjoy it as much as he did because of my love for the adult film industry… OK, not the industry but the product it churns out. Sadly, I didn’t get around to watching it right away or we would’ve already posted our reviews weeks ago.

Being the happy go lucky contrarian I am, I wanted to hate this movie. I wanted to scribe a harsh and negative review and shock Green with my outrage. Instead, I had a mixed response to the film mostly having to do with some odd choices on the part of the screenwriters and the female lead.

“The Girl Next Door” is the tale of a teenage geek in the fine Hollywood tradition. In other words, the only thing that makes him a geek is his acting and dialogue as he looks like a teen model made to appear less than cool. We also know he’s a geek because his far less attractive friends are uber-dorks with libidos the size of SUV’s.

The protagonist has a bright future ahead of him what with the overachieving and the potential scholarship, etc. Then some chick moves in next door and rocks his world. It’s love at first leer for our intrepid geek and, through a set of circumstances a bit too contrived to be believable, he and the neighbor wind up going out in what is the weakest scene in the film. Basically, since he peeped her from his window, she forces him to get nekkid in the street because, as we all know, a shy teen would do that in a minute.

Earlier in the film, the kid joins a posse of rowdier party goers in an effort to experience life before he graduates and causes a cop to crash into a nearby truck. This is never mentioned or referenced again. Slipshod writing like this plagues the film’s first forty awkward and slow-moving minutes. Elisha Cuthbert’s “acting” is dreadful in this portion of the film. Literally all she does is pose for the camera, grin stupidly and try to look sexy. She’s not sexy. Sorry, Green.

Somewhere near the 40-minute mark, something truly miraculous occurs: a real actor shows up! One of my favorites, actually. “Deadwood’s” Timothy Olyphant is (Cuthbert’s) agent/producer/former love interest in a performance that is at turns funny, scary and just plain cool.

The screenwriters must be commended on realizing what a weak first act they had and doing something other teen-related films don’t. The big reveal of (Cuthbert) being a porn star and the subsequent break-up/attempt to reconnect occurs early on and doesn’t work out well for the protagonist. This would have been the end of any other film.

It’s a good thing the writers had more to say because Cuthbert’s unconvincing portrayal of a former porn star becomes really grating after a while. Even in a role like this one, we need a bit more than a pair of doe-like eyes and a nice (fake) rack. The character is meant to be three-dimensional and human but the actor playing her seems to be lacking in those areas.

Once Olyphant arrives, the film picks up considerably. Sub-plots and surprises galore come at the viewer with surprising speed and intelligence. The horrific opening act is buried in good acting (except Cuthbert) and a storyline that is interesting enough to carry it to its predictable but satisfying conclusion.

*** out of *****

The third star is for Olyphant ONLY ‘cause he is da man!!!
Shut up! I do NOT have a man-crush shut up shut up!!!

GREEN'S "THE JUICE IS DEFINITELY WORTH THE SQUEEZE" REVIEW:

When I first saw this movie in the library, I wasn't really interested in checking it out because I thought it would be stupid. Even though I kept seeing it on the shelf I kept passing it over, opting for something else. Finally overcoming my fear of zero expectations, curiosity got the better of me. Obviously.

After I watched it, I was going to review it over on my regular blog when it hit me that a pornish kind of film such as this would be perfect for the scribester's tastes. When I suggested we review this movie to him and after he told me he looked but couldn't get it from his lousy local library, I was decidedly disappointed.

About a month or so ago a store I frequently shop at not only had this movie for the first time I could recall but they had it in the unrated extended version to boot. (They still had copies on the shelf as of last Friday.) I was surprised and pleased; so much so that I bought it and offered to mail it to the scribester, since the price was near to unbeatable. After some hesitation, scribe agreed and gave me his address. Off it went the very next day.

This is not your typical high school teen angst type of film. Okay it is. Sort of. The difference is what this movie has, unlike some other teen films, is a good story behind it that happens to take place in a high school setting. On the one hand you have Matthew (Emile Hirsch), the straight-laced, Georgetown-bound high school class president. On the other hand you have Danielle (Elisha Cuthbert), a teenager who has grown up too fast and wants to reclaim her life by getting away from the very thing that made her grow up too fast. The other major characters are perfect. Matthew's geeky best friends, Eli (Chris Marquette) and Klitz (Paul Dano) and Danielle's porn-film producer Kelly (Timothy Olyphant) who steals every scene with his pimped out, over the top performance. Did I mention that Elisha Cuthbert is drop dead gorgeous in this movie? (Wow, shocker that scribe-o-rama disagrees with me on this.) Kind of makes me want to start watching "24" y'know? And I'm going to do just that, too. Bought the first three seasons already...

There were parts of this movie that were extremely funny and other parts that were funny because they were so rediculously stupid. I had never heard of director Luke Greenfield before, but he does a good job here. The story has a good pace to it and doesn't drag at all.

No need to worry, folks; the unrated version only includes about thirty seconds of extra nudity and sexual footage, without adding anything significant to the running time of the R-rated theatrical cut. Specifically, the unrated version substitutes steamier footage into the film Eli watches while talking to Matt on the phone, removes some digitized bikinis in the strip-club scene and has a more threatening scene between Matt and Kelly. What you don't see is more of star Elisha Cuthbert. She explains, in one of the scenes she gives a commentary for, that she didn't want do any nude scenes.

The unrated DVD version also has a few more special features than the R rated version, which I enjoyed.

Sure the movie, for the most part is predictable. None the less, this is a much better movie than I expected it to be (no expectations going in except for the curiosity factor), which is why I've added it to my very own DVD library.

**** out of *****

A Trivial Matter

We thought it'd be fun to throw a little trivia your way to see how smart you are about the movies you watch and we review. Or could possibly review, someday.

Here are 20 trivia questions plus a bonus question. Write your answers in a comment for this post. In a week or so, I'll leave the answers in a comment, once I've given everyone who wants to play a chance to play. Depending on the level of participation and the skill at which we judge how much your mind is filled with useless crap - er, movie knowledge, there may be a prize involved. Maybe.

Are you ready?

1) What movie involves poison, cold breath and Dr. Malcom Crowe?

2) What movie used this tag line: "Trust is her weapon, innocence is her opportunity and revenge is her only desire?"

3) In 1999, this actress portrayed a queen. In her acting debut, she was a young girl who befriends a hit man. Who is she?

4) Name the first movie Scribe and Green reviewed on this blog.

5) Name the actress who appeared in all of the following films: Jumanji, Jerry Maguire, The Green Mile and Rain Man.

6) Name the artist who sang the title track for and starred in The Rose.

7) Upon winning an Oscar for Best Actress, who said: "You like me. You really like me?"

8) Who is the actor who was set to portray Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark but backed out, citing loyalty and commitments to his television show?

9) Name the actor to appear in all of the following films: A Few Good Men, The Lost Boys, Young Guns and Mirror.

10) "In space no one can hear you scream" was the tag line for what film?

11) Who was the actress who was romantically linked to Emilio Estevez, Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt?

12) Name the actress who shares a birthday with actor Burt Reynolds, singer Sheryl Crow, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and whose godfather was actor Telly Savalas.

13) What movie involves an Irishman, a lottery ticket and a nude motorcycle rider?

14) One tag line for this film stated: "If Nancy doesn't wake up screaming, she won't wake up at all." Name the film.

15) Name all seven of the dwarfs in Snow White.

16) Which two films did Morgan Freeman not appear in: Unforgiven, Driving Miss Daisy, Batman, Glory or Philadelphia?

17) What was the year of the first Academy Awards?

18) Who sang the title song to the James Bond film Octopussy?

19) Name the actress to appear in all of the following films: House of Wax, The Girl Next Door, The Quiet and Love Actually.

20) This actor starred in three films directed by Frank Capra. In two of those films he starred with actress Jean Arthur. Name the actor and the three films.

BONUS: President Barack Obama is the 44^th President of the United States. Name the 44^th film reviewed by Scribe and Green on this blog.

5/11 UPDATE: The answers have now been posted in the fifth comment, so skip over that one if you still want to guess.

WE OWN THE NIGHT

SCRIBE'S CAN'T I KEEP THE HOT PUERTO-RICAN GIRLFRIEND? REVIEW:

Hopefully Joaquin Phoenix’s decision to quit acting in pursuit of a hip-hop career will be short-lived. We are truly missing a great actor right now.

“We own the Night” is another in a string of intense and passionate performances by Phoenix. This time he is Bobby, a late 1980’s New York nightclub manager who comes from a family of police officers. But Bobby isn’t crazy about that fact, preferring to live the partying life with his exceptionally hot Puerto-Rican girlfriend, portrayed with surprising depth by Eva Mendes.

If you’re able to suspend disbelief enough to accept that Mark Wahlberg is his brother and Robert Duvall is his father, the rest is utterly realistic. Bobby’s boss, a Soviet (remember this is the 80’s) immigrant has a nephew whose involvement in the Russian mob has caught the attention of his father’s task force.

What follows is an interesting and compelling take on a man whose resistance to his family is challenged at every turn. Once the inevitable raid led by his brother shines a spotlight on his club, Phoenix finds himself embroiled in an investigation that will eventually result in tragedy.

The attention paid to authenticity in this film is nothing short of astounding. According to the DVD extras, the clothing worn in the film is actual vintage attire from the late 1980’s. My initial confusion over why early 80’s music is playing in 1988 is explained in the extras as well since it is assumed that a 30-year old man would be listening to music from his youth: Well, that’s not the Eighties I remember. If you listened to something that was even six months old you were considered a joke but it’s a small inconsistency.

It’s rare that a screenplay truly surprises me, but this one does. This is partially due to the fact that the early portion of the film makes it intentionally difficult to figure out where all this is going. Like life, this is a movie that doesn’t throw all the answers at us the moment we sit down in front of the screen.

A film like this depends heavily on believable character growth, which is where Phoenix comes in. His subtle changes from narcissistic club manager to responsible family member are handled so well one might not even notice it happening at first. Wahlberg is his usual dependable self in an ironic twist on his brooding, tough guy character. Duvall is…well, come on. Would I have the right to try and criticize Pavarotti? Well, yes, but I created him so that’s not really a fair question.

Each spring sees the release of several gritty cop dramas the studios stupidly feel won’t garner any attention from audiences during other parts of the year. This was one of them. See it~

*** out of *****

GREEN’S “HOW COME YOU GOT MATCHES AND A LIGHTER?” REVIEW:

Bert and Joe Grusunsky (Robert Duvall and Mark Wahlberg) are father and son together in the family business - law enforcement in 1980’s Brooklyn. When they get set to raid a popular nightclub filled with drug dealers, they courteously let Bobby Green (Joaquin Phoenix), the club manager know what’s coming, because he’s part of the family, too. But Bobby doesn’t take his family seriously and the advice is blissfully ignored. Life goes on as usual until the nightclub is raided by the police and he becomes a target of both the police and the scum and villainy who do ‘business’ in the club. Once his family starts getting hurt by the masterminds of the crime ring going on in his club, Bobby is faced with and must make the most important choice of his life: Become an informant for the police or help run the crime ring inside the club.

This is a movie that I don’t recall seeing the previews for when it came out in 2007. Surprising, considering there’s such a high powered cast leading this film. Joaquin Phoenix gives his usual intense dramatic performance. Scribe hits the mark when he laments Phoenix‘s decision to retire from acting at such a young age to pursue the music business. There aren‘t many actors as intense and focused as Phoenix is. (aaah, what a long way since “Space Camp.”) Mark Wahlberg is again solid with his performance. There’s not many films he’s been in that I haven’t liked. And well, Robert Duvall is well, Robert Duvall. ‘nuff said. The man hasn’t been in many bad movies or ever given a bad performance, as far as I can recall. Eva Mendes, who I think is a decent actress, didn't wow me as Phoenix’s hot girlfriend.

Over all, James Gray’s script is well written and has a good pace to it. I believe that when you’re also the director, as Gray is here, it helps the story immensely because there is continuity, in that he knows better than anyone what he wants to get out of his actors and how he sees the story going. I like his use of dark lighting and darker colors which help set the mood when Bobby is managing the club and how the lighting changes on par with Bobby as his attitude toward his family changes. The only scene I was really disappointed in was the confrontation between Bobby and Nezhinski in the wheat field scene toward the end of the movie. Sort of anti-climatic.

The special features included on the DVD are excellent and informative.

***½ out of *****

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

SCRIBE'S "YOU MUST BE ONE OF DEM FELLERS WHAT LIKES OTHER FELLERS" REVIEW:

Every great once in a while, a film comes along with literary merit. In some cases, that film comes from a literary source. Such is the case with (and I’m only gonna type this title once!) “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.”

Based on the novel of the same name, the film follows the final days of the infamous Jesse James as his luck slowly begins to run out. Brad Pitt is James in an intense, disturbing performance. Casey Affleck, a man swiftly becoming one of the better character actors in the industry, is the so-called “coward” Robert Ford.

When we first meet these characters, James comes across as affable and introspective while Ford seems like a deranged, homo-erotic stalker. It’s obvious Ford has idolized James for a long time and their scenes together reek of demented idol worship and thinly concealed attraction.

This is the time of the dissolution of the James gang. Jesse’s older brother Frank (the always cool Sam Shepherd) is tired of the bank robbing life and wants to go straight. The so-called “glory days” behind him, Jesse seems to be in a daze, unable to function in this new environment. But Ford is in love with him, platonically I’m sure (wink-wink) and has no intention of allowing the Great Jesse James, heroes of the Rebel Movement, to fade away.

What follows is a deeply introspective tale of hero worship and mortality. Somewhere along the way, thanks to Pitt’s incredible performance, James goes from likable to frighteningly psychotic. As James disintegrates into paranoia and betrayal, Ford matures. This is, after all, Ford’s tale more than it Is Jesse’s.

Ford is never taken as seriously as he believes he should be, but nobody can deny he has changed when he kills a man. Sam Rockwell also shines as his older brother as the two men realize they are the only ones left Jesse thinks he can trust. The ensuing tension is so thick, the film is often difficult to watch in its final hour.

This is not a short film, nor is it one to be watched while reading the paper or telling lil’ Greggers he’s a good boy. A recurring narrator reminds us we’re watching a novel on film. One must pay attention to this one to understand what’s going on. The performances are understated and intense. Pitt, Affleck and Rockwell are simply amazing in this film. They don’t so much portray these characters as inhabit them for the entire running time of the film.

Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in history.

****½ out of *****

GREEN’S “I’VE SORTA GOT STAGE FRIGHT WITH A STRANGE MAN IN THE COMMODE WITH ME” REVIEW:

In brief, this film tells of the idolization of Jesse James (September 5, 1842 - April 3, 1882) by one young Robert Ford and his desire to join the James Gang and befriend his boyhood hero. Once in the gang, Ford and his older brother Charlie become close to James as the rest of the gang gets killed or arrested. Then one fine spring day, BLAM!! Hence the most exciting part of the movie takes all of four seconds to view.

I wrote this review a few days ago but I’ve delayed posting it until today, which coincidentally happens to be the 127th anniversary of Jesse James death. Trust me, it wasn't originally planned this way (hence the coincidence).

But I have to level with you. Can a movie possibly be any more slow, tedious and boring than this? I have a healthy respect for history but watching paint dry is more fun than watching this snooze-fest. With a run time of two hours and forty minutes, this film is about an hour too long. I had to make myself sit up in a chair to watch this movie to avoid falling asleep. As it is I had to scan back on the DVD several times to rewatch parts I missed. The one chance this movie had to be interesting (but only for a moment, however) was gone with the all too brief blowing out of the candle, “And you thought I was a lady” scene.

Brad Pitt is either hit or miss with me. Most of the time miss, I’m afraid. I just don’t see why this guy is so in demand in Hollywood these days. Certainly there are other actors who could have easily played James and done it just as good, or better. In my opinion, Pitt just doesn't have the look for the role, no matter how scruffy and stubbly he looks. Grudgingly I'll admit that Casey Affleck did a decent job portraying the star-struck kid in the presence of his idol and deservedly was nominated for an Oscar.

Obviously, I thought the script was way too long. I’ve never read the novel on which the screenplay was based and it seems like the writer strives to be as historically accurate as possible, which is always a good thing. The instrumental music soundtrack was hauntingly moody, which seemed perfect for the tone of the film and livened up the tedium just a tad.

I did find it visually interesting that in the scene where James gets his brains blowed out, that we see a shot of him looking into the glass of the picture he was messing with on the wall and that he could see the reflection of Ford with the gun pointed at his head in the background, yet does nothing to stop what he must know is coming.

BTW, what’s up with the use of that annoying voice over narration to tell parts of the story? Couldn’t they have found some way of incorporating those nuggets of expositional information into the rest of the film?

Wasn't it the good old scribester who said not long ago that not every novel should be made into a movie? This is a classic example of that inescapable logic. You’ve got better things to do than sit through this movie, believe me. I know I’ll never need to watch it again, so I’m going to donate my copy of the DVD that I bought for the review to one of my local libraries, unless you can think of a better idea.

*½ out of *****

Untraceable

GREEN’S “YOU KNOW YOU’D WATCH IT TOO” REVIEW:

Creepy. From the opening scene to the end, that’s what this movie is. Creepy because you know there’s probably some computer hacker geek who hasn’t thought about trying to figure out a way to actually kill people and broadcast it live over the Internet, just like the killer does in this movie. In addition, the sick part is you would probably watch it because you‘d be curious. Heck, I probably would too, for the very same reason, loath as I am to admit it.

I've said it before and it bears repeating: Diane Lane is simply one of the best actresses in the business today. Period. Just as underrated as her real life husband, Josh Brolin ("No Country for Old Men".) In this movie, Lane takes a role that five or ten years ago would have automatically had a male lead, probably the likes of Arnold or maybe Harrison Ford, Denzel Washington or someone comparable, and made it her own. She makes for a very credible FBI agent and brings a toughness to the character, yet the story still allows her to be compassionate as well. Colin (son of Tom) Hanks and Billy Burke are both excellent as the colleague and the cop. Joseph Cross is sufficiently creepy as Owen Reilly. Director Gregory Hoblit does a good job of keeping the story flowing and moving in the right direction.

The script follows the basic action/thriller/serial killer plot and will not wow you. You know - unknown bad guy emerges, kills a few people in horrific but original ways, stumps the authorities for a bit then eventually gets taken down by the local law enforcement agency. Still it is a compelling story because you want to see the gruesome killings and you want to see the killer brought to justice.

The DVD contains some excellent featurettes which are very informative and worthwhile viewing.

It has been quite a while since I have been weirded out by a movie but this one did exactly that. The DVD case proclaims “Untraceable” to be the Internet age’s version of “Silence of the Lambs.” Maybe it’s as good as that film was, maybe it isn’t. What it is is a good, suspenseful movie. I’d say well worth the 101 minutes of your valuable time.

**** out of *****

SCRIBE'S I CAN'T BELIEVE JIMMY OLSEN IS KILLING PEOPLE ONLINE AND SUPERMAN HASN'T STOPPED HIM YET REVIEW:

Let me make two things perfectly clear: I hate movies about serial killers, firmly believing both they and vampire films should be banned for at least ten years, and Diane Lane has made some truly terrible movies in her career.

However, this isn't one of them and, in fact, it's pretty good. As Green so expertly describes the plot, I will provide only a brief overview. Someone is committing murder online and these are killings that can only occur based on the amount of hits the website receives.

The film is a harsh indictment of an unfettered Internet, going a bit too far to make the point. Comparisons to other serial killer films are unfair as they are basically all the same anyway. What distinguishes this one is the hook.

Watching the horrific murders on the screen is reminiscent of the beheadings committed by Al-Queda. They're a tad too elaborate to be believable, but not as bizarre as the killings committed in "The Cell" with Jennifer Lopez.

The acting is fine. Nothing special but competent, with the exception of Smallville's Joseph Cross, a young actor with quite a future. He has a dark, edgy quality on the weekly TV show where he portrays a very different Jimmy Olsen and it serves him well in his role as Owen the tech savvy serial killer with a politically correct reason for why he's killing people.

Sadly, this a film lacking in any significant imagery. Director Gregory Hoblit shoots the film like a movie of the week featuring rock video jump cuts whenever there's something disturbing happening. His lackluster directing hampers an already flawed concept and drags the storyline in a few significant spots. A better director like David Fincher would have served this film better.

Still, "Untraceable" is undeniably watchable. I consider "Silence of the Lambs" to be one of the most overrated pieces of crap ever filmed so this movie couldn't have possibly been worse by comparison.

Compelling, for the most part, it mostly gets a decent review from me because it's a fresh idea in a moldy genre.

*** out of *****

(For the record, I never watched the Nicholas Berg beheading and I would not have watched this either.)

Stop-Loss

Some time ago, the great bluez suggested that we review this movie. It's taken a while to actually get it done, but here you are hon. We aims to please, we do.

GREEN'S "I’M ALL FILLED UP AND AINT GOIN’ BACK" REVIEW:

Dedicated Army soldier Brandon King (Ryan Phillipe) has just returned from his tour of duty in Iraq to a heroes welcome from his small Texas hometown. He plans to leave the Army for good until he is surprisingly stop-lossed, meaning that he was recalled for another tour of duty shortly after the first tour ended. Problem is that King feels that he has fulfilled his duty and does not want to go back. What follows is the story of inner conflict and his attempt to run away, with help from his best friend’s fiancee’ (Abbie Cornish), first to Washington DC, then to Canada and Mexico.

This was a decent movie but not one that I was excited about watching and one that I don’t need to watch again. See, I just can’t get into this kind of movie. I suppose I’d have a different opinion if I had been in the Army and had served overseas on the front lines, came home expecting to be done and then was told I had to go back. Or if I knew someone who was. But I don’t.

No one in the cast really stood out to me as giving their best performance. I've seen Abbie Cornish now in two movies and I've not been impressed. Ryan Phillipe has been in one really good movie that I can recall since "Cruel Intentions" and this isn't it. The script is nothing that will knock your socks off but is okay.

Sorry, bluez, that’s all I’ve got for you on this one.

** out of *****

SCRIBE'S "I WANT MY F******G SH**" REVIEW:

No lie. About four hours before I watched Stop-Loss, I went to a local Laundromat in an area with its share of rednecks. A guy in a green T-shirt bearing the slogan, "Death from the North” on the back emerged from an SUV with bumper stickers on the back that said: GIVE WAR A CHANCE & BESIDES STOPPING SLAVERY, FACISM and NAZISM, WAR NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING.

He also happened to be a Marine. I felt like I was watching his life story when I placed Stop-Loss in my DVD player.

The film follows a young sergeant in the Army (Ryan Philippe) during his tour of duty in Iraq. He and his fellow soldiers are like a close-knit family of course, and disaster looms on the horizon during a routine checkpoint procedure. As vehicles drive toward them, the U.S. soldiers stop the drivers and decide whether or not to let them through. One car comes through with guns blazing, sparking off a violent confrontation that spills over into a local neighborhood.

Beloved fellow soldiers are killed in action or mortally wounded, and it becomes obvious that he made a bad call when he decided to pursue the gunmen. That doesn’t stop the residents of his small Texas town from greeting him as a hero when he goes home to a parade that comes across as so hollow it actually feels like a bad stage play.

It isn’t until the soldiers try to interact with the people in town that we start to see just how damaged they really are. One gets so drunk he starts digging in as if he’s in Iraq even though he’s in his own front yard. He passes out in the hole with a .45 in his hand.

Phillipe’s character is ready to leave the Army and come back home. His buddy who volunteered with him and comes form the same town also seems ready to com home and marry the local ho chick. Unfortunately, when (Phillipe) reports in for his discharge, he is given orders to re-deploy to Iraq. Stunned, he is advised that he has been “stop lossed,” which is another name for a backdoor draft. Furious, he confronts his CO, whose smarmy, unconcerned response throws him into a rage. When the lieutenant colonel informs him that the President’s orders cannot be refused, Phillipe replies with an emphatic, “FUCK the president!”

Not a good idea to make such a statement to your CO and suddenly he finds himself being escorted to the brig. In a moment of spontaneous fight or flight, he disables the guards and makes a run for it.

Stop-Loss was not at all what I was expecting. Yet another movie with a poorly designed DVD cover, this looked like it was going to be a slow-paced melodrama about a guy coming home from war and pissing off his small-town neighbors by becoming an anti-war activist. Instead, Stop-Loss focuses on a man who has done his part and feels forced to go AWOL so he can spread the word about the backdoor draft, with mostly disastrous results.

The acting in this film is top notch. Had I known Phillipe was in the film, I would’ve seen it much earlier. He has always been an underrated actor with an incredible range and an often disturbing intensity. His co-stars are also good and lend authenticity to their performances by not overacting.

The battle scenes and flashbacks are handled extremely well. That fuzzy, news camera style of shooting is quickly becoming a cliché but it’s effective here. The screenplay is surprisingly good and provides plenty of moments for reflection. In fact, it is a crime that those idiots at the Academy didn’t acknowledge this film, because it is actually worthy of some Oscars.

Oh, that’s right. Nobody has a disease in this film. Perhaps if the whole movie had been about the guy who lost his arms and legs it would have won.

****1/2 out of *****

Snakes on a Plane

AMERICAN GUY’S “DO AS I SAY, AND YOU'LL ENJOY THIS MOVIE" GUEST REVIEW:

I’ve been trying to get Scribe and Green to review this fine film for some time now. So naturally when they finally got around to it, Green took the initiative to turn the tables on me and asked if I’d like to write a guest review myself. His one condition was that I not take the same approach I did with my review of the Wrath of Khan – where I wrote what I thought was a thorough but succinct review. Fair enough.

Having agreed to take on the challenge, the first thing I did was to ask Italian Girl if she’d like to watch it with me. I told her that there would be no confusing this with a good movie. In fact, having seen it before, I told her it was downright bad. Surprisingly, she chose not to watch it with me. I tell you all this because it’s incredibly important to have the right mindset when you watch this movie.

If you sit down and expect good acting, much of a plot or even believable action sequences, you’re setting yourself up for a big let down. But if you go in ready for Ed Wood level badness, you’ll have 105 minutes of sheer enjoyment.

I mean, come on. It’s Snakes. On a Plane. When I first heard about this film, I had the same reaction that I’m sure nearly everybody had. Best. Title. Ever. And when I heard that Samuel L Jackson was the lead… Oh man. I make no bones about believing him to be just about the finest actor that there is. That he’s incredibly hot doesn’t hurt either. Seriously. If I was straight, I’d turn for him.

I won’t give you an overview of the plot. I don’t need to. The title does that. Aside from a brief set up to give you an excuse to get (to paraphrase the catch line of the movie) the m.f. snakes on the m.f. plane, there’s not a lot to tell. The movie is filled with characters that are caricatures – from the lecherous co-pilot, to the camp male flight attendant to the Paris Hilton clone rich girl with little dog. There are even 2 kids flying unaccompanied who you know from the get-go will be just fine, even if everyone else on the plane dies. I will admit to liking the germophobe rapper and his pair of bodyguards who are fawning to his face but snarky whenever he turns away.

Just in case you forget that this is taking place on a plane, they have an extended sequence showing everyone boarding, and even take you through the entire ‘your exits are here, here and here' routine. And then of course, there are the snakes. It’s only a matter of time before they start creating havoc. Somehow, a snake knew to attack avionics (why is it always avionics? I think there’s a contractual clause somewhere that says every airplane disaster movie has to have someone say “We’ve lost avionics!”). Once the snakes learn that humans taste better than electronic equipment, they start attacking people, including such gratuitous bits as a guy being attacked in the toilets in just the manner you’d expect.

And it goes on. As I said – there was never any chance that this film was going to be tagged “Academy Award Winner…”

After I watched this film when it first came out, I figured there’d be no reason for me to see it again. But since I was challenged to do this write up, I had to download a new version. The funny thing is, it actually helped the experience that the copy I watched was a bootleg complete with people laughing and shouting at the screen. It made it even better.

Oh, and two final words: Snake cam!

***½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S "I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHER*****IN' SNAKES ON THIS MOTHER****IN' PLANE" REVIEW:

It’s bad enough to happen upon some guy who’s being tortured while you’re on vacation in Hawaii, but when the torturer turns out to be the top Chinese Triad crime boss of LA, you just bought yourself a big heapin’ bag of trouble. Thank God for the timely, life-saving intervention of Samuel L. Jackson or that bag might have opened to reveal a big box of painful demise.

Still, Jackson’s help comes with a price tag. He’s a Federal Marshall and he badly wants you to testify against the most psychotic and dangerous crime boss since Dutch Schultz. You say ok because you’re a good guy and Jackson’s so damn cool, no real man would wish to appear bitch-boy-like before him. Besides, you’re a surfer and surfers always do the right thing. They’re cool like that.

Sadly, the crime boss has spies everywhere, so it takes him no time to find out which flight you’re talking back to LA to testify. He can’t get to you directly thanks to the two federal marshals protecting you (Jackson and his disposable partner of five years) but he has a plan: a twisted, psychotic, improbable plan that will make for some truly cringing, hysterical storytelling, visuals and acting. He’s going to release a multitude of different varieties of snakes, all pumped with pheromones, and take out the entire plane to protect his worthless ass.

And he would’ve got away with it, too, if it weren’t for that meddling…Jackson….and flight crew.

It sounds dumb, right? Well, it is. Really, really dumb and quite possibly one of the most enjoyable films in a decade. One of the reasons for this is the approach, which is like something out of an Irwin Allen disaster flick with tongue placed so firmly in cheek it adheres to mouth. There are enough likable and disposable characters to make this one a laugh riot in-between screams.

It’s always a good thing when the audience is in on the joke while not walking through the film like giant pieces of ham. Instead, each actor brings just the right amount of funny to their roles and the hilarious dialogue helps them immeasurably.

Reportedly, Jackson signed onto this film script unseen based solely on the title. That just made him even cooler to the cyber-geeks whose bizarre devotion to a movie they hadn’t even seen yet ensured this one’s pop culture relevance. Despite being exactly what one would hope in a movie called “Snakes on a Plane,” it couldn’t possibly live up to the ridiculous hype, so some were disappointed.

Screw em. This movie kicks ass!

***** out of *****

GREEN’S "ALL WE HAVE IS SPORKS!" REVIEW:

Because we were dumb enough to ask for suggestions, I suppose we had this coming. Why can’t people suggest good movies for us to review? Why? Why?

Knowing then, that we were going to have to review this movie at some point, I signed it out of the library and tried watching it a few months ago but had to stop because it was Just. So. Stupid.

Let me tell you that it didn’t get any better this time around. But at least I was able to watch it all the way through. That in itself is a minor miracle.

I won’t go into any plot details either, because there really are none in such a movie as this. Suffice it to say that the characters in this film fit the dead on stereotypes AG describes.

I did have some issues with the movie, not surprisingly. First, the bad guys never saw Sean’s face (Nathan Phillips, the star witness) and he reveals to Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) that he didn’t talk to the media about what he saw, so how do they know what he looks like or where he lives? And if the bad guys didn’t see him, how in the heck does Neville know where he lives? Second, the ultimate solution used for getting rid of the snakes would have likely killed everyone left alive who was on the plane. Lastly, the simple solution to the snake problem is so obvious that if they used it - there would be no movie! Think about it for a sec, ok? Snakes are reptiles. Reptiles are cold blooded. So all you have to do to get them to stop attacking people, is to turn down the temperature in the cabin until they become lethargic. Then you round them up, stick ‘em in a box and BANG! You’re done. End of movie. Have a nice flight. Enjoy your stay in Los Angeles.

Yes, I get it. This is supposed to be a disaster/horror flick where people die in gruesome ways and Sam Jackson saves the day. Still, plausibility is important.

I will say that some of the snake effects were cool and the makeup used to simulate snake bites and the gruesome ways in which the passengers were killed was interesting and well done. The acting in all cases was cheesy and downright bad, even from actors as good as Sam Jackson and Julianna Margulies. The script was hardly original and definitely not a work of art. There are some films that are so bad that they’re good. This isn’t one of them.

This is a movie that I, hopefully, will never have to watch again. I even sold the used copy of this movie that I bought in order to write this review to my nephew for three 20 oz. Mountain Dew Voltage sodas (the blue Dew.) I think I got the better end of that deal.

*½ out of *****