A Special Announcement:

During the Scribester's self inflicted absence from contributing to this here blog, I've asked four friends to write guest reviews in his place, three of whom will be first-time guest contributors to this space.

Why, you ask? Mainly to restore the so-called integrity of this blogs two opinion format but also because I really want to post more regularly here and I don't want to (or feel like) doing it by myself. It was nice to know that everyone I asked to contribute agreed to do it and for that, I thank you. You know who you are.

In each case I gave the option of choosing which movie to review to the guest reviewer. However, one person declined and wanted me to choose. Following the procedure that Scribe and I normally use, I gave her a list of five choices and left the final decision up to her.

As always, guest reviews will appear in RED.

Now back to our originally scheduled programming.

Blow

This is the latest movie scribe chose for us to review. Its been a while since we've posted anything and I felt we needed to post something so here's my part of it. Hopefully my blog partner will own up and post his half soon. Until then, people...

GREEN’S “I CAN’T FEEL MY FACE” REVIEW”

“Blow” is the true story of the rise and fall of George Jung (Johnny Depp) and his friends. If you smoked cocaine in the late 70’s or early 80’s chances are, George Jung had a part in getting it to you. The story starts with George’s humble beginnings in Weymouth, Massachusetts as a kid who idolized his father amid a troubled family life. George’s life irreversibly changes when he moves to southern California and gets himself involved in importing and selling marijuana. He eventually gets arrested for smuggling but skips bail to be with his dying girlfriend Barbara, (Franka Potente). On a visit back home to his family, he is arrested and sentenced to federal prison. There he meets Diego, his cellmate, who gets George involved in the Colombian cocaine cartel once they get out of jail. The story goes on to relate events of George‘s dealings with Pablo Escobar and the relationship he forms with the beautiful Mirtha (Penelope Cruz), who becomes his wife. Together they have a daughter, Kristina (Emma Roberts and James King). Eventually Mirtha files for divorce and puts a strain on his relationship with his daughter. As the movie ends, George is in jail once again and imagines a visit from his daughter who he loves dearly, despite all of his drug related problems.

I had bought this DVD some time ago (from the $5 DVD bin at Wal-Mart) based on the hype I think I remembered during its theatrical run and on the reputation of Johnny Depp, one of the best contemporary actors in the business today. For whatever reason I had never gotten around to watching it until Scribe-o named it on his latest list of movie choices.

Suffice to say I was impressed by Depp in the title role. Arguably, this might be Depp’s career best performance in a career with many outstanding performances. Amazingly, this movie received no Academy Award nominations, not even one. The supporting cast is strong, including Paul (Pee-Wee Herman) Rubens, whom I have never considered more than a marginal talent. Ray Liotta and Australian actress Rachel Griffiths give strong performances as George’s parents. I find it interesting that Penelope Cruz was nominated for a Breakthrough Female Performance (2002 MTV Movie Award) and a Razzie for Worst Actress for the same role in this movie, though she won neither award, (personally I tend to lean toward the Razzie nomination over the Breakthrough Performance Award for Cruz.)

I had never really heard of director Ted Demme, who did a fabulous job directing the film, based on a book by Bruce Porter and screenplay by Nick Cassavetes and David McKenna. Demme, ironically, died about nine months after the release of this drug themed film from what IMDb calls an ’accidental cocaine induced thrombotic heart attack.’ You'd think Demme would have learned that cocaine is baaaad for you after filming this movie. Some folks never learn, I guess. Sad.

The extras on the infinifilm DVD are very well done, including a gripping, English subtitled documentary on the impact of the cocaine trade on the country of Columbia, its people and economy. A must see extra is Demme’s interview of the real life George Jung, from Otisville Correctional Facility in upstate New York, where he is currently serving a 60-year sentence. In this question and answer interview, among other things, we learn that Jung himself was impressed with Depp’s portrayal of himself and of the events depicted in the film. If the real life subject of your movie wholeheartedly endorses it, it has to be good.

**** out of *****



Blow (2001, R, 124 minutes), starring Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Paul Rubens, Jordi Molla, Rachel Griffiths, Ray Liotta, Franka Potente, Cliff Curtis and Miguel Sandoval. The screenplay was written by Nick Cassavetes and David McKenna. Based on the book by Bruce Porter. The film was directed by Ted Demme.

Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1979-1981)

While the Scribester is off dealing with whatever issues he has to deal with, I'm left to post whatever I want. I do apologize that its been so long in between posts. It's never my intention to leave you all hanging so long with nothing new to read. I had an urge to watch some of this recently and thought it'd be cool to review here, just because I can. Of course, Sir Scribe-a-lot is always welcome to add his take if he wants to.

GREEN'S OH, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN REVIEW:


"The year is 1987, and NASA launches the last of America's deep space probes. In a freak mishap, Ranger Three and its pilot, Captain William "Buck" Rogers, are blown out of their trajectory into an orbit which freezes his life support systems, and returns Buck Rogers to Earth, 500 years later."

With that great weekly narration by William Conrad, we were launched into the week's adventure as Buck (Gil Gerard), Wilma (Erin Grey) and friends were off to save Earth from would be conquerors, ultimate destruction and various bad guys. The best villain was Ardala, the Draconian Princess, sexily played by Pamela Hensley, as evidenced by her appearance in six episodes.

The opening narration changed slightly for the abbreviated second season as did the weekly format of the show. This season took on a more hybrid Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek-ish feel as Buck and Wilma were part of the Earth ship Searcher crew, looking for the "lost tribes of Earth" scattered across the galaxy in the aftermath of the Nuclear War which occurred after Buck's Ranger 3 mission took off.

Since I initially posted this review I've thought about the second season's premise. The exploration format actually makes no sense at all when you consider that, according to the story, Buck's 1987 mission was as a deep space probe. Space flight was still in its infancy back then as it still is now, despite advances made. Travel between planets outside the solar system remains impossible, given the host of technological problems, the least of which is knowing where hospitible planets to earth life are located, never mind getting to them. So leaving earth to find lost colonies scatterd from the nuclear war would be a useless gesture.

This show first aired the year I turned 10 and I absolutely loved it. As a young boy the futuristic plots captured my imagination in more ways than one. Back then the campiness of it all didn't even bother me.

Both Buck Rogers and the original Battlestar Galactica television show (another personal fave of mine) were produced by Glen A. Larson, so its not surprising that some of the props and costumes were used in both shows. One of my favorite elements of this show is the look of the Earth Defense Directorate star-fighters. They are so cool looking and I often wished as a youngster that I could own and fly one.

Buck Rogers featured some excellent guest stars including: Roddy McDowall, Jack Palance, Jerry Orbach, Jamie Lee Curtis, Peter Graves, Gary Coleman, Julie Newmar, Frank Gorshin, Marc Lenard, Markie Post, Buster Crabbe, Anne Lockhart and Dennis Haysbert.

Looking back on this series as an adult, I see that the acting was generally bad with paper thin plots and cheesy special effects. In the second season, the acting wasn't any better but the characters and plots became more serious. As a result, the show lost some of its campiness and, frankly, most of its appeal. Now the appeal is purely nostalgic. I've watched all 37 episodes multiple times and love every minute of them.

I used to think that the network cancelled the show midway through the second season due to low ratings but, according to wikipedia.org, the year was marred by a writers strike which shortened the season. NBC then cancelled the series due to "cost concerns." I'd like to think that if the show hadn't been canceled, season three would have blended the first season's campiness with the second season's more serious themes and it might have lasted a few more seasons.

The only complaints I have are centered around the DVD set itself. It contains five discs with programming on both sides of each disc, which I don't like at all. The set also contains zero special features, which as a fan of the show I would love to see. The enclosed booklet has nice episode summaries but as you unfold the pages knowing what episodes are on each disc becomes unnecessarily confusing.

The price for the complete series is very reasonable. I've seen it as low as $14.99 on amazon.com.

For all its flaws, this is an excellent television show that was cancelled way too soon.

**** out of *****

Buck Rogers in the 25^th Century" (1979-1981, 37 episodes total) starring Gil Gerard, Erin Grey, Tim O'Connor, Felix Silla, Mel Blanc (voice), Eric Server (voice), and William Conrad (narrator).

Labyrinth

Originally, the idea of reviewing "Labyrinth" came a bit more than a year ago, after we reviewed this movie. In that review the scribester randomly lamented about the size of Jennifer Connelly’s breasts then and now... (Aaah, scribe, what would we do without ye?)

GREEN'S "NICE YOUNG GIRL, TERRIBLE BLACK UBLIET" REVIEW:

UTTERLY RELEVANT TRIVIA QUESTION! Do you know what the connection between Labyrinth and Star Trek: The Next Generation television series is? Something to think about as you read. {BTW, the answer is not obvious.}

What do you get when you have George Lucas as co-Executive Producer, Jim Henson as the director, and Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame) as the writer, David Bowie writing songs, singing and acting plus a cadre of Muppets and Jennifer Connelly, a 14 year old future Oscar winning actress starring in your movie? Throw in bit parts for Star Wars alums Frank Oz, Kenny Baker and Warwick Davis and what do you have?

Obviously, the answer is Labyrinth, a truly wonderful movie.

It's hard for me to believe that this film was released 23 years ago. However, it is not hard to believe that this film is still as captivating now as it was then.

It's the coming of age (well, sort of) story of Sarah (Connelly) who is forced to baby-sit her step-brother, Toby. When he won't stop fussing she wishes that the Goblin King (Bowie) would take him away.

Until he does.

Sarah immediately regrets the wish and begs for his release. Suddenly, before she realizes it, The Goblin King himself is standing in her room! He, quite frankly, is having none of her whining. That is until he decides to make a deal with her, one which (he thinks) she cannot possibly win: If she can solve the Labyrinth and reach the Goblin City at the center of the maze and enter the castle in less than 13 hours, she'll get her brother back. But if she can't, he'll become a goblin and be lost forever. On the journey she meets all sorts of wonderful and imaginative characters, some friendly and some not so friendly. Can she remember how to defeat the Goblin King and save her little step-brother in time?

Don't be fooled. This is not just a movie geared for kids. Adults ought to enjoy this movie, too - especially if you're a fan of David Bowie and his music. {BTW, what's up with the Speedo-like costume? Female viewers must loove that.}

Jim Henson's incredible genius as a puppeteer and innovator can not be overstated. He and his crew of muppeteers do a fabulous job of making the non-human characters real and relatable. We can identify with them to some degree, so we care about them.

I hardly need mention, but I will anyway, that one of the great tragedies in the last 20 years for true movie fans happened when Jim Henson died suddenly in May 1990 at the way too young age of 54 from bacterial pneumonia. Can you imagine the great movies that he might have made, had he lived, possibly combining muppet magic with CGI wizardry? Fortunately his legacy lives on with this film and the many other films and television shows that he worked on throughout his career. Coincidentally, Jim Henson would have turned 73 on Sept. 24^th, had he lived.

I watched the 1999 DVD release of this film because it was readily available to me at the time. Included on the disc is an excellent 'making of' featurette, which is primarily narrated by Kermit the Frog, er, Jim Henson. I’ve since purchased the Anniversary Edition of this DVD because its a two disc deal which has many more cool special features on it. Just the kind of extra stuff that I love to watch.

This is an all around excellent movie which, if you haven't watched in a while, is definitely worth revisiting.

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

Oh yes, I almost forgot to tell you what the Star Trek: TNG connection is! Did you cheat and find out the answer? Well here it is: The title of 'Director of Choreography and Puppet Movement' for this film was none other than Cynthia McFadden, aka Gates McFadden aka Dr. Beverly Crusher. I didn't believe it either until I saw her for myself in the featurette. Recognized her right away, I did. Want more proof? Here you go.



SCRIBE'S SUCH A PITY REVIEW:

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from my co-reviewer over these past few years, it’s that he loves child-friendly movies and wussy, contrived romantic comedies. So it came as no surprise that he chose “Labyrinth” for us to review on this blog. Actually, he chose it a long time ago but I kept shuffling it off to the side because I wasn’t in the mood to watch this Eighties Jim Henson film.

I finally knuckled down and watched a film I hadn’t seen in at least ten years and found myself enjoying it a lot more now than I had before. To give you an idea of my frame of mind, most of my experience was spent staring at a young Jennifer Connelly and saying, “Man, does she get hot in a few years!” But the movie was entertaining as well.

Unlike the superior and much more artistic “The Dark Crystal,” Henson and company decided to go a more child-friendly route with this one. Featuring two principle human actors, Connelly as the female protagonist and David Bowie as the “Goblin King,” this is a faster paced fairytale with songs and goofy characters.

The plot is rather thin when compared to “Crystal,” but this is a film about mood and imagery and it works very well in that regard. The loss of Jim Henson was a far more serious one than I’d thought. The incredible imagination at work in his films is sorely missed in this era of off the shelf software CGI flicks.

Connelly is a tad awkward in her role at the beginning but she grows into it nicely as things go on. Bowie is a natural as the Goblin King, menacing yet charming at the same time, much like a seductive and charming vampire with a New Wave haircut. The muppet characters are amazingly rendered. The plot is thin, basically revolving around Connelly angrily wishing her baby half-brother would be taken away by goblins and her struggles to get him back by traversing a…LABYRINTH, that’s right. Thanks for following along at home.

The music, provided by Bowie, might sound dated if not for the overall bizarre quality of it. Yes, it’s a tad annoying to sit through the scene with Bowie and the goblin muppets boogieing down but one must expect such cheese when watching such a film. Besides, this isn’t one of your happy-go-lucky Disney adventures. It’s pretty dark and mentions death rather bluntly. Some of the imagery is downright disturbing, especially the “helping hands” and stench pit sequences. The latter actually features something that looks like a multitude of flatulent rectums protruding from a swamp at random intervals! Sid & Marty Kroft couldn’t have done enough bong hits to come up with that one!

None of those things detract from an enjoyable film. If you have small children, which I don’t, some of the darker aspects of the film might bother them, but on the bright side you can always threaten them with banishment to the Goblin king’s realm if they don’t do as you say.

*** out of *****

Labyrinth (1986, PG, 102 minutes) starring David Bowie, Jennifer Connelly, Shari Weiser and Brian Henson (voice). Story development by Dennis Lee and Jim Henson, written by Terry Jones and directed by Jim Henson.

BABEL

SCRIBE'S NEVER TAKE A GIFT WEAPON FROM A JAPANESE HUNTER REVIEW:

“Babel” is the aptly titled movie starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett involving several characters and as many languages.

Another in a growing sub-genre of dramas featuring disparate characters in different locations whose seemingly unrelated lives will connect in some significant way by the time the movie ends, this one extends into international territory. I’m a sucker for these films. Crash, Traffic, Magnolia, Reservation Road, 21 Grams are all good to great films. This one falls somewhere in the middle.

With a two and a half hour running time, Babel features four basic stories revolving around a single, mindless incident of violence. Everything has a tumble down effect in this film. The man in Morocco who sells a rifle to his friend obtained the weapon from a different character whose life is in a shambles. The sons of the man who buy the rifle indulge in random target shooting to prove the rifle doesn’t fire as far as claimed. The little tykes wind up firing on a tour bus and one of the bullets strikes a passenger.

What results is a rather convoluted mess, but I don’t mean that in a bad way. The “mess” is what the characters experience. This is a film with a rich tapestry of interwoven tragedies. Pitt is the understandably emotional husband whose wife (Blanchett) is shot. This causes him to call his Mexican nanny whose poor judgment in finding a way to keep her employer’s kids with her while attending her nephew’s wedding in Mexico will have terrible consequences. Meanwhile, The Moroccan police scour the countryside in an attempt to locate the perpetrators of the shooting and prove there are no terrorist cells in their nation. Pitt commands the tour bus driver to take them to the nearest village with a doctor (turns out he’s a “very good” vet) and basically holds his fellow tourists hostage. And somehow, in far off Japan, the sad life of a deaf mute teenage girl whose mother committed suicide connects with these people in ways none will ever know.

If you’ve ever read a David Mitchell novel, this is familiar territory. His novels often feature similar themes of human connectivity, although the underlying story tends to be more substantive.

Babel is beautifully acted by all involved. We already know Pitt and Blanchett can act, but the non-AmerEnglish speaking actors are phenomenal. The fact that the Japanese girl didn’t garner an Oscar for her performance is a criminal offense. It’s well known that the Academy favors performances featuring damaged characters and none are more damaged than her.

Director Alejandro González Iñárritu provides a fever dream style of shooting reminiscent of Soderberg, but with jarring intrusions no doubt designed to keep us awake. There are so specific memorable images but this isn’t a film that calls for such things. The whole point is the random, improbable elements of chance and human experience.

A quality, ambitious film.

**** out of *****

GREEN’S “IS THERE A DOCTOR ON THE BUS?” REVIEW:

This film reminded me a lot of “Magnolia” (which we reviewed here.) because there are several separate stories going on all at the same time, except these stories happen on a worldwide, cross-cultural, multi-lingual scale instead of a local one. The four seemingly unrelated stories are unfolding all at once and only near the end do we realize how the one seemingly disconnected story from all the others is really the angle from which all of this mayhem originates and through which all are connected.

A Moroccan man sells an automatic rifle to a nearby farmer (Mustapha Rachidi), who charges his boys with killing jackals in the desert. Instead, one boy fires the gun at a distant tour bus on the road below to demonstrate the weapon’s apparent lack of range. A Japanese deaf-mute teen (Rinko Kikuchi) is trying to find her place in the social structure of her culture while trying to cope with her disability, the death of her mother and the absence of her working father (Koji Yakusho) who had just been to Morocco on a business trip (a fact we don‘t realize until much later in the film). A Mexican housekeeper/nanny (Adriana Barraza) in San Diego is forced to take the two American children she is watching to her son’s wedding across the border in Mexico, because the parents are away on vacation in Morocco. Two American tourists (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) are sitting at an outdoor café in Morocco arguing. Later they are riding on a tour bus through the desert when a stray bullet...

Of course there’s more depth and detail to the story than I’m telling you. You’ll have to watch to find out the rest, but you get the idea.

Babel isn't only about (intentional or unintentional, it doesn't matter) gun violence and its tragic consequences. It's about communication and/or the lack of it. It is also about how much of a global community our world has become, where one seemingly innocuous event can have consequences reaching around the world and across cultures.

The film doesn’t lack in its share of indelible moments, many of which are pretty stark and grim and yet the story doesn’t lose any of its potency or emotional impact. This film’s run time of 143 minutes is much more palatable than that of Magnolia (which was 45 minutes longer...)

Interesting to me is the film’s title: no doubt derived from the multi-cultural, multi-language barrier for the different story lines and is certainly an indirect reference to the Biblical events depicted in Genesis 11:1-9 {go ahead and look it up… you know you want to.}

The seemingly unrelated stories are brilliantly edited together by writers Guillermo Arriaga and Alejandro González Iñárritu, who also directed (they also collaborated on “21 Grams” which was reviewed here.) the film. The film’s headliner stars are Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, who both give remarkable performances, along with the rest of the ensemble cast giving fine performances all around.

Babel was nominated for seven Academy Awards in 2006, including Best Picture, Best Director and two nods for Best Supporting Actress (Barraza and Kikuchi). Surprisingly, Babel only took home one Oscar, for Best Achievement in Music. That’s ironic to me because I hardly noticed the music while I was watching, so involved in the story I was. It didn’t bother me one bit that the two Best Supporting Actress nominees, despite excellent performances, didn’t win. Pitt or Blanchett, the film’s biggest names, could have just as easily been nominated.

I’ll admit that sometimes I end up buying the DVD’s of the movies that we review here. Even though the film is gripping and definitely worthwhile to watch, it is not a film that I would choose to see again anytime soon.

***½ out of *****


Babel (2006, R, 143 minutes) starring Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Mustapha Rachidi, Rinko Kikuchi, Adriana Barraza and Koji Yakusho. The film was written by Guillermo Arriaga and Alejandro González Iñárritu and directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu.

Enchanted

This was a movie that originally I was going to review for my weekly SNMR column over on my regular blog. But then I thought how fun it would be to get the scribester's take on this syrupy-sweet Disney film because I just know how much he looooooves to watch them. However, I don't think that's going to happen, due to some issues he's dealing with right now that are far more pressing than this column. If at some point he'd like to add his review to this post, I'd love to read it.

GREEN'S "IT'S LIKE YOU ESCAPED FROM A HALLMARK CARD OR SOMETHING" REVIEW:

A young, beautiful maiden, Giselle of Andalasia (Amy Adams), is about to marry Prince Edward (James Marsden) and live happily ever after. On the way to the wedding, Giselle is pushed into a magic well by the insanely jealous and evil Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon) who is disguised as an ugly old hag.

The well turns out to be a portal that leads to a place where happily-ever-afters don't exist! Once Prince Edward learns where Giselle has gone, he enthusiastically goes after her, followed by Pip, the talking squirrel and Nathaniel (Timothy Spall), who is promised a relationship with the queen if he can successfully kill Giselle. Enter Robert (Patrick Dempsey), a New York divorce lawyer and his daughter Morgan (Rachel Covey), who take Giselle in and reluctantly let her stay the night...

When this movie was playing in theaters, I never gave it a thought to take my kids to see it. When it came out on DVD and my kids saw it in the store where I buy many of my movies, they begged me to get it for them. This I refused to do, since I thought the movie was going to be stupid. Months later, when I saw that the price had come down significantly I bought it but didn't unwrap it. At the same time I borrowed it from the library, figuring if I watched it and if it truly was as dumb as I thought, then I would return the copy I bought and get my money back.

What I didn't expect was to like this movie as much as I did. (I must've liked it - I watched it three times in a span of four days.) Sure, it's a syrupy, sappy, saccharine sweet fairy tale of a movie. But that's okay because it doesn't presume to be anything else. What makes this film so good is that they've taken the best elements of the classic animated Disney fairy tales Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White and combined them into a part animation, mostly live action film that I, in spite of myself, couldn't help but smile and laugh at.

Amy Adams, who brings an enthusiasm to her roles that not many actors today can match, is simply brilliant as the wide eyed, eternally optimistic Giselle, the would-be princess who is suddenly thrust into the wilds of New York City by the evil witch. James Marsden is equally good as the incredibly goofy Prince Edward. If this film has a weak link in the cast, it is female eye-candy Patrick Dempsey, who at times is really into his role but other times looks like he's bored and disinterested in his character. Susan Sarandon is good as the voice of the animated witch but when she comes to New York, her costume looks like she's a vamp-tramp hooker or something worse, rather than queen-evil-incarnate. Look for actress Jodi Benson in a bit part as Dempsey's secretary. She provided the voice of Ariel in the 1989 Disney animated classic "The Little Mermaid."

"Enchanted" had three of the five nominated songs at the Academy Awards in 2008, which at the time I thought was silly. How could one movie carry three-fifths of the best movie songs of the year? Though none of them won the Oscar for Best Original Song, they still are really well done and add life and fun to the film.

The special features on the DVD are short but well done, explaining some of the CGI effects used and choreography of the musical numbers.

If you're able to sit through this movie and not laugh or smile at least ten times, then you're inhuman or you're lying. This movie is a feel good winner in every sense of the word.

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

Enchanted (2007, PG, 107 minutes), starring Amy Adams, Patrick Dempsey, James Marsden, Timothy Spall, Susan Sarandon, Idina Menzel and Rachel Covey. The screenplay was written by Bill Kelly and directed by Kevin Lima.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Apparently Scribe and I are in the midst of a summer lull in posting reviews to the blog, for which I apologize. The following review was not originally scheduled but written as a result of the sudden death of writer/producer/director John Hughes at the young age of 59.

I had a nice review going that was almost complete when blogger ate it. So here goes again. Perhaps scribe-o will throw his review in here too at some point, though I know he's not a fan of John Hughes...

GREEN'S "I'LL BET YOU NEVER SMELLED A REAL SCHOOL BUS BEFORE" REVIEW:

On a beautiful spring/early summer day, uber-slacker Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick) decides to skip a day of high school, bringing along his girlfriend Sloane (Mia Sara) and best friend Cameron Frye (Alan Ruck). They spend a very memorable day touring downtown Chicago, including eating at an extremely upper crusty restaurant, seeing a Cubs game, visiting an art museum and watching Ferris' impromptu singing performance in some parade. Meanwhile Ferris' sister Jeanne (Jennifer Grey) is upset because her brother gets away with everything and never gets caught. School principal Edward Rooney (Jeffrey Jones) knows Ferris is ditching school and goes on a personal vendetta to try and catch him this time.

This film was released in 1986, as I was finishing my junior year of high school and working at the local General Cinema in the mall, at that time a small four screen theater. I have a fondness for many of the movies that were playing at that time because I could see any movie I wanted at any time for nothin'. And I did! Because of that there are scenes in this film that I've seen hundreds of times, like the parade float scene to name one. And let's face it, there were some of us who thought high school was a bit ridiculous at times and would have loved to skip school, even for a day. I would have gotten caught however. Karma, if you believe in that, doesn't run my way too often.

Writer/director John Hughes does an excellent job bringing out the talents of then relatively unknown actors. Overall the casting was excellent, even the bit parts, like Ferris' happily clueless parents, Rooney's ditsy secretary and the snooty restaurant maitre'd. The film has many funny moments and many quotable lines. Plus, all his other accomplishments aside, this is the film that made Ben Stein famous.

You may think that Hughes' films are cheesy and I, for the most part, will agree with you. There definitely is an element of undeniable cheesiness to Hughes' films, but to me that's one of the reasons why they are so much fun. Every film can't be an Oscar-caliber dramatic masterpiece, and Hughes' films don't pretend to be. However, if you say Hughes was a talentless hack, I'll have to disagree. In my mind a hack is someone who copies the work of others, who really has little or nothing of value to add to a genre. What makes Hughes' films memorable, and thus why they helped define the decade of the 1980's, is that no one really made films about high school and that whole experience, up until that point. At least none that I can think of.

I think this film was great and one of Hughes best, among the many memorable movies that he wrote/produced/directed. I hadn't watched this film in a while but enjoyed it tremendously all the same.

****½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S "SO THAT'S HOW IT IS IN THAT FAMILY" REVIEW:

I titled my review that because it's the only funny part of this overrated mess of a film. The opening scene where Ferris gets his buddy Cameron to impersonate his girlfriend's dad is the first and final inspired portion of a film that never seems to know what it wants to be. It's almost as if Hughes tried to throw everything that was successful from his previous efforts into a fantasy about a mysteriously popular kid skipping school for the day. Nobody skipped school better than me at this time so I could relate to the idea of not wanting to go in. But that's about all I could relate to.

Without getting too sociopolitical on your asses, Hughes' films were a study in whitebread suburban Eighties life. I couldn't relate to the characters in his films, nor the experiences they had, nor the incessant whining so often associated with the spoiled characters. In my circles, people who treated their parents like they were idiots still had to pay for it. For me, watching this film was like studying a foreign culture and realizing I didn't like them very much.

For one thing, the impossibility of Bueller's popularity is an enormous stumbling block. Green, like I, remembers the Eighties. What distinguished that decade from the others was that there were so many cliques and so much segregation that it was unlikely that some guy wearing a varsity jacket who doesn't play sports and sounds like a neurotic New York Jew in Chicago would have been popular with every single clique in his high school. Another thing, there really isn't anything cool about Bueller. He's kind of a smarmy nerd. We would have kicked his ass in my high school...well, actually I would've just watched like I always did.

Hughes came near to brilliance with "The Breakfast Club," an admittedly stock character filled two-act play type of film that tapped beautifully into suburban and adolescent angst like no other film before it. The success of that movie seemed to convince him that he needed to start creating whitebread fantasies instead of gritty realism and that's what we have here.

There isn't a single laugh in the film after the first scene and the "story" meanders until the incredibly contrived moment with Cameron's parents' car flying through the garage.

If anything, this was the beginning of Hughes' descent into utter garbage which culminated with the "Home Alone" series.

0 out of *****

Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986, PG-13, 103 minutes), starring Matthew Broderick, Alan Ruck, Mia Sara, Jeffrey Jones and Jennifer Grey. The film was written, produced and directed by John Hughes.

Magnolia

GREEN‘S TORRENTIAL DOWNPOUR OF FROGS REVIEW:

This has got to be one of the most eclectic and bizarre films I have seen in a long time. I had never seen it prior to a few days ago, in order to write this review. My friend at work also suggested this movie for us to review.

The movie has a run time of just over three hours and about an hour into it, I’m thinking, "What the heck kind of movie is this? What did my friend get me into?"

What you have with Magnolia is a bunch of scenes that all take place in the span of a single, rainy day. The characters are every day people: a police officer, a television game show host, a young brainy kid as a game-show contestant, a former child game-show contestant winner thirty years later living off of his game show fame, a bed ridden dying man, his much younger trophy wife, a visiting male nurse, a cocaine addict and a sexual self help guru. At first these scenes don’t seem to be related, but as the film goes on the connections become more and more evident. What makes these characters so compelling is that every one of them is brilliantly flawed.

The ensemble cast, for the most part, is excellent and includes Tom Cruise, Philip Baker Hall, Philip Seymour Hoffman, John C. O’Reilly, William H. Macy, Jason Robards, and Melora Walters. In my opinion, the weak link in the cast is Julianne Moore, of whom I’ve never been a fan.

Director Paul Thomas Anderson does a skillful job weaving these stories together. However the film teeters on having too many story lines with too many characters, so many that I almost gave up on the movie. My other complaint largely has to do with the run-time of three hours and eight minutes. Easily this movie could have accomplished the same thing in less time. The movie is about 30-45 minutes too long.


Oh yeah, one more thing. What gives with the freaking frogs?

My friend suggested that they needed some catastrophic thing to happen at the end of the movie to tie in to the narrative piece at the beginning and end of the movie. He suggests the raining of frogs was foreshadowed earlier by someone in the game show audience holding up a sign with the Bible reference of Exodus 8:2, which speaks of the plague of frogs God brought upon the Egyptians for Pharaoh’s continued refusal to free the Israelites from the bonds of slavery. However the Biblical plague entailed live frogs coming up out of the Nile River and infesting everything, not dead frogs falling from the sky like extremely large chunks of hail. Nice try but I don’t buy into that explanation.

Unfortunately I had to return the library copy of the DVD, so I didn’t get to watch any of the bonus features on the 2^nd disc.

Loathe as I am to suggest it, this is a film that screams, (gasp) “potentially better with a second viewing!”

***½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S BEST MULI-STORY ARC EVER REVIEW:

It is rare that a film can be both an ensemble piece and move with balletic grace for a running time of nearly three hours, yet “Magnolia” pulls it off.

This was Paul Thomas Anderson’s eagerly awaited follow-up to “Boogie Nights” and it was met with a mixed response. People expecting another descent into glorious sleaze as with the previous film were left cold by the more philosophical and grown-up Magnolia. But those who appreciated brilliant writing and acting were stunned by this film’s grace and deep emotional core.

This is a film for anyone who’s lost a parent or felt disconnected from the things other people seem to take for granted. Featuring a veritable who’s who of acting, the film showcases the various lives of a cop, a motivational speaker for men, a hospice nurse and a trophy wife who has suddenly discovered that she loves her dying husband.

This isn’t an action film; Anderson keeps the narrative moving with brilliant editing. Long before “Traffic” and “Crash” gave us the multi-story arc, Magnolia lets us see inside these peoples’ minds and hearts as they are bared for us in ways that are both revealing and uncomfortable.

Many criticized the film’s bizarre conclusion because they didn’t understand it. Analytical types were left completely baffled by it. Perhaps because it hints at if not divine intervention then certainly divine revelation, some felt the realism of the earlier portion of the film was sacrificed. They are wrong.

This is one of the great underrated masterpieces.

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

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 *****