http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=1071&mname=ArticleGroup Movie Reviews en-us 60 Dan Curtin Of the Frontpage Milwaukee staff November 2009 Title: It Might Get Loud Studio: Steel Curtain Pictures Director: Davis Guggenheim Starring: Jimmy Page The Edge Jack White Run Time: 97 minutes Rating: PG The electric guitar has been around since the 1930’s and has been a popular culture mainstay ever since rock ‘n’ roll was created, so it is very surprising that it took this long for someone to make an engaging documentary featuring the beloved instrument. It Might Get Loud is a documentary by director Davis Guggenheim and was made by Steel Curtain Studios and distributed by Sony Pictures Classics. The film stars three guitar gods from three different generations: -Jimmy Page from Led Zeppelin -The Edge from U2 -and Jack White from The White Stripes, The Raconteurs, and The Dead Weather At first glance, the basic premise of the film seems to be: what would happen if you took three of the greatest guitar players of the last 40 years, put them in the same room, and let them discuss music and jam for an hour and a half? It Might Get Loud does contain some of those elements, but rather than being a self indulgent movie about amazingly talented rock guitarists showing off, the film instead focuses on each musician’s influences, backgrounds, and artistic drive. It Might Get Loud stands out from other rock ‘n’ roll documentaries, not only because of its three different and unique subjects, but also because of its nonconventional story structure. Whereas other “rock docs” such as the Grunge documentary Hype!, and the 1980’s Heavy Metal documentary The Decline of Western Civilization: The Metal Years followed a linear story structure, It Might Get Loud bounces from one place to another without ever losing its focus. It Might Get Loud benefits from the fact that all three guitarists have completely different life stories and careers, which helps give the film its unique identity. American producer/director Davis Guggenheim is probably best remembered for winning an Academy Award for directing Al Gore’s global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and for producing hit TV shows such as The Shield and Alias. It Might Get Loud could not be further away from the subject matter of Guggenheim’s previous work, but it is clear from the outset that each musician gives Guggenheim plenty to work with. It Might Get Loud starts with a shot of Jack White making a very simple guitar out of a plank of wood, a couple of nails, a guitar pickup, and one guitar string. White plugs his homemade concoction into a vintage amp and plays a furiously loud slide guitar riff, setting the stage for what is to come. The next few scenes show The Edge and Jimmy Page in rooms surrounded by guitars and effects pedals, noodling away as they try to give the audience a sense of how they are able to pull such amazing sounds from their instruments. The rest of the film follows a non-linear path that has each guitarist talk about their upbringing, their desire to play music, and their specific musical influences. These individual interviews are centered around clips of all three guitar players sitting in a room talking music and teaching each other how to play songs such as “In My Time of Dying” by Led Zeppelin and “Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground” by The White Stripes. The choice of guitarists for the documentary makes sense at first as each guitar player has their own distinct style and influences, but it quickly becomes clear that U2’s The Edge is the odd man out. The Edge talks about how his style of guitar playing was an attack against the over indulgence of 1970’s rock music, but while that may be true, that is the exact kind of music that Jimmy Page has built his legacy on. Jack White may not share the progressive rock or jam band tendencies that Jimmy Page has, but it is clear that Jack White and Jimmy Page both have mutual roots in the blues. In the end though, it is better to hear from conflicting viewpoints rather than have three guitarists all talk about the same styles and influences. Surprisingly, the best parts of the movie are when each guitarist is by himself talking about their upbringing and showing clips of their musical roots. Seeing The Edge and the rest of U2 rock out in ridiculously outdated 1970’s glam outfits is quite a treat, as is rare footage of a 15 year old Jimmy Page playing in a skiffle band. Jack White plays off of the public’s perception of him as an eccentric by talking about his bizarre childhood of growing up as the youngest of ten children in a predominately Latino neighborhood in Southern Detroit. White’s current influences may be blues musicians such as Son House, but early clips of him playing in a punk band called The Upholsterers are quite eye opening due to the raw and abrasive nature of the music. In addition to old film footage, current day interviews, and concert footage, there are various cartoon clips throughout that visually describe White’s childhood bedroom packed full of instruments and colors literally coming out The Edge’s guitar amp. The concert footage is hit or miss as most of the Led Zeppelin and U2 clips are already available on various DVD’s, but grainy clips of Jack White playing with The White Stripes and The Raconteurs are highly entertaining. One will never look at a bloodied instrument quite the same again… A documentary about rock ‘n’ roll would be nothing without a good soundtrack, and It Might Get Loud delivers the goods in spades. “Whole Lotta Love,” “When the Levee Breaks,” and “White Summer” by Led Zeppelin, “Icky Thump,” “Blue Orchid,” and “Fell in Love With a Girl” by The White Stripes, and “I Will Follow,” “Sunday, Bloody Sunday,” and “Elevation” by U2 are all in the film in either studio or live incarnations. It Might Get Loud is capped off with an impromptu acoustic performance of The Band’s “The Weight” by all three members. Overall It Might Get Loud is a highly entertaining and informative documentary, but viewers should be forewarned; those looking for a 90 minute jam session between three guitar gods will leave the theatre unimpressed. It Might Get Loud is more about the electric guitar and rock ‘n’ roll than it is about the three musicians within it. If you are looking for a truthful look at rock music and the instrument that defines it from three legendary guitarists, then go out and see It Might Get Loud as quickly possible. Who is your favorite guitarist?(poll) Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:38:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=25005&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=25005&mname=Article So You Think You Can Dance By Tameka Smith Of the Frontpage Milwaukee staff July 2009 Fox Nigel Lythgoe & Simon Fuller 5 out of 5 stars What’s hip today might not be what’s hip tomorrow. Dance is always evolving into something new. It has transformed from classical waltz into doing the stanky leg. So You Think You Can Dance is currently in its fifth season and is a mind blowing must see television sensation. Nigel Lythgoe is the co-creator and executive producer of the show. He is one of the judges, along side Mary Murphy and other guest judges. It is a show that gives young talent from all types of genres like contemporary, hip-hip, ballet, and more the opportunity to showcase their talents and learn the hottest moves from other genres. The show spends its first week touring around the states, holding auditions at the largest cities. Once the judges put through their favorite picks, the chosen ones are sent to Las Vegas where they undergo a rapid and intricate choreography routine that pushes each dancer to the their limit. Once the top 10 girls and top 10 guys are chosen, they are then paired in two and compete against each other to become America’s favorite dancer. There are other shows similar to So You Think You Can Dance, but none that can even compare to the raw, original talent that is showcased on the show. Dancing With the Stars focuses on a professional choreographer who is paired with each celebrity. The show only features traditional dances like the waltz, foxtrot, and rumba. Where So You Think You Can Dance couples perform a larger variety of dances both classical and modern. Although both shows allow the audience to play a role in the contestant’s faith, only So You Think You Can Dance allows each individual dancer to fight for their life by choreographing their own routine. Their routine could save them from returning back home or winning the grand prize of $250,000. It displays the true raw talent of each contestant as both a choreographer and performer. The show remains a must see and engages its audience with the dancers to make people want to pick up the phone and vote. Judges on the show are always filled with knowledgeable insight on the technical and showmanship side of each performer that makes the show credible and interesting to watch. Once the show reaches their top ten, the couples are placed with new partners to keep it exciting. This season, Phillip was the one to look after. He had amazing talent and could pop lock and drop his body into any twisted position. Unfortunately, like many other contestants, he was voted off. It’s quite addicting! The viewer gets attached to seeing certain couples bond and perform together, and then you never know if they’ll be the ones dancing for their lives the following week. The emotional connection the dancers have with each other each week is remarkable. Jeanine and Philip performed a memorable piece that was choreographed by Tabitha and Napoleon Dumo. They performed while chained together and used the prop throughout their piece phenomenally. And then at the end of the dance, Phillip offered his partner the key to walk away from him, pulling the audience into the hearts of the two performers. So You Think You Dance is a sure winner to watch with the kids each night. It comes on Fox twice a week and will leave the viewer amazed and speechless. The show displays great talent from upcoming choreographers, as well as the ability of each contestant to succeed in the dance world. Remember, it’s up to the audience to keep their favorite dancer out the bottom three each week, so tune in and experience the performances of many music genres. Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:33:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=23297&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=23297&mname=Article By Sean Slattery Of the Frontpage Milwaukee staff July 2009 Sling Blade. Miramax Films. Billy Bob Thornton. Billy Bob Thornton, John Ritter, Lucas Black, Robert Duvall, Natalie Canerday, & Dwight Yoakam. 135 minutes. R. After a long plane ride, and an even longer weekend spent in Williamsburg Virginia, I found myself back at my father’s house late Monday night. I was exhausted; my stomach had been feeling nauseous since that morning, and I was dreading the trip back to Milwaukee the following day. However, for whatever reason I could not able to fall asleep. Rather than tossing and turning I decided it would be better to watch some TV, and explored the free list of On Demand movies. I had seen parts of the film Sling Blade when I was much younger and decided that I needed to view the drama as a whole. After seeing the movie in its entirety I can say with the utmost confidence that Sling Blade is one of the most phenomenal yet simplistic movies that has ever been made. The film was released in 1996 by Miramax, and stars Billy Bob Thornton as Karl Childers, a mentally disabled man who murdered his mother and her lover using a sling blade when he was a young boy. Sling Blade begins with Karl in a State Mental Hospital, where he has spent the greater majority of his life, one day before his release, and follows Karl as he returns to his childhood town. Thornton’s powerful performance is the true driving force of this film. Through his physical mannerisms, aspects of speech, and even his appearance, Thornton becomes unrecognizable as he immerses himself within his character. Not only did Thornton put forth a truly remarkable performance (in my opinion rivaling that of Daniel Day Lewis in There Will be Blood or Jamie Foxx in Ray), he also wrote the screenplay adaptation and directed Sling Blade. Earning him the two Academy Award nominations, Best Actor in a Leading Roll and Best Writing or Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium. The later of which he won. This is an even greater accomplishment when you consider that Thornton created the source material for an earlier short film called Some Folks Call It a Sling Blade, in which he also wrote, directed and starred. The movie takes off when Karl meets Frank Wheatley (Lucas Black), a young boy who quickly grows fond of Karl. Karl is soon entrenched in the lives of Frank and his mother Linda, played by Natalie Canerday. But just as Karl begins to find peace in the outside world, he is confronted by Linda’s alcoholic boyfriend Doyle (Dwight Yoakam). As Doyle threats grow more frightening, the safety of Frank and Linda become increasingly threatened. Leading Karl to question his moral boundaries, confront his past, and decide how far he is willing to go to protect those he loves. Other notable performances include John Ritter’s portrayal of Linda’s homosexual friend Vaughan Cunningham, who ironically attempts to hide his sexuality while it is comically obvious. As well Robert Duvall provides a brief, yet startling performance as Karl’s father. Some lesser actors make the film suffer at times, but the core acting is at that of the finest. As stated earlier, this is a simplistic movie. No huge budget, no great score or soundtrack, no revolutionary filming techniques used; rather it’s simply set up, shoot, and let the acting take over. And it does. If you haven’t seen Sling Blade, go see it, if you’ve seen it, see it again. This is a near perfect film. ? ? ? ? ½ (out of 5) Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:32:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=23296&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=23296&mname=Article By Tammy McCubbin July 2009 of the Frontpage Milwaukee staff Movie Review Title: Bruno Director: Larry Charles Main Actors: Sacha Baron Cohen (Bruno), Gustaf Hammarsten Run time: 1 hour 23 minutes Rating: C+ Bruno, starring controversy maker Sacha Baron Cohen, explores the adventures of a flamboyant Austrian homosexual as he tries to find fame in America. The Austrian fashion expert gets fired from his TV show after a disastrous fashion show, which leads Bruno to travel to Los Angeles to rebuild his career. Bruno presented by Universal Studios and directed by Larry Charles falls short of expectations after the hilarious Cohen creation Borat. Revolving around the concept of shocking unsuspecting real life people sprinkled with plenty of cameos, this mix of script and unscripted style of film seems to miss the mark. As with Cohen’s last film Borat, Bruno stands in a category of its own. Definitely a comedy, Bruno pushes the boundaries to the extreme in every aspect. Within the first twenty minutes of the movie, I found myself laughing uncontrollably, yet that didn’t seem to last. Cohen brings to light many important issues facing America like feels on homosexuality, which is arguably the hidden message within the movie. The main characters of the film are Bruno (Sacha Baron Cohen) and his sidekick Lutz ( Gustaf Hammarsten). They travel from Austria all the way to L.A. to reclaim Bruno’s fallen fame. During his journey, he tries to assimilate to the star culture of America and concludes that he must become straight. This offers plenty of shocking laughs as Bruno goes as far as talking with homosexual converts. The plot is simple yet interesting. The mix between acting and real life people presents a confusing twist, but follows the format of Cohen’s past acclaimed film Borat. The premise of Bruno finding his fame works well in the first half of the movie, but appeared to go dull afterwards. The cinematography of the film was pleasantly simple. It lacked special effects which complemented the theme of realness in the movie. Some scene actually appeared to be shot in motion, as though running along side Bruno as angry crowds chased after him. There was a lot of real life motion shots and some instances where the camera operator was actually in the scene. The writing complemented the style of the film well. It was simple dialogue between the two main characters through out the movie. The disappointing aspect with the dialogue was between the supposed cameos such as Paula Abdul for example. This interaction was suppose to be real and unscripted, yet it felt staged. Overall, I thought the movie was filled with laughs, yet fell short of expectations. While trying to shock, Cohen seemed to let the movie go astray. There were times during the film were I lost interest and forgot what the film was supposed to be about. During the live scenes, it often felt that the scenes were staged which is very disappointing. Compared to the loved Borat, where Cohen successfully pushed the envelope in every aspect, Bruno didn’t live up. I am not saying that the movie isn’t worth seeing though, just maybe wait till it comes out on DVD. It is worth every laugh and gasp. There were often times I found myself sitting with my mouth open due to Cohen’s crazy acts. Beware, there is an overload of frontal male nudity, which seems to only add to the shock value, an Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:29:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=23294&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=23294&mname=Article Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Katie L. Visser JMC 504 July 5, 2009 Movie Review Away We Go Studio: Focus Features, Directed by Sam Mendes, Starring John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph, Run time 1 hr. 37 min., Rated R Beneath a tendency to embarrass its audience with gutsy language and elements aiming for the shock factor, this one did little to impress. Away We Go, while witty, sarcastic and moderately crude, lacked a fresh or provocative message that might have tied all that wit and sarcasm together. Away We Go stars John Krasinski, a.k.a. Jim Halpert of NBC’s The Office, and Saturday Night Live cast member Maya Rudolph. It was directed by Sam Mendes (Revolutionary Road, American Beauty) for Focus Features and written by Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida. This latest of Mendes’ films is a bittersweet romantic comedy with clear Indie-film influences and reminiscent of recent works such as Juno and Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist. While a few moments in the film could provoke some self-reflection for just about any audience member, and some comedic bits did entertain, no single element on its own warrants any necessity to see this movie. Why isn’t it a must-see? Because there’s nothing about it that hasn’t been seen or explored before. A recent example of films that have gone down the same road as this one, and come to the same conclusions, might be the 2007 Indie hit Juno, which also explored the theme of an expectant parent who needed to decide what kind of person she wanted to be in preparation for the parenting role she’d soon take on. Juno, directed by Jason Reitman, even conveyed this common theme with stylistic elements very similar to those used in Away We Go, such as its warm color scheme, unsophisticated graphics and folksy soundtrack, in addition to its overall preoccupation with portraying an “average joe” and “average jane.” Krasinski and Rudolph play Burt Farlander and his girlfriend Verona De Tessant. The couple is in their 30s and expecting their first child. When Burt’s parents unexpectedly announce plans to move thousands of miles away before the baby’s birth, the young couple realizes they have no ties to their current home and can go wherever they like to settle down. Thus begins a trip to several cities where Burt and Verona have friends, siblings or old coworkers – a quest for the perfect home. Each city and set of friends offers the parents-to-be its own unique take on parenting, the state of the country, how to find happiness, etc. Somewhere along the line, though, Burt and Verona find out that they can’t necessarily rely on someone else to show them what will work best for their new family. They must learn they’re on their own when it comes to that. As mentioned above, the plot is anything but original here. Young people breaking ties with their families, struggling with their individuality, learning to be parents themselves, and discovering that home is wherever you can be together. Other than the way each new city visited provides a different cast of screwball or charming characters and a different worldview to contrast, the progression of the film lacks any noteworthy scope. A particularly poignant downfall of the movie is the enigma that is Verona. Her character is confusing more than anything. Why exactly does she hate the idea of marriage so much? Her parents seemed to have loved her and each other. Their death seemed to be a sudden one, though the details of said death are never divulged. It doesn’t sound like the primary marriage Verona has witnessed in her life was a bad or failed one, so why is she so bitterly and passionately turned off to marriage as a concept? It’s possible Verona fears losing her partner and family as she lost her parents and this keeps her from accepting Bert’s proposals. Even so, the writing fails to provide all the pieces in the puzzle of why she hates and dreads marriage like she does. As frustratingly mysterious as Verona is, the soul of her boyfriend Burt is easy to comprehend by comparison. Burt wants to find a place to be himself and love and enjoy his family. He doesn’t demand all that much from life, and thus he’s a simpler, more straightforward character than his girlfriend. Maybe this is why it’s easier to enjoy and learn from Bert than from Verona. While Burt may be the more complete of the two, there’s no doubt that the couple together create a believable contrast as they interact. Rudolph and Krasinksi perform their roles with equal appropriateness for their respective characters. His boisterous antics and childlike sureness are constantly met with her deadpan reactions and complacent quips. Perhaps it’s the timing of action and reaction between the two that allows us to feel close to the relationship, as if we are watching our brother and sister-in-law across the dinner table or in the front seat of the car. As far as the secondary characters are concerned, they provide cheap laughs and shocks in run-of-the-mill ways. Verona’s former boss “Lilly” (played well by Allison Janney) represents the segment of parents who rarely notice their children and border on the offensive every chance they get. “Kids are genetically screwed up out of the womb,” she tells a bewildered Verona, after an afternoon of jumping at Lilly’s foul mouth. “They’ll have cell phones. They’ll be fine.” Maggie Gyllenhaal plays “LN,” an old friend of Burt’s family who introduces Burt and Verona to a decidedly modern form of family values. LN and her husband have the young couple running away from their home in liberal-minded Madison, Wis. after explaining their practices of “family bed” and nursing other people’s infants. The adventures of the parents-to-be are punctuated by large, black-and-white captions that introduce each destination. Messages such as “AWAY TO PHOENIX” or “AWAY TO MADISON” flash across the screen at each departure in large block letters. These don’t really seem like necessary measures since they only serve to oversimplify the plot line and provide a weird, ill-fitting contrast to the warm, bright appearance of the scenes themselves. On the topic of scene-setting, a muted color palette and overall sun-splashed quality have a pleasing effect on the eye. Even indoor or nighttime scenes glow somehow in a dreamy way. If only the film’s writing moved like such a dreamy fantasy. Instead, it comes off more akin to a compilation of snippets of all the warm and fuzzy or comical moments we’ve seen in rom-coms countless times before. One painful example is delivered by the male lead. “Being obsessed with weight is too clichéd for our daughter,” Burt says while discussing rules for their future with Verona in the film’s climactic scene. Ironically, it’s quite clichéd for Burt to bring up weight as the first way in which he wants his kids to be unique. Everyone’s always talking about body image as one of the main areas in which to resist conformity. This clichéd reference and many others like it reflect poorly on the writing in general. In another, even more jarring moment, the writers found it appropriate to insert a sizeable swear into one of the most intimate and pivotal scenes of the film. Unfortunately, neither the humor, character development (where it worked) or mildly pleasing look of the film could save it in the end. Away We Go simply isn’t a trip worth taking. Away We Go C+ Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:25:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=22964&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=22964&mname=Article By Sean Slattery Of the Frontpage Milwaukee staff July 20, 2009 Public Enemies. Universal Studios. Michael Mann. Johnny Depp, Marion Cotillard, Christian Bale. 143 minutes. R. Director Michael Mann reprises his role as the Godfather of crime drama in his most recent film Public Enemies. But does this film live up to the overwhelming hype? Public Enemies is based around the Depression era crime wave, erupted by John Dillinger, as played by Johnny Depp, which essentially gave birth to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Depp portrays Dillinger as a Robin Hood-esque outlaw who captivates the general publics affection with his savvy “steal from the rich” philosophy in this time of economic turmoil, as he shreds through an array of banks across the Midwest. Depp is joined by Academy Award winning Actress Marion Cotillard who plays Billie Frechette, a stunning coat check attendant who catches Dillinger’s eye and soon after his heart. It is this relationship that sets Public Enemies aside from any other “Gangster” movie. Mann doesn’t explore Dillinger’s roots or why he has chosen to lead a life of crime, but it is obvious that Dillinger isn’t motivated by money, power, revenge, or greed. Dillinger aspires to do whatever he must to stay with Billie. The chemistry between Depp and Cotillard is undeniable; anytime the two share the camera lens it simply cannot be ignored. Christian Bale also turns out an intense performance as agent Melvin Purvis, the man burdened with the task of hunting down Dillinger. Purvis and his fellow agents pursue Dillinger and his squad throughout the film, leading to a variety of car chases and gun brawls. Though each time Purvis closes in on Dillinger, he finds a way to escape. This forces Bureau administrator J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) to push Purvis’ ethical boundaries, demanding he do anything he must to catch the beloved Dillinger. Director Michael Mann completely immerses the audience in the experience by filming all scenes on location. The majority off the filming was done throughout Chicago and rural Wisconsin areas, the same locations where these events actually occurred. Mann also uses handheld HD cameras for much of the filming, which has drawn some criticism; throughout the film there are a few instances that I felt should have used traditional cameras. However, Mann’s use of this modern technology adds to the overall feel of the movie, giving viewers a sense of participation. This isn’t your average summer blockbuster filled with gigantic explosions, computer generated images, and scantily dressed women. Rather than using cheap gimmicks Public Enemies relies on the talent of the actors and the skill of the director to hold the viewers attention. Built from the ground up with a strong score, a great script, and phenomenal acting; this take on the notorious criminal John Dillinger is certainly worth the price of admission. ? ? ? ? (4/5) Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:21:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=22962&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=22962&mname=Article Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} Title: The Hangover Studio: Warner Bros Director: Todd Phillips Main Actors: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Rachael Harris, Ken Jeong, Sasha Barrese Run Time: 96 minutes Rated: R Reviewed by Amanda Koch: 7-4-2009 A bachelor party in Vegas spells trouble in itself. Then, take the immaturity of four seemingly not too bright, grown up, funny men, a trashed $4000+ a night luxury suite, a tiger, a baby, a chicken, a missing tooth, a hospital bracelet, a missing bachelor and no recollection of the night before, and you’ll peek the interest of men and women nationwide. Thus is the premise of the recently released film from Warner Brothers Pictures, “The Hangover”. Directed by Todd Phillips, whose other movie credits include the successful “Old School” as well as the mildly successful “Road Trip” and the flop known as “School for Scoundrels”, he hit the nail on the head with this one. But it’s the casting of the movie, with Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and newcomer Zach Galifanakis, that is the main ingredient to what makes this movie a gut-busting hit. If you like funny movies, this is the movie to see. Honestly though, who doesn’t love a comedy? Nothing makes a person feel better than a good comedic movie. “The Hangover” has the same kind of humor as comedies like “Tommy Boy” (1995), “Old School” (2003), “Wedding Crashers” (2005), “The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) and “Little Miss Sunshine” (2006). They take believable situations, throw in some crazy twists and turns and leave you laughing to the point of tears. Just when you wonder how you can take the simple concept of the typical what-happens-in-Vegas scene and give it a new look, “The Hangover” accomplishes this with flying colors. Bradley Cooper shines in this movie, bringing some of his cocky, guys guy, mean spirited humor from “Wedding Crashers”, and his disregard for marriage from “He’s Just Not That Into You”, and taking it up a notch leading his fellow friends on an adventure in discovering the happenings of the night before, and the whereabouts of his friend. He gives you a little glimpse at his ability to carry a movie to success as one of the lead characters. Zach Galifanakis is an actor that hasn’t been seen much in movies. He’s had a few forgettable roles in such movies as “Bubble Boy”, “Heartbreakers” and “Into the Wild” along with a more memorable role in “What Happens in Vegas”. His fat guy in a little coat, scatterbrained humor resembles that of Chris Farley, helping him to make a deep footprint in the path to stardom. He was the perfect ingredient to making this movie a hit. The movie opens in the thick of the drama, with Phil (Cooper) calling the bride-to-be (Sasha Barrese) and confessing that they might not be able to track down the groom (Justin Bartha) in time to make it to the wedding. Flashback to two days earlier and that’s where the story begins. You have Stu (Ed Helms) a nerdy dentist with an overbearing possessive girlfriend (Rachel Harris) that he is scared of, Phil (Cooper), a cocky elementary school teacher, and the coordinator of the Vegas adventure, and Alan (Galifianakis) the creepy soon to be brother-in-law of Doug (Justin Bartha) who is brought along due to sense of obligation. The guys are all picked up by groom-to-be Doug (Bartha), a mildly funny process which is drawn out a bit too long, and their off. The plot gets good when the boys are on the roof toasting to an unforgettable night with a shot of Jaeger, then wake up the next morning with no recollection of what just occurred the night before. And what happens from there is better seen than read about, though you may have heard about some of the fantastic sequences. The tiger in the bathroom, the Mike Tyson cameo, Ken Jeong as a lisping Chinese gangster who's way funnier than the character probably deserves to be. Galifianskis really stole the show with his Chris Farleyesk one liners that make you want to flick him in the head from stupidity, and classic facial expressions and random poses that keep the momentum from falling flat, even when his fellow characters have a lull in action. Whether getting tazed in the face by a chunky little boy, peppering a steak for an angry tiger or caring for a random baby he names Carlos, Galifianakis has made his mark in the comedy world. Some critics say that “The Hangover” is “really just another entry into the "one crazy night" genre, a “Superbad” for grown-ups who can afford suites at Caesar's Palace,” but many beg to differ. This movie is inventive, suspenseful and will leave you laughing all the way home. The plot of the movie wasn’t a very creative one, but was made to be creative in the end with the characters and their antics. It wasn’t your typical drinking, gambling and strippers, it went further throwing in outlandish situations and characters, like tigers and Mike Tyson and making it believable. It had a “Superbad” feel in that the guys all started out together but then turned into a hunt to find their friend, but the writers and director went further with the creativity and adventure. The cinematography wasn’t unlike things I have seen before, but some of the little things that were caught from having just the right angle, like in the first scene with the tiger where you can just see it out of the corner of your eye. Not making the cool effects really obvious made the camera work stand out. The special effects were creative, but not innovative. The script is hilarious, classic one liners, witty comebacks; you’ll definitely hear some phrases repeated from movies goers in everyday conversation. I loved this movie. When it ended at 11:30pm I was ready and willing to watch it again. The characters were the perfect group; they played off each other and meshed well. Even with Zach Galifanakis creepy vibe that he gave off, it heightened the entertainment factor seeing how the other characters reacted to his dialogue and actions. Even their facial expressions made me laugh to the point of tears. They could have made better use of the female characters in the movie. Rachel Harris is funny in the Quaker Rice Cake commercials, so I’m sure she could have added more laughs here. I also thought a lot more could have been done with Heather Graham’s character, everyone loves a ditzy blonde. Sometimes when you talk to people who have seen the movie or read reviews that hype a movie to be so phenomenal, then you end up disappointed in the end. This movie exceeded my expectations. If you're male or if you're female, if you're a little iffy about raunchy comedy or if you love it, if you love Bradley Cooper or if this is your first glimpse of him, if you’ve had a crazy experience in Vegas, or if you just want to live vicariously through these guys, you will laugh at “The Hangover”. You may laugh so hard that you're a little ashamed of enjoying something so silly. And after quoting all the best lines with your friends, you may still be laughing so hard that you want to see it again. Comedies this good don't happen by accident, even if there could have been a few additions and subtractions to make it better. Rating: 4 stars Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:02:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=22953&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=22953&mname=Article v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Normal 0 false false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} By Eric Childs Title: Madea Goes to Jail Studio: Lions Gate Director: Tyler Perry Main Actors: Derek Luke Keisha Knight Pulliam Tyler Perry Run Time: 103 minutes Rating: PG-13 Madea Goes to Jail is the latest installment of playwright/director Tyler Perry’s Madea movie franchise that began with 2006’s Madea’s Family Reunion. All of them are based on his plays of the same name. They follow a similar predictable format of sexual/physical abuse followed by the redemption of the abuse victim, and punishment of the abuser. Can a film that follows such a predictable format succeed critically? No, it cannot. However, that doesn’t mean that it is a total failure. Central to the Madea films is the character Madea, a crass talking, gun-toting, hilariously funny family matriarch played by Tyler Perry in drag. She serves as comic relief to the films serious subject matter, kind of in the same way that seminal 80’s rap group Public Enemy used clown jester Flavor Flav’s antics to balance the politically charged rhymes of the group’s front man Chuck D. The film is a blend of comedy and drama (dramedy). Those two elements are put forth in the film’s opening scenes. It opens with a room of lawyers discussing the police chase and arrest of Madea. She has a long list of arrests from petty theft to attempted murder. Sounds serious, right? Not so. The lead prosecutor shows on a projector screen the arrest photos of Madea dressed in different outfits to show the span of her rap sheet, from school girl bow to black power afro with black leather glove to blonde wig. Next is a living room scene with Madea’s attorney and nephew Brian, his dad Joe (both played by Tyler Perry), Brown and Cora (from the TBS sitcom Meet the Browns) discussing Madea’s arrest. Joe sits on the couch smoking marijuana for comedy affect. The marijuana high as comedy has its origin in 70’s Cheech and Chong films, and has been popularized more recently in films like Half Baked, How High, Friday and The Pineapple Express. Joe, sitting on the couch with joint in hand, says to his son “I’m so high you look like your real daddy right now.” Mindful of such films and there cheap reliance of drug use as comedy this attempt falls flat. Cut to the serious side of the story which is the case of a heroin addicted prostitute, Candy, played only marginally well by former Cosby Show kid Rudy Huxtable, who has been busted several times. Here is where she meets up with prosecuting attorney Joshua Hardaway, played by the more than capable Derek Luke (solid even here) who’s previous star turns include the Denzel Washington directed Antwone Fisher and Catch A Fire. It turns out the two know each other. Because of this, he can’t take the case and passes it on to his colleague, Linda who also happens to be his fiancée. The plot takes off from there, and hinges on how exactly Joshua knows Candy. The dramatic and comedic merge when Candy and Madea meet up in prison. Madea (all 6 foot 4 inches of her) protects Candy from a prison bully making unwanted sexual advances. In a slapstick routine that rivals the 3 Stooges, Madea presses the head of the prison tough on an ironing board then tosses her into a laundry basket while Candy, joins the assault. A guard arrives just as Madea and Candy finish off the ruffian by covering her with prison garb to hide the damages. “What’s goin’ on in here?” the guard says. “Oh we not doin’ nothin’…Praise the Lord…I’m just telling how good God is.” As if nothing has happened. The plot is, like other Tyler Perry films, straightforward with few twists. His use of melodrama and plot lines is similar to soap operas. It doesn’t work here because it is obvious that it is done for the sake of expediency. The real aim of this film is the jokes and box office that Madea can deliver. The redemption of down and out abused characters fused with a Christian message has been used ad museum in nearly every one of Perry’s artistic attempts. It has worked thus far financially - four (including this one) of his seven films have opened number one at the box office – but seldom critically. His characters are thin in scope. In this film, as expected the prostitute comes from a home of abuse, the prosecuting attorney’s wife is a manipulative, controlling bad guy to her husband’s good guy who is concerned for his former friend. The only character that breaks out of this mode of predictability is Madea, perhaps because such a character is beyond the reach of American cinema history. She is neither Eddie Murphy’s matronly characters in the Nutty Professor remakes or Robin Williams’ Mrs. Doubtfire. The character works here because such an otherwise drab tale needs the comic relief that she delivers, as in the aforementioned laundry room pummeling. In keeping the films overall simplicity the cinematography and film technique is basic in that it is just a step above what you might see in a made for television movie that has decent financial backing. Again, the emphasis here is on keeping the franchise going. Think of Elvis Pressley and Beach Blanket Bingo films of the 60’s during a time when directors like Stanley Kubrick were making seminal films like A Clockwork Orange. This is the kind of disparity Madea Goes to Jail is operating under in comparison to films that stretch any kind of technical or cinematographic creativity. Tyler Perry plays 2 characters that require heavy makeup: Madea; and her brother Joe. The transformations required to play both the feminine Madea and the elderly Joe is done just as well as the aforementioned Mrs. Doubtfire and The Nutty Professor characters. The dialogue at times lacks authenticity. It is obvious that Perry (also the screenwriter) has probably never actually heard a conversation between prostitutes only imagined one. “Come on, you’re smart.” a fellow prostitute tells Candy “I see how you be readin’ them books.” When Brown says that he got his prostate checked and suggests Madea do the same he is told “women don’t have a prostate” he says “I’m telling you, Madea got a prostate.” Similar jokes have been told in all of the previous Madea films. We get it. Madea is played by a man! The movie was so-so. The plot was too predictable. I felt like I was watching something I had already seen. I wasn’t moved because I didn’t care about the characters because they were not authentic to me. However, there were times when I laughed at Madea in spite of myself. In that way the audience gets its payoff. Madea Goes to Jail is by no means a critical success. It holds true to what it is suppose to be: a showcase for Tyler Perry’s Madea character. As long as these films continue to do well at the box office with a relatively low budget, it will be hard for the filmmakers to stop making them. If I was a fan of Madea and the type of humor she brings, despite the simplistic plots it would be success to me, as it is for many movie goers. RATING: Special Features The special features were typical of the special features of most DVD’s with behind the scenes commentary, and the customary Also From (film studio) segment. The only thing that stood out was a parody of a law commercial called “Leroy Law Brown” featuring David Mann’s Brown character. It was very funny, so that made what was typical somewhat worthwhile. Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:50:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=22950&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=22950&mname=Article Ivory Scott August 23, 2008 The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures Director: Sanaa Hamri Runtime: 1 hr. 57 min. Rating: PG-13 for mature material and sensuality Cast: Amber Tamblyn, America Ferrera, Blake Lively, Alexis Bledel Romance, drama, chick flick, adventure, comedy; call it what you like, this film has it all. “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2” is far superior to the first “Sisterhood” tale. The four starlets draw you into this “Sex and The City”-for-young-adult version. While the first “Sisterhood” seemed to have a slow start and got a little boring in the middle, this sequel kept moving with four story lines that didn’t disappoint. Amber Tamblyn was brilliant in her roll as Tibby. Tibby is the sister that noticeably stands out from the others. “She marches to her own drum,” says Lena (Alexis Bledel). She is at New York University studying film and working at a video store. Her life is turned upside down when she combines losing her virginity and a 2-year-old condom. As she pushes away boyfriend Brian (Leonardo Nam) she is forced to look inward. America Ferrera’s character, Carmen, struggles with her insecurities. After realizing that the rest of the sisterhood was ditching her for the summer Carmen decides to go along with college friend Julia (Rachel Nichols) to a summer theater in Vermont. Carmen was supposed to work behind the scenes, until she unexpectedly was cast as a principle in the Shakespearian production. As she practices her role as Perdita she develops a crush on the male lead Ian (Tom Wisdom). Everything is going well until Julia and Ian go on a “date”. Blake Lively plays adventurous Bridget. Still running from her mother’s death, Bridget goes to Turkey for the summer on an archaeological dig. The head of the program Professor Nasrin (Shohreh Aghdashloo) becomes close to Bridget and helps her begin to deal with her mother’s suicide. Yearning to know more about her mother she leaves Turkey and goes to visit her grandmother she hasn’t seen since she was a little girl. Alexis Bledel is truly stunning in her role as Lena. The shy, gorgeous Lena has come out of her shell even more in this sequel. Recovering from the blow of finding out that her first love, Kostos (Michael Rady), is getting married and has a bun in the oven, she decides to spend the summer drawing at a design school in Rhode Island. There she stumbles into a crush that turns out to be the nude model she will be drawing. This movie takes you on a journey as each sister grows individually and finds strength in each other. It may be a little adolescent in its approach to love and have a sense of fantasy fairy tale, but that’s the magic of the pants. Tibby is a little neurotic, Carmen is a little insecure, Bridget is a little depressed and Lena is a little scared. All these things make this movie feel real. For once there is a movie showing teenage girls confiding and depending on one another instead of backstabbing each other. It gives young girls a positive message and role models to look up to. The only sad thing about this film is that there won’t be another one. While there are a total of four of Ann Brashares’ books this movie nicely encapsulated the last three. Rating: A- Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:25:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17930&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17930&mname=Article By Molly VanNatta Of the Frontpage Milwaukee staff Aug. 9, 2008 “Pineapple Express,” Sony Pictures, Apatow Productions. Directed by David Gordon Green. Starring Seth Rogen, James Franco, Gary Cole, Rosie Perez. 111 minutes. Rated R. In theaters nowadays, funny usually means Judd Apatow. However, his latest production may be better viewed when as high as the actors in it. Though “Pineapple Express” is largely regarded as a weed movie with action/adventure flair, it actually pulls through as a mildly amusing buddy film. Apatow has produced a number of quality comedies within the past few years, including “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” “Anchorman,” “Knocked Up,” “Superbad,” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” Audiences have come to recognize the crew of actors usually featured in Apatow’s films, namely Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Jason Segal, and Steve Carell. Featuring just one of these main players (Rogen) to carry the movie through, “Pineapple Express” stumbles but doesn’t fall completely flat. Rogen stars as Dale Denton, a 25 year-old bumbling stoner with a dead-end job and a high school girlfriend. He buys his weed from a guy named Saul (James Franco), a hippie-dippy drug dealer selling marijuana to pay his grandma’s nursing home bills while aspiring to be a civil engineer. On the way back from making a purchase at Saul’s, Dale witnesses a murder outside the home of the city’s largest drug lord, Ted Jones (Gary Cole) by Jones and a female police officer (Rosie Perez). The criminals notice Dale as he clumsily leaves the scene, and thus he and Saul run and hide in fear of being identified by the rare type of pot, deemed “Pineapple Express,” that Dale was smoking at the time. In a recent interview with The Onion, Seth Rogen insisted that “Pineapple Express” is not a weed movie such as “Cheech and Chong,” but merely a movie in which people smoke pot while doing other things, much like “Dazed and Confused.” When placed next to the cult classic that “Dazed and Confused” has become, “Pineapple Express” toddles on its worn Converse sneakers. “Pineapple Express” isn’t so much an action movie as it mocks other action movies. Just like Quentin Tarantino imitates B horror films with his “Grindhouse” duo, it is clear that writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg decided one day that it would be great to make a funny mock-action movie where stoners saved the day. Tarantino is decidedly subtler in his efforts; There is nothing discreet about a bloodied and filthy Rogan triumphantly carrying the limp Franco out of a burning building to a perfectly clichéd action-movie soundtrack. “Pineapple Express” also brings to mind the 2007 flick “Hot Fuzz” starring Nick Frost and Simon Pegg. While “Hot Fuzz” was seemingly created as an excuse for the actors and directors to blow things up, “Pineapple Express” successfully puts an emphasis on friendship and discovering who your real buddies are, once the smoke (literally) has cleared. The film is by far not the best of the Apatow set. Rogen simply can’t make his jokes work by himself and without Carell, or Rudd to play off, his jokes often fall at Franco’s feet. Even so, James Franco pulls off a surprisingly convincing comic performance, which is a major diversion from his best-known roles as James Dean and Spiderman’s best friend-turned-enemy, Harry Osborn. Rogen seems to step back into the role of Ben Stone, which he created in 2007’s “Knocked Up.” But this time, his chubby, loveable slob is slower to accept his given predicament. If you know Apatow films, you know that the comedy lies mainly within what is spoken, with a good storyline behind it. “Pineapple Express,” on the other hand, puts its faith in physical comedy, drawing its appeal from gratuitous fight scenes, numerous quick bits showing guns being cocked, and of course, how many joints one person can possibly smoke during the course of a day. Visually, the film was nondescript. While director David Gordon Green was a surprising choice for such a film, as he is known for more serious art-house productions like “Snow Angels,” “Undertow,” and “George Washington,” the cinematography complimented the film but did not stand out. “Pineapple Express” was a great break from the vulgarities usually produced by the writing style of Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg. Shockingly, promiscuous hand gestures kept to a minimum and sex was almost a non-issue. Rogen is great for creating slow-advancing, awkward conversations and jokes that work perfectly with the characters he writes, and this film is no exception there. Teenagers and frat boys aside, “Pineapple Express” is best appreciated if you are familiar with the other films connected to Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen. There is a certain string of humor that carries throughout those certain films, as well as a handful of familiar minor faces like Craig Robertson and Ken Jeong. If you’re cool with casual weed humor and considerate of the fact that the script was created seven years ago when Rogen and Goldberg were of slightly lesser maturity, then grab some popcorn and climb aboard the “Express.” B- Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:01:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17926&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17926&mname=Article By Barbara Castonguay of the Frontpage Milwaukee staff Aug. 15, 2008 WALL-E Pixar Animation Studios Directed/Written by Andrew Stanton Starring: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin, Fred Willard, John Ratzenberger, Kathy Najimy, and Sigourney Weaver Run time: 97 minutes Rated: G Pixar Animation Studios’ new release from director Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo) focuses on a future in which the Earth has become so polluted that humans have abandoned it, leaving behind robots (models named WALL-E) to clean up after them. Seven-hundred years after humans have abandoned the planet, the only robot left is the title character. His menial daily life is shaken up by the arrival of Eve, a sleeker, more advanced robot, with whom he quickly becomes smitten. Their ensuing adventures take them through space and back, changing the course for humans, and themselves, forever. While marketed as a children’s movie, WALL-E is rich with biting satire, charming humor, and stunning imagery, and is an enjoyable film for children and adults alike. While Stanton’s earlier Pixar creation, Finding Nemo, had charm, humor, and fantastic animation, WALL-E also has a breadth of ideas. Focusing on themes of over-pollution, corrupt corporations, and the over-dependence of humans upon technology, Stanton reaches a new level of achievement in animated films. By never underestimating children’s ability to understand and comment upon these issues, he has created a film which is not only entertaining and beautiful to look at, but also facilitates discussion. Not only does WALL-E contain astute commentary on contemporary world issues , but it roots itself in genuinely great storytelling. The amount of skill necessary to humanize animated mechanical figures, characters who do not even have the benefit of speech, is certainly awe-inspiring. From the sound design of both WALL-E and Eva’s characters (masterfully constructed by Ben Burtt) to the formidable skill of the animators in showing us the characters’ emotions through body language and gesture, any doubts one may have had as to the viewers’ ability to relate to mechanical main characters were quickly assuaged. New innovations in this film include the use of live-action footage interspersed with 3-D animation, specifically utilizing clips from Hello, Dolly! to further the love story between WALL-E and Eva, and adding to the glossy effect of Fred Willard’s character, the face of B&L Inc., a corporation that has alternatively polluted the Earth and stranded human beings in space. This device makes WALL-E’s cultural references so much more effective--from the time-defining power of the old movie/musicals, to the plastic advertisements we are constantly bombarded with in today’s society, the live action footage adds gravity and affect to the film’s already rich visual tapestry. For the adult viewer, comparisons can be made between WALL-E and several other romantic films, such as Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punch Drunk Love or Craig Gillespie’s Lars and the Real Girl. Focusing on quirky, isolated characters with a relatively mundane existence, each springs to life upon meeting someone with whom they feel an especially strong connection. At its core a love story, connections can be drawn as well to science-fiction films such as Kubric’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, when looking more closely at the theme of human over-dependence upon technology. In this futuristic society, not only have humans been completely placated by the technology that sustains them, but the technology is in fact capable of usurping control of their ship, deciding their ultimate future. While not a new idea, it is still a poignant commentary upon the growing role of technology in our daily lives. There are some issues that critics may take issue with--the cultural bias of the film, for example. Almost the entire human race, which now resides aboard the Axiom, is comprised of English-speaking white people. Now, taking into consideration the movie’s core audience, this is not entirely surprising, though more cultural diversity in the film would have certainly been welcome considering the population of the Axiom is purporting to represent the entirety of human civilization. Still, WALL-E is to be the new pinnacle of achievement in animated films. One can quickly gauge the superiority of films like WALL-E in comparison to other films in its genre simply by watching the previews beforehand. While Pixar prides itself on making smart, interesting and visually stimulating films, Disney (ironically, the parent company of Pixar) is bringing us Beverly Hills Chihuahua, a vapid, commercial romp complete with singing and dancing Chihuahuas, sure to insult everyone’s intelligence. My advice? Skip the Chihuahuas. Go see WALL-E. Grade: A Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:43:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17923&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17923&mname=Article By Cesar Rojas August 14, 2008 A New Line Productions release, made in association with Mandate Pictures, produced in association with Kingsgate Films. Written and directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg. Co-producers Nicole Brown, Kelli Konop, Michael Disco, Samuel J. Brown, Jon Hurwitz, and Hayden Schlossberg. Studio Warner Home Video. DVD release July 29, 2008. You don’t have to be high or even like smoking to enjoy a great stoner movie. Watching an impaired character whose only motivation is to keep smoking, appease the great reefer hunger and avoid getting caught by the authorities in the process, is the simple formula to keep the laughs coming as one bad decision leads to hilarious consequences. Unfortunately, the hilarious adventure that Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) had in 2004 (“Harold and Kumar go to White Castle”), which resulted in cult following, couldn’t be topped in the 2008 sequel. “Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay” by writers/directors Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, hit DVD retailers July 29, 2008. The sequel transforms the uncelebrated, often marginalized Korean-American Harold and Indian-American medical school slacker Kumar into terrorist suspects. Paranoia here is no longer relegated to the pot-smokers themselves, but is rather a national phenomenon shared by the little old lady in the next seat, to a high leveled Homeland Security official Ron Fox, played by Rob Corddry. Ditching the comedic mold, a sober Harold and Kumar walk into an airport the next day after their burger binge to follow Harold’s dream girl Vanessa, (Paula Garces) who is headed to marijuana capitol Amsterdam. The two buddies are immediately the source of suspicion because of their ethnicities. Yet Kumar idiotically still decides to provoke the hyper security on the plane when he decides to get high in a bathroom stall while in flight. The two are mistaken for terrorists, and the high-tech, smokeless bong that was smuggled in to the plane is mistaken for a bomb. The duo is headed to Guantanamo Bay prison where the American guards sexually abuse the prisoners. Sadly, the escape is almost an after thought, and what ensues is a road trip to Texas where Kumar’s ex-girlfriend Vanessa (Daneel Harris) is getting married to rightwing Colton (Eric Winter), whose father has high government connections. All the while Fox stays hot on their trail. Hurwitz and Schlossberg obviously don’t like Bush’s America, and the movie itself tries to take on bigotry and stereotypes. But unlike their first attempt, the sequel’s heroes also fall into bigotry and prejudices themselves as the two run away from black basketball players carrying tools who approach their busted car, or when they meet southern hicks and their incestuous love child. Taking on social commentary and attempting to push the envelope, much like ‘South Park’ creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Hurwitz and Schlossberg are less pointed in their delivery and instead the film settles on familiar tones about government excess and fart jokes. The ‘R’ rating is taken much farther in nudity and raunchy jokes that dominate much of the film. Comedy Central’s Rob Corddry is regrettably two dimensional, despite the fact that he is a talented comedic actor. His over-the-top Fox portrayal is enough to kill anyone’s buzz in his fits and rages as he confronts anyone who questions his authority. In one scene he picks up a picture of a little girl and asks a doubter of his tactics if he wants the girl to be raped before smashing the picture against the wall. Even the storyline is too misconstrued as the loveable stoners are, for the most part, not stoned. Many boneheaded moves that would normally be made by characters under the influence seem completely stupid and indefensible. Kumar’s optimistic and lightheartedness seems instead callous and selfish in the plight he has gotten Harold in. Harold in turn, gets angrier and more aggressive as the story goes on. Meanwhile neither of the college educated characters thinks of hiring a lawyer. The government authorities also forget that pot is an illegal substance and also partake in the desire to get high, which goes against the stoner premise. In other words, getting high and getting caught is not a problem. Being of Korean and Indian descent, however, can get you mixed-up with North Korea and Al-Qaeda. Still, fans of the first movie will enjoy the parts that do adhere to the celebrated formula, such as more weed, nudity, and of course, a soaring Neil Patrick Harris, this time on mushrooms. He gives the movie a much needed boost and his scenes are more psychedelic in nature, with colorful rainbows and unicorns. True to its genre, smoking weed is looked upon as something akin to drinking beer naked in a backyard pool. The unrated version simply adds length to these scenes and continues the raunchy dialogue further. Regrettably the DVD does not offer any behind the scenes, interviews or ‘making of’ docs that true fans might enjoy. Instead it only highlights upcoming movies and gives language and audio settings. All in all, “Escape from Guantanamo Bay” falls on hackneyed racial slurs and stereotypes and does not live up to the original in freshness. It’s enough to make one wonder if Hurwitz and Schlossberg assumed the audience would have more than just popcorn. Rating: C+ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:16:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17919&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17919&mname=Article By Allison Hellweg April 1, 2008 Across the Universe Revolution Studios Musical Director Julie Taymor Evan Rachel Wood, Jim Sturgess Rated PG-13 Runtime 2 hrs 13 min With a catalogue of over 200 songs, a Beatles-inspired musical was bound to hit the big screen at some point. Director Julie Taymor took the idea to new heights with Across the Universe; a musical that tugs at the heartstrings despite its messy structure and contrived scenes. This film is the director’s masterpiece with Taymor’s passion and artistic ability for creating unique and trippy scenes that often resemble a psychedelic music video. Taymor has lived up to a reputation of over-ambitiousness with past work Frida and Titus, and this has led to flaws and disarray in Across the Universe. Taymor took part in creating a story line around the songs to tell a love story based in America during the controversial 1960’s era. A promising fan base for the music peaked interest in the film, but the movie took a downhill turn with a lack of a story. Across the Universe is easily compared with Hair, as the plot features many of the same aspects, but to a much lighter extent. Combine this with the distinctive style of Moulin Rouge and you can envision what the film is all about. The musical talent in this film is one that would make John Lennon proud; featuring many unique scenes along with beautifully sang numbers. It does, however, make the film quite long with 33 songs along with a sketchy outline of a plot. The plot is admittedly not much, but the hidden references to both The Beatles and actual events of the 1960s somewhat make up for it. Characters JoJo and Sadie are references to music legends Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, and there are many minor Beatles references sprinkled throughout the film. The characters have names like Lucy, Jude, Sadie, Prudence, and JoJo; all named after various songs by The Beatles. This of course lends to obvious scenes that you’ll predict from the moment you learn their name. The special features of the DVD not only highlight Taymor’s talent and vision while creating the film, they highlight the ability of an impressive cast. Though mostly unknowns, you will be happy with both their performance and voice. The one name you will know is Evan Rachel Wood from the drama Thirteen, and she surprises everyone who didn’t know not only that she could sing, but also that she is good at it. Dana Fuchs as Sadie is exceptionally brilliant, resembling Joplin in character and through her throaty singing style, despite having no acting experience. The DVD features thoroughly investigate the creation of the film, including a separate chapter for film direction and creation, cast biographies, choreography, special effects, music production, and extended musical performances from the film. Seeing the detail and heart that went into making the film allow you to give the movie more credit than it initially deserves. Across the Universe is a film that is perhaps better to watch at home, in case you happen to burst into song along with the beloved Beatles’ tunes. Yet there is no denying that the incredible special effects would have an intensified effect in the theater. Unfortunately the brilliance and creative angles are not always appreciated in scenes that seem unnecessary and over the top, even for a psychedelically designed film. A circus scene to the song “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite” is just odd and pointless to the plot, while a scene at a bowling alley crosses the line way over into corny. Although the script of the film is not even worthy of an honorable mention, the soundtrack wins the award. The Beatles’ covers stay true to the original lyrics and emphasize the meaning and depth to the lyrics through visual emotion. The music will cause even those oblivious to The Beatles and their music to gain respect. Across the Universe is moving, and judgments about plot and effects aside, a film worth seeing. A film just can’t have everything, especially a musical that is written around the songs. Across the Universe went over the top while at the same time leaving out more of a necessary and organized plot, but it is still possible to love. One thing is for sure: if it is entertainment you’re looking for, that is what you’ll get in more aspects than one with Across the Universe. ***** 4/5 stars Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:57:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17803&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17803&mname=Article By Megan Schmidt Frontpage Milwaukee news editor mes6@uwm.edu March 11, 2008 Lonely Hearts Grade: B- Director: Todd Robinson Actors: John Travolta, James Gandolfini, Jared Leto, Salma Hayek Studio: Equity Pictures Medienfonds GMBH & Co KG Rated: R Runtime: 1 hour 48 minutes Additional information: Theatrical Release: April 13, 2007 Limited Box Office: $146,530 Many women graciously accept jewelry as tokens of their significant other’s love, but Martha Beck preferred her boyfriend to kill for her. Lonely Hearts is a true-crime thriller set in the late 1940s about the serial killer couple Ray Fernandez (Jared Leto) and Martha Beck (Salma Hayek). Newcomer Todd Robinson wrote and directed the film, inspired by his grandfather’s days as leading detective on the real investigation. He busted the crazed couple in Michigan, and eventually witnessed their 1951 execution in Sing Sing. While Lonely Hearts is an entertaining film shot in a neo-noir style, the movie will continue to blend in with the other mediocre crime flicks on the video store shelves. Crime stories should focus on either the bad guys or the good guys—such as the twisted lovers in Natural Born Killers, or the obstacle-ridden Al Capone chase in The Untouchables. The killing spree and the investigation plotlines in Lonely Hearts compete with each other instead of complementing one another, resulting in an unsatisfying film. This is the third rendering of the Post WWII homicidal duo—and despite featuring an A-list cast—the movie was a box-office sleeper. The 1970s The Honeymoon Killers and the 1996 Mexican production Deep Crimson won over audiences and critics because of the raw and true-to-life portrayals of their dangerous romance and insatiable taste for money. Leto is a toupee-wearing, Don Juan wannabe stealing the hearts and money of lonely women. He nails personifying Ray as a slick gigolo, much like his other troubled, yet likable roles. Though inherently antisocial, Ray feeds from the attention of his victims when he puts on a nice suit and transforms himself into a crazed Casanova. Salma Hayek is Ray’s fiercely loyal love interest. She’s a va-va-voom femme fatale who is jealous and manipulative to the core. However, she is considerably more deranged than her previous roles as a vixen, such as her bank-robber stint in Bandidas. Elmer Robinson (John Travolta) is a detective—touting a weak New Yorker accent—on the homicide chase who gets too emotionally involved with the case, to the point of paying for a victim’s funeral service. Elmer is based on Robinson’s grandfather, whom the director described as a reserved man but a great story teller. James Gandolfini plays Charles Hildebrandt, a tough-minded, ball-busting detective surprisingly well considering his years as head Mafioso on the Sopranos. The duo posed as siblings and preyed on mostly lonely war widows on the East Coast through personal ads. Ray would exchange letters with the romance-deprived women, seduce them, and then convince them to pour their money into a joint bank account. After taking control of their finances, Martha and Ray would often slaughter the naïve victim, and then run to the next prospect. The lovers’ story is almost a carbon copy of the true romance, but there were some modifications. The real Martha was an obese, pig-nosed woman who abandoned her children after meeting Ray through a personals ad. Hayek’s good looks and plunging necklines make her character as an insecure crime partner less believable. Unlike Hayek’s role—who called the shots—Martha was a socially challenged woman who slaved to Ray’s every beck and call. Ray was a handsome Spaniard as suave in real life as the movie —except the character was prone to nervous bouts and didn’t have a Spanish accent. The first 20 minutes focused too much on developing Robinson and the underpinnings behind the investigation. In the first scene, Elmer’s wife shot herself, which fueled his vengeance towards Ray and Martha after learning they drove a young widow to suicide. While Ray and Martha gradually got more screen time, it was unclear why they were so disconnected with humanity. Although Robinson tried incorporating the leg-work behind solving the case simultaneously as the slayings, the investigation was domineering at times. Lonely Hearts would have been a bigger success if Travolta simmered on the side. After all, a true story of a violent con artist couple is more compelling than a detective’s personal tribulations. It almost seems that Robinson couldn’t decide which perspective should drive the plot. The movie is not for weak-stomachs that turn uneasy with grotesque scenes—particularly the execution of Ray, which showed his pulsating body and bodily fluids escape him head-on. The gritty cop-talk riddled with wife jokes and 1940s slang drove the movie despite the disconnected plotlines. An attractive woman was a “tasty dame,” and tabloids were “rags.” Gandolfini narrated the movie to fill plot holes and provide background information, such as his description of Elmer before his wife’s suicide, “He was the toughest badge I’d ever seen, he turned more collars than a Chinaman drycleaner.” Robinson mastered the Film Noir approach, a style that gained popularity in the era of the actual homicides. Often stories of moral ambiguity and sexually charged themes were illustrated using shadows, silhouettes, claustrophobic framing and wide-angle shots. The Film Noir style helped engulf the audience in the seedy world of the killers and the detectives, and built tension from scene-to- scene. In many scenes of Lonely Hearts, the characters’ faces were half-cast in shadows to represent calculating thoughts and inner turmoil, such as when Travolta paces in his rugged garage with overcast lighting while pondering the homicide records. Another example of expressionistic lighting is when Hayek considers drowning a victim as the bath tub fills, as cigarette smoke billows from her lips. Historically, Film Noir is shot in black and white, but the same drama is achieved in Lonely Hearts by strategically placing a bright color along with darker hues—Hayek often had blood red lips paired with black outfits. Lonely Hearts had great potential, but it will never achieve classic status. The colorful dialogue and chilling neo-noir technique are not enough to carry the movie because the two plotlines never solidified. Either story line would have stood on its own—either as a crime-fighting feature, or a portrayal of the demented lovers’ bloodbath. Give Lonely Hearts a chance if you enjoy period films or ache to see the duo portrayed in reverse roles contrary to the real Martha and Ray. DVD Features: Lonely Hearts is accompanied with a commentary about the movie makers’ and actors’ interpretation of the serial killers, Robinson’s grandfather, and achieving the 1940s set. Though the commentary was interesting, it skimped on the toxic romance of the real Martha and Ray. Both partners in crime have a turbulent past that would have provided much-needed context to the killers’ conquests. It also allowed the viewer to replay the previews. DVD special features should extend and enhance the movie experience, and it was surprising some of the typical options were not available. Many other DVD extras provide deleted scenes, detailed historical background, and trailers. Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:44:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17763&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17763&mname=Article By Alison Hellweg March 7, 2008 27 Dresses 20th Century Fox Romantic Comedy Director Anne Fletcher Katherine Heigl, James Marsden Rated PG-13 Runtime 1 hr 47 min A woman who makes taking part in weddings a frequent activity was a storyline only to be expected after the release of Wedding Crashers, but with more of a chick-flick premise, of course. Although 27 Dresses fits the formulaic model of so many romantic comedies before it, it leaves the audience not completely regretting falling for another chick-flick, and charmed by a familiar but lovable cast. 27 Dresses is The Wedding Planner meets My Best Friend’s Wedding, revolving around the dilemma of the leading lady (Heigl) having to watch the man she secretly loves marry someone else. While Heigl plays the sweetheart convincingly (it has definitely become her signature role), both as Dr. Izzie Stevens in Grey’s Anatomy and in her recent audience favorite Knocked Up, her presence is a little too syrupy as over-the-top people pleaser Jane. It hurts to watch as Jane gets walked on all the while keeping a smile on her face throughout the film, though it lends to a sense of realism when her character finally folds. Heigl has blossomed into “audience pet” with her few past roles and has become impossible to dislike. The casting is extremely predictable, with charismatic James Marsden (The Notebook, Enchanted) as Kevin; the reporter who covers weddings in the Style section yet puts on a cynical shield when it comes to the idea of marriage. The mini-plot follows one similar to How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, with the gender roles reversed, when Kevin hopes to advance his career with an article written at Jane’s expense. While it is obvious as the movie progresses that Jane and Kevin are meant to be together, she is too busy fawning over her boss, played by Edward Burns. Burns plays a charming yet naïve entrepreneur convincingly, and may be the one actor in the film who exceeds the typical chick-flick male role. Judy Greer, who is no stranger to the role as sidekick, plays Jane’s best friend. Greer’s main purpose is to point out when Jane is being pathetic by making sarcastic remarks or slapping her in the face. The movie begins with Jane as a young girl at a wedding when she discovers that weddings are her calling as she wittingly helps out a distressed bride. This “calling” takes off when Jane is shown years later juggling two weddings in one night, presumably her 26th and 27th. Here the meeting pursues of boy meets girl, girl ignores boy, though she does not know he writes the Commitments column that inspires her, all because she is too preoccupied with her infatuation for her boss. To her dismay boss George (Burns) begins to date her self-involved and manipulative younger sister (Malin Akerman). Jane watches tight-lipped on the sideline as their relationship develops into an engagement and her sister plans the wedding Jane has always dreamed of with the man of her dreams. Meanwhile, hunky reporter Kevin, who is initially interested in doing a feature on the notorious bridesmaid, begins to fall for her. It does not take too much imagination to fill in the rest, but I’ll give you a couple tidbits: it involves a drunken duet of “Bennie and the Jets” and an eventual blow-up at baby sis. The script, although generally bland, delivers a few quirky lines at the right moments; when Jane finds out the cynical Kevin is in fact the columnist she worships she comments “I feel like I just found out my favorite love song was written about a sandwich”. Jane’s bright closet full of 27 outrageous gowns makes for a comedic dress-up scene any former bridesmaid could relate to. The wedding-themed comedy has become a popular genre within the past decade especially, with, among many others, films such as The Wedding Date and Wedding Crashers. With the genre, audiences are promised a feel-good ending, although predictable. 27 Dresses does not take any unpredictable turns but it’s the middle that counts, with a comedic love triangle allowing for humorous yet down-to-earth situations. The film could stand to take more chances and cut down on the conventional heart-warming moments that tie up the loose ends neatly and unimaginatively. In the end, however, the film is what it is supposed to be: a lighthearted romantic comedy that is still entertaining at its core despite its predictability and bland lines. Rating: ***** 2/5 stars Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:16:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17757&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17757&mname=Article By Kathleen Smaney Dec. 10, 2007 Into the Wild is based on the real-life adventurer Christopher Johnson McCandless, who, at age 22, decided to leave his perfectly planned life to walk into the wild and live a life of adventure. He meets a bunch of different characters along his quest to find the true meaning of happiness and truth. Into the Wild, directed by Sean Penn and starring Emile Hirsch, is a drama along with some action and adventure to keep the movie rolling. The movie stands out among other dramatized movies and action movies, because this is based on a true story. The lack of special effects makes it feel more real and true. Hirsch, who has played roles in such movies as The Girl Next Door, and Lords of Dog town, has definitely caught my attention, and probably the attention of the film industry. This role was definitely a unique one from the roles he has played in his other films. Into the Wild, one of the first major hits for director Sean Penn, is a great job well done. Although Penn has directed other films such as, The Crossing Guard and Indian Runner, this movie by far beats both of them. The movie is wonderfully made because of the way he directs his actors, the scenes he shoots, and the dialogue of the film itself. The movie is based on the real-life of Christopher McCandless, or as he calls himself, Alexander Supertramp. The movie’s plot works its way through his life, from the time he graduates at 22, until his death at 24. The movie includes all the unique characters Chris meets along the way and what he has to do to survive: Everything from working on a farm to water rafting through dangerous rapids to trying to escape Mexico without a VISA. Eventually the quest for happiness ends with him wandering into the beautiful scenic Alaskan wilderness. That's where he not only realizes he misses the ones he cared for the most and also comes to understand that true happiness is found when you are with the people who love you. With the plot falling into place and working well throughout the movie, the acting hardly went unnoticed. The performances of Hirsch and the crazy hippie couple he meets along the way, Jan (Keener) and Rainey (Brian H. Dierker) were spectacular. The chemistry between Hirsch and all the characters he meets is like a surge of electric power that just keeps flowing throughout the movie. The relationship between the characters Chris and Ron is outstanding and flawless. I felt more connected in the scenes they shared than throughout the whole movie. Hirsch captures every emotion in the movie. He makes you understand the importance of everything from an apple to true happiness. The cast gave the movie the only other ingredient it needed, pure perfection, to make the film wonderful. Even, Billie (Harden) and Walt (Hurt) have memorable performances through their short stints in the movie. They truly make you understand, and feel the connection with what Chris’ real parents had gone through. With the actors capturing everything they could, it makes you wonder what could possibly make the movie any better. The scenes shot in this movie were extraordinary. Everything from the grass covered with snow to the way the sunset was captured was breath taking. The one scene when Hirsch was standing on top of a desert mountain, and overlooking miles of uninhabited land, was the best scene of the movie. The only other scene that could’ve topped it was the scene of Hirsch and a moose alone in the wild. The scene captured the movement of the moose on the white blanket of snow, and Hirsch just staring at it; nothing could’ve have been more superb. Although the movie lacked special effects, it gave it a real and raw in-your-face reality. The soundtrack, performed by Eddie Vedder, captured the true essence of the scenery and acting. I think this movie is great for every person who is waiting to step forward and take that adventure, to find truth and happiness. Like Christopher says, “The core of a man’s spirit comes from new experiences.” All together, this movie was breathtaking, incredible, and intense. It portrayed every aspect of the real life adventure of Chris McCandless brilliantly. Everything from the acting, to the scenery, writing, and directing, the movie was not missing a single ingredient. Into the Wild Produced by Paramount Vantage. Directed by Sean Penn. Starring Emile Hirsch, Marcia Gay Harden, William Hurt, Hal Holbrook, and Catherine Keener. Running time, 2 hrs 20 min. Rated R. 4 STARS Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:18:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17700&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17700&mname=Article By Detra Cox Oct. 22, 2007 She’s The Man Studio: DreamWorks Home Entertainment. Director: Andy Flickman. Run Time: 105 minutes. Rating. PG-13 Cast Viola -Amanda Bynes Duke -Channing Tatum Olivia -Laura Ramsey Dinklage -Vinnie Jones Gold -David Cross II She’s The Man, produced by DreamWorks Home Entertainment, is a romantic comedy where Amanda Bynes has a secret. Everybody has a secret. She is no girl next door, but, literally, one of the guys. Amanda Bynes is no stranger to finding love in unusual places, such as the role she played in What A Girl Wants. All is fair in the game of love and war and Viola, (Amanda’s character) makes sure that she evens the score. Viola is furious that her girl’s soccer team was cut instead of the boys' team because Cornwall felt that the men’s team was more important. To seek her vengeance, Viola decides to double as her twin brother and joins his school, Illyria's, soccer team in hopes to prove that women are just as good or even better than men when it comes to sports. She ends up finding her Prince charming, Duke, who doesn’t know her secret. Is being a sexist pig so ‘70ish? With as many women innovators who have paved the way for many, does sexism still continue? This movie can be looked as an urban Shakespearean romance with a bit of a “kick.” This movie is similar to your typical teen romance movies except for Bynes’s character touched upon other topics besides love, such a sexism, that need addressing. Viola keeps busy trying to sustain her double-lifestyle by trying to be her brother, Sebastian and herself in the same place and time. Her friends help her along the way to get her to fit in and keep her secret discrete. With some exceptions, the acting and characters were great. Channing Tatum’s acting was poor, though. He made Duke look like a dumb jock, well, the acting was just plain bad. The plot played out brilliantly but the ending was predictable as most romances are. The most memorable moment would be the fight that Duke had with Viola’s ex, whom she wanted to beat in the Ilyria/Cornwall game. He got a nosebleed and used one of Viola’s tampons, which Viola, who was Sebastian at the time, said that they were good for nosebleeds to keep her secret. Some similar movies are Aquamarine, Just My Luck, and The Holiday; The visual aspects of the film were pretty good. The camera operator was good with following the action. The opening was realistic. It showed teenagers having fun and doing things they like, in Viola’s case, soccer. It didn’t give away the plot of the movie because it showed the boys and girls unified on the field. Flickman also has directed a 2007 release, The Game Plan, starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. The content was easy to follow and used language that the target audience could understand and follow for the most part. T he movie overall is excellent and deserves five stars on a scale of zero to five stars. It’s fun and is something that young adults can relate to and really gives them something to talk about. The movie wasn’t moving in a way to bring you tears, but I’m glad that it wasn’t all about romance and showed a woman’s determination to show her equivalence to a man in a fun and not so boring way. I think this is a great movie for both males and females to view, especially couples to show that women can do anything that a man can do and sometimes even better and they should not be criticized for that but uplifted for trying to succeed and do what they love. It’s the perfect gift from women with sexist partners. The special features were average. They are the usual with deleted scenes. Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:45:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17588&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17588&mname=Article No Reservations By: Mike Kennedy No Reservations leaves you feeling hungry and unfilled, as though you went to a restaurant and were turned away because the waiting list was too long. Scott Hicks, who is currently working on another production but has not had a major motion picture since 2001, uses the physically powerful but mentally weak character of Kate (Catherine Zeta-Jones) to turn the kitchen of a top chef into a scene for a sappy romantic love story. The dramatic comedy is a remake of a German movie Mostly Martha in which the head chef of a classy restaurant is forced to take in her niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) after her mother is killed in a car accident. To add to the stress of raising a child after not having a relationship for 4 years, Kate finds herself competing for her own kitchen when the owner of the restaurant (Patricia Clarkson) brings in an opera singing chef, Nick (Aaron Eckhart) to aid in the busy kitchen. After the ups and downs of the personalities of Kate, Zoe and Nick all seem to find their inner self in the places that they would have never imagined. The film matches the genre to a point, and is perfect for all those first dates that will attend the film, but not worth viewing it in theaters and should only be rented once. The PG rating also leaves you with an acute sense of comedy for the younger audience. This is Hicks’ biggest production as of yet, but he is looking to release a new film in 2008. The film had a perfect theme throughout and showed the personality of the director, even though the use of jump cuts were overly exaggerated. All the physical traits of the film seemed to work together. The writing drew in the audience to wonder what sarcastic remark will be said next and the script matched each personality perfect. As the movie rolled on and Kate opened up more, a mix of the string section, an opera and piano, became rapidly faster and as if it was following her shallow personality and bringing out a stronger person. It seemed Hicks was not trying to stray away from the original story of Mostly Martha at all. It had no ties to the outside world and the audience could not even tell where the story was taking place. The casting was in fact the one good thing about the film. Each characters personality matched perfect with the actors as if they were actually those people. It seemed as though it was a step down for Zeta-Jones and was almost an in need of money film for her. Matching her up with unknowns seems to be an attempt to glorify a disappointing love story. The stereotypical dramatic comedy has no future and will be the forgotten love story of summer. No Reservations failed to stretch beyond the basic aspects of a dramatic love story. The perfect time to watch this would be to end a first date, but rent it instead, it’s only a one time viewing. Grade: B- Scott Hicks Castle Rock Entertainment Catherine Zeta-Jones: Kate Aaron Eckhart: Nick Abigail Breslin: Zoe Patricia Clarkson: Paula Jenny Wade: Leah Bob Balaban: Therapist Brian F. O’Byrne: Sean 103 minutes Rated: PG Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:06:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17516&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17516&mname=Article Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix By: Rachel Sawicki To Hogwarts and beyond--more like, wizards, warlocks and a pillow please. Harry returns for his fifth year of learning at the Witchcraft and Wizardry School, where evil is still on the rise, and Dumbledore is still in danger. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is like many sequels, or in this case series--the first one is always the best. Based on the Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling, Order of the Phoenix, the fifth book of seven, left little to the imagination. Harry Potter, played by Daniel Radcliffe, is like your typical boy, (sort of)--young, driven, and he has the ability to move things with his magical wand. The only difference between this movie and past Potter movies is that Harry has become seemingly unhappy and somewhat vengeful. Besides the Harry Potter movies, Radcliffe doesn’t have much of a noteworthy past, besides The Tailor of Panama, starring Pierce Brosnan, and Jamie Lee Curtis, in which he had a small, unmemorable role. On a higher note, his acting skills shined through in Order of the Phoenix, as it has with past Potter movies, from his fits of rage in fighting Lord Voldemort, to his gentler side, acting as mentor to the other Hogwarts students. After a long, dull summer with the Dursleys, Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry seemed unseasonably exciting to Harry, until he arrives. Since the witches and wizards of the community have been kept out of the loop about Harry’s encounter with Lord Voldemort and fear that Hogwart’s Headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, is lying about the ordeal. Cornelius Fudge, the Minister for Magic, appoints Dolores Umbridge as the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. Although her duty is to watch over Dumbledore and the Hogwarts students, she inevitably prevents the students from using their magical powers, making them unable to defend themselves from the dark forces. Alas, Harry Potter will stop at nothing to ensure the students maintain their magical powers. Going into the movie with an open mind, since I’ve only seen the first of the series, I found myself bored, and at times, dozing off. Order of the Phoenix, was about as entertaining as watching wet paint dry, except you reap some benefits with a freshly painted wall. Besides the scenery, and some good acting, the plot line was monotonous, and the fantasy was lacking. After all the hustle and bustle with the Harry Potter mania, the books far outweigh the movies thus far. I give this movie 2 out of 5 smiles. A Warner Bros. Pictures distribution. Produced by Lionel Wigram, David Heyman, and David Barron. Directed by David Yates. Screenplay by Michael Goldenberg. Original novel by J.K. Rowling. Daniel Radcliffe - Harry Potter Emma Watson - Hermione Granger Rupert Grint - Ron Weasley Ralph Fiennes - Lord Voldemort Gary Oldman - Sirius Black Helena Bonham Carter - Bellatrix Lestrange Imelda Staunton - Dolores Umbridge Evanna Lynch - Luna Lovegood George Harris - Kingsley Shacklebolt Natalia Tena - Nymphadora Tonks Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:18:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17515&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17515&mname=Article By Jennifer Scheidegger Miss Potter Miss Potter Phoenix Pictures Chris Noonan Renee Zellweger Ewan McGregor EmilyWatson Bill Paterson 93 minutes PG Miss Potter is a heartfelt biopic directed by Chris Noonan of Beatrix Potter, the celebrated early 20th century children’s author of the charming Peter Rabbit books. While the film, starring Renee Zellweger as the talented but sheltered Beatrix Potter is charming, lighthearted and bolstered by suburb production values, it is otherwise an unremarkable and tame family-safe film. Perhaps the film’s dullness derives from the plot of the dull and uneventful life Beatrix Potter outside of her career as a children’s author, which was a constant but small part of her life. There were no major scandals in Beatrix Potter’s life, and this film does not wish to create any such scandal in the life of its subject for the sake of good drama. Beatrix Potter was born into money, and died with money. In between, she spent her childhood studying and drawing the natural world of the English countryside, which would progress into her delightful children’s books about animals such as Peter Rabbit. A sheltered child, she remained a sheltered young woman well into her thirties, still living with her well-to-do parents in London. Around the time she began publishing her books, she feel in love for the first time- with the publisher of her books, Norman Warne (Ewan McGregor). The film wisely focuses on this time period in her life, which is clearly her most dramatic. The audience watches as Potter lovingly creates Peter the Rabbit and then oversees the production of the book with painstaking care and attention to detail. It is at this early point in the film which the audience becomes familiar with the happy, well-tempered Potter; she is always polite, a bit quirky and never angry. Whether this characterization was intended or not, it sets the tone for the character for the entire film, even in her more dramatic moments. Given the presentation of the rest of the film, it would seem that this Potter, lighthearted and enchanting just like the film, was intentional. One of the truly dramatic events of her life was her romance with her publisher, Norman Warne. Potter’s parents (Bill Paterson, Barbara Flynn) inherited their money and while her father was a licensed barrister, he never needed to, and rarely did work for the money. They disapproved of her romance with the middle class Warne and refused to acknowledge their engagement. Potter and Warne plan to go ahead with the marriage, but before they were married, he died of pneumonia, and Potter was devastated. The film opportunistically uses this chain of events to show the character growth of Beatrix Potter from a well-tempered young lady dependent on her parents to an independent well-tempered lady. Chris Noonan, the director of Miss Potter, is most well known for directing the charming 1995 film Babe, which won an Academy Award for Visual Effects. Viewers familiar with both films can spot obvious similarities between the two, especially in regards to the pleasing visual and picturesque features of both films. The two films are also equally matched in terms of Noonan’s ability to create an emotional and enchanting film. It is obvious that Miss Potter is Noonan’s films, and one wonders how a different director would have approached this film, or even if a different director would have been more or less successful with Beatrix Potter’s story. The acting in the film is generally strong, particularly in regards to the lead roles played by Zellweger and McGregor. Zellweger, an American whom was initially a controversial casting choice, expertly balances the somewhat goofy and childish Potter who talks to her drawings with the strong and progressive Victorian woman who defies her parents when she becomes engaged. Zellweger’s coy mannerisms and subtly exaggerated gestures bring a realistic sparkle to this sheltered and sweet woman. As an American, many felt that it would be difficult for Zellweger to successfully play a British character, particularly in regards to the speech and accent of her character. However, Zellweger has successfully played British characters in the past (most notably in the two Bridget Jones films), and her past experience certainly strengthened her abilities in this film. Whereas Zellweger successfully plays up her character, Ewan McGregor successfully tones down his role as Potter’s publisher and fiancé. McGregor is flawless s Norman Warne, whom he plays with simple and straightforward acting. Effectively creating a charming, witty, and mild-mannered gentleman, McGregor makes it possible for the audience to understand how Potter’s and Warne’s professional relationship progressed into romance. While the plot of Miss Potter may be less than exciting, the film is anything but dull visually. Filmed throughout England in places such as London, the wonderfully Victorian Cecil Court, and the breathtaking rolling hills and blue lakes of England’s famed Lake District, there is no shortage of eye candy for the viewer. Noonan takes advantage of the varied landscapes, and often frames the shots to create beautiful and dramatic images, especially in the latter half of the film when Beatrix buys her own land in the Lake District. There are numerous scenes featuring the London streets within the film, and it is quite remarkable how the film crew managed to transform 21st -century London into a quite realistic late 19th -century London. When it comes to the interiors and costuming in Miss Potter, the film is just as visually pleasing, both elements being utilized carefully and realistically to enhance the lighthearted charm of the film. In films depicting the Victorian era, it is fairly easy to create exaggerated and over the top costumes which generally detract from the film’s credibility. In Miss Potter, however, the costumes are realistic, if not subdued at times. The skirts are never too full, and the suits are never overly elaborate. The dress of the characters is appropriate and exactly what modern day viewers would imagine it to be. One might imagine that a biopic of a 19th century children’s author would have little room for special effects, however, the use of a small and simple special effect adds an unexpected and delightful charm to Miss Potter. Several times throughout the film, while viewers get to watch Beatrix work on her illustrations, the animals in her illustrations come to life through animation. When they come to life, Beatrix interacts with them as they hop, jump and skip across the screen and through the room. These scenes are completely in step with Noonan’s previous work in Babe, and are crucial in creating the lighthearted and enchanting tone the film strives to evoke. The score of any film is essential and truly great film soundtracks not only fit seamlessly within the world of the film, but also help to create the world of the film. Composer Nigel Westlake, who also composed the Babe soundtrack, has created a magical and enchanting score for Miss Potter which really helps create different scenes within the film. The most obvious instance of this within the film is the Christmas Eve dance shared by Potter and Warne to the song “Let Me Teach You How to Dance.” This dance, which would not have been possible with this particular song, is the key turning point in the couple’s relationship. The remainder of the film’s soundtrack is pure instrumental music, and is just as effective in creating emotion and impact. Overall, the film is a fine, albeit dull family -suited film. Miss Potter is worth seeing based on the splendid visual effects and look of the film. That said, the film’s very specific subject and tame plot would seem to greatly limit its possible audience. Only fans with a great interest in the relatively uneventful life of the unique and gifted Beatrix Potter will likely find the film worth their time. Dull plot aside, all other elements of the film are strong enough that no one will regret watching it once. Grade: 3 stars (out of 5) Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:04:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17509&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17509&mname=Article By Lacey Coonen Wholesome Family Viewing FIREHOUSE DOG. 20th Century Fox. Todd Holland. Josh Hutcherson, Bruce Greenwood. 111 minutes. PG. If you are looking for a good action packed comedy to take the kids to view, then Firehouse Dog is for you. Firehouse Dog was produced by 20th Century Fox and directed by Todd Holland. It brought many fresh names and faces to the movie screen, delivering a great movie. Compared to many children’s movies it dealt with serious, not necessarily pleasant, issues that children have to face. This included a young boy’s uncle recently passing, his mother abandoning him at a young age and his father working as a firefighter, and how the father’s dangerous career forced him to routinely put his life on the line in order to save others, while his son was left to cope with the consequences. Yet, the movie went beyond depicting the father and son's strained relationship. It portrayed a community’s ability to triumph over hardship, with the help of a very special dog, who was strongly humanized in his portrayal. The movie illustrated how a young boy depended not only on his father but other firefighters within his dad’s firehouse and the community, along with his new found friend, Rexxx. The movie is far better than normal children’s movies; it was almost written and produced as a modern day version of the children’s movie Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (1993). Firehouse Dog uses a realistic storyline and plot combined with the unrealistic human traits of a superstar dog to bring laughter and light to serious issues that many children deal with. The movie portrays Shane Fahey (played by Josh Hutcherson) who is trying to cope with the death of his firefighter uncle, who died in the line of duty. Shane is also trying to adjust to his father’s, Connor Fahey (played by Bruce Greerwood) recent promotion to Captain, which occurred in order to fill in the empty spot that his brother left behind in his passing. Shane, who is having trouble coping with the new changes begins lashing out. Meanwhile, Hollywood’s famous dog, Rexxx, falls out of an airplane while shooting one of his upcoming blockbusters. The dog is presumed to be dead and his trainer and others mourn his passing. However, after a long journey on a tomato truck, which is what had broken Rexxx’s fall from the sky, Shane finds the dog and he becomes the firehouse’s newest mascot. With the help of Rexxx, Shane and his father’s overwrought relationship are mended. The trio bands together in a hope of attempting to solve a string of fires that are breaking out throughout the city. In the course of many more shocking twists the movie produces a pretty gripping ending. The movie's plot was very convincing; at times, it was hard to believe that this movie was still being targeted for a youth audience due to its pragmatic nature, which is not always present in children’s movies. It is definitely a movie the whole family can enjoy. The movie's approach of humanizing the dog was also very effective; the dog’s performance was the one that stood out the most upon leaving the theater, along with his depiction of life’s morals at the end of the film. The dog chose the “normal life” living with the Fahey’s and being the firehouses’ mascot over a live of stardom, fame, and money. Even the final line in the movie of choosing to be a person who cares for the lives of others and makes a difference within peoples lives, instead of just playing that part in a movie spoke of the influence and message that it was sending out to these young viewers. The movie portrayed a message that popularity, stardom, and money are not everything, which is a message that many young actors in Hollywood today have yet to learn. The visual look and film technique was very good and convincing. The director ensured that the special effects that were used to make the dog leap and jump through the air appeared natural. Even the scenes inside of burning buildings, a collapsed mining shaft and simply speeding down busy streets on the fire engine appeared to be authentic and absent of special effects that were used while filming. The script was realistic to the plot of the movie. The writers did a good job of portraying a troubled young boy to be showing off to his friends at school and smarting off to his dad at home without going too over the top or appearing fake. It was very natural, as if the viewer was witnessing a glimpse at real people’s lives rather than a movie being projected onto a screen. I thought that the movie was very well done. I liked the use of real people, dealing with real problems being portrayed to youth along with a realistic illustration of how to cope with such situations. The movie is well worth a family’s time and money to view together. Firehouse Dog is a significant movie for the whole family to see due to its realistic depiction of real life and the moral lesson that it presents at the end, and I give this movie five stars. ***** Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:45:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17503&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17503&mname=Article By Eli Gorbette Title: Forrest Gump. Studio: Paramount Pictures. Director: Robert Zemeckis. Main Actors: Tom Hanks, Robin Wright Penn, Gary Sinise, and Sally Field. Run Time: 142 min. Rating: PG-13. The movie “Forrest Gump” is a tale of hope, desire and happiness. This feel-good story, although, is not always heartwarming. Aside from telling the story of a single man and all the people that he encounters throughout his life, “Forrest Gump” also subtly includes many historical events. For this reason alone, “Forrest Gump” entered a league that not many movies have occupied. This film provides a brilliant combination of emotion with just the right dose of reality. “Forrest Gump”, a movie released by Paramount Pictures in 1994, is a movie that gave many young actors such as Gary Sinise and Robin Wright Penn credibility throughout Hollywood. The film, which is considered to be many genres, including comedy, romance and drama, cannot be described fully by a single word. While Tom Hanks was already an established actor by the time this movie was filmed, it gave many of the other actors already mentioned a chance to show their range in the field of acting. Sally Field, for example, was known in her younger days as a sort of sexpot, took a more modest part as Mrs. Gump, delivering a performance worth remembering. Although “Forrest Gump” won six Oscars, one wonders what it takes for a movie to have to withstand the test of time. Many movies can claim the several awards they won, but only a select few can warrant being remembered for years to come. “Forrest Gump” is a movie filled with such emotion, such courage that it should not only be remembered, but also revered as a cultural piece that tells the story of most of the twentieth century. Going hand in hand with the story of the main character, Forrest Gump, this film captures many of the most significant, and sometimes tragic, moments during every decade through the 1950s to the 1970s. While many actors and directors would like to create a movie that incorporates more than one genre, none in recent memory have done so as successfully as “Forrest Gump”. One aspect that sets this movie apart from its contemporaries is the range of time that is shown so successfully throughout the film. While the beginning of the story takes place in the 1950s, it transcends the rest of the twentieth century so successfully that the viewer feels as though they are growing up with Forrest Gump. Not many films can take each and every viewer with them through the journey of the main character, which alone speaks volumes about this films credibility compared to others similar to it. Though Tom Hanks had already become a well-known actor by 1994, for his work in films such as “Big”, “Forrest Gump” brought him into an entirely new realm of acting. For his work in many films prior, Hanks was asked to play difficult roles, but none to the magnitude of Forrest Gump. For this role, Tom Hanks had to first and foremost play a character that was a bit slow. His range as an actor was not limited to simply being dimwitted, it also included showing unconditional love and compassion for others, as well as anger and loss. While it may be difficult to question the work of an actor such as Tom Hanks, even prior to “Forrest Gump”, this film is one of his best works of art. It is a true rarity for an actor to garner some much love and compassion from an audience in just 142 minutes, but Tom Hanks found a way to do just this in “Forrest Gump”. In consideration of whether this film advances its genre, it becomes clear that a question such as this cannot be answered. The reason for this response is that “Forrest Gump” appears to be the first of a very new genre, one that incorporates all kinds of filmmaking. Instead of declaring that this film advanced its genre, it would be more appropriate to state that it advanced filmmaking as a whole. The brilliant combination of emotional acting with historical events peppered in, creates a film that essentially created a genre of its own. “Forrest Gump” begins with actor Tom Hanks sitting at a bus stop in Georgia in the 1970s. At this bus stop, Hanks’ character Forrest Gump is telling the people around him his life story. While this may seem like a slow beginning, it is quite the start to an epic tale. Over the course of the movie, the audience is given the opportunity to watch the life of one of the most accidentally influential people of his time. Of course, since this title character is fictional, not the entire story is true. With that fact being considered, many of the fictional events that occur coincide with real events that have shaped this country’s history. Whether it is the unconditional love that Forrest shows his long time friend Jenny, or his endless devotion towards Lt. Dan Taylor, Forrest Gump shows an entire range of powerful emotions throughout the films course. With a film that covers so much time and so many events in history, it is important that a solid plot is written to glue it all together. This wishful thinking is accomplished in “Forrest Gump”. Simply showing the events that took place would become a bit overdone, but with the wonderful story that is being told alongside, there is little opportunity for boredom. With such desperation that Forrest has for his love Jenny for example, the plot of this movie provides enough quality material to demand viewer’s attention throughout. A true testament to this film’s wonderful plot is the fact that it is 142 minutes long, but never leaves the viewer with the desire to just end. For a movie to be that kind of length, and never show any signs of slowing down, is a rarity. One way that the plot of this film is filled with exciting material is due to the unforgettable characters that are introduced throughout. Whether it is Lt. Dan Taylor or Bubba, Forrest encounters many people throughout his life that grab viewers' attention and hearts. Aside from the wonderfully written characters in this film, the actors that were selected to play them were superbly chosen as well. While it may seem like an obvious selection, Tom Hanks’ character of Forrest Gump is the most memorable character in the film. Forrest Gump is so striking that he stands out not only in this film, but in pop culture history as well. The combination of his draw for love and compassion and his dedication to those around him, make Forrest Gump a character that will go down in time as a great. While it is difficult to say whether a certain time period played a significant role in the making of the film, it is much easier to see the impact of several events over time that affected the characters in the film itself. Like previously stated, “Forrest Gump” is littered with subtle acknowledgements of historical events, from the assassination of JFK to the integration of schools in the South. It is in these times that it becomes clear that history plays a much larger role in the character of Forrest Gump, than in the film “Forrest Gump”. Given that so much of “Forrest Gump” was filmed in different places at different time periods, it is almost impossible to imagine the cinematography not being well done. Something as simple as the house the Forrest grew up in is portrayed so well that viewers get the impression that it is the closest thing to heaven. Aside from this, many of the places that Forrest visits throughout his journey in the film are portrayed with such diligence that the viewer’s feel as though they were right there with him. “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get.” Unless you haven’t been alive for more than ten years or so, you have more than likely heard that line used time and again. This line, as well as many others in “Forrest Gump” is a true testament to how quality of a script was written for this film. While much of dialogue involving Forrest appears to be a bit short in the film, the parts that are heard make up for it. The combination of important words and physical acting create a script where not a lot of dialogue is necessary to get the point across from the screen to the audience. Another aspect of “Forrest Gump” that truly symbolizes a time period is the soundtrack. As Forrest travels to many places over a lot of trying times, there are several appropriate songs that go along with him. A sound track is high in quality if it can truly grasp what is not only going on in the film, but also what the viewers are feeling while watching it, and the sound track for “Forrest Gump” does just that. If the great film was not enough for audiences, the special features that are included in “Forrest Gump” the DVD are enough to warrant a masterpiece. While many DVDs only offer small pieces of insight into the making of the film, “Forrest Gump” is the exception. This DVD offers director and actor commentary, as well as an entire behind the scenes feature that is so long in length that an entirely separate disc is provided. A great movie in my opinion is one that can grab the emotions right out of me while I watch it, and “Forrest Gump” accomplishes this goal each time I watch it. Whether it is at his lowest moments, or during his largest triumphs, I always find myself feeling as though I am going through the same situations that Forrest Gump is. Aside from the emotions it takes out of me, “Forrest Gump” as has wonderful acting and cinematography go along with it. A movie with this effective combination of elements is one that I will always remember and cherish as a great film. Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:41:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17502&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17502&mname=Article Rachel Sawicki Movie Review A Night at the Roxbury A Paramount Pictures production. Produced by Robert K. Weiss, Lorne Michaels, and Amy Heckerling. Directed by John Fortenberry and Peter Markle. Screenplay by Chris Kattan, Steven Koren, and Will Ferrell. Steve Butabi – Will Ferrell Doug Butabi – Chris Kattan Mr. Butabi – Dan Hedya Emily Sanderson – Molly Shannon Richard Grieco – Himself Barbara Butabi- Loni Anderson Cambi – Elisa Donovan Vivica – Gigi Rice Craig – Lochlyn Munro By RACHEL SAWICKI Disco balls and silk plants go together like chocolate and chicken--they really don’t, unless it involves two dance crazy brothers. Steve and Doug Butabi are brothers, best friends, and partners in crime--well the crime of bad dancing. Will Ferrell, who plays Steve, and Chris Kattan, who plays Doug, are the perfect duo in this exciting slapstick comedy about two relentlessly driven men who are determined to get into the hottest night spot in L.A.--the stylish Roxbury Club. Steve and Doug are your typical 30-something men, except they live with their parents, and don’t have jobs, unless of course you consider their attempts to work at their father’s silk plant store an occupation. But the brothers don’t want to work for their father--they want to open a nightclub, like Roxbury, but first, they have to get in. Ferrell and Kattan are at their best, bringing Saturday Night Live comedy to the big screen. Ferrell’s ‘dumb’ attitudes, along with Kattan’s witty comebacks are hilarious! Along with trying to find the right connections to opening the club of their dreams, the brothers spend nearly every night club hopping in the hopes of finding some women, or as they say, hotties, since their first goal, which is to get into the Roxbury Club always seems to backfire. Hilarious dance moves, and memorable one-liners fill a good first quarter of the movie. After many attempts at getting into Roxbury, Steve and Doug realize it may be a lost cause after all—that is until an accident with Richard Grieco changes everything. Grieco, who plays himself, is a cocky, well-known and wealthy socialite, and has all the connections in L.A., so when the brothers encounter the show stopper, excitement is an understatement for how the rest of their night goes, starting with women. In their many efforts to find women to ‘score’ with, Steve and Doug stumble across some supermodels who are about to change that too. Vivica and Cambi, played by Elisa Donovan and Gigi Rice, are your typical supermodels--tall, thin, beautiful, but they are also money hungry. Thinking the brothers are wealthy, the bombshell friends do everything in their power to get Steve and Doug to fall at their feet, so they can eventually steal their wallets. As if the supermodels aren’t enough, Emily Sanderson, played by Molly Shannon, is after Steve’s heart, something Steve’s father so badly wants to end up in marriage, but Doug will have nothing of it. Goofball Doug is a firm believer in the brothers staying bachelors together forever, and he isn’t about to allow Emily to get in the way of that. Having a soft spot for the wit of Ferrell and Kattan, I find their romantic efforts uproarious! Marriage proposals, virginities lost, broken hearts, and careers found are some of the many more encounters the brothers face with an ending that is truly uplifting. If you enjoy the comedic relief of Saturday Night Live, then you will surely enjoy this laugh out loud comedy of dancing, clubs, and polyester. I give this movie 4 out of 5 similes. B+ J J J J Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:54:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17489&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17489&mname=Article Ignorance is Bliss in Apatow’s Latest: “Knocked Up” By Cortney Alexander July 26, 2007 When I first saw the trailer for the film Knocked Up (Universal Studios, 2007) I thought it was a joke. An entire film about an accidental pregnancy following a one-night stand? Really? Seems like it could be summed up pretty quickly if you ask me. You have one night of careless drunken sex, you go to breakfast with the guy and quickly discover that he has the mental capacity of a five year old, you decide to never call him again. A pregnancy ensues, as does an abortion, you have no reason to ever contact random guy again, end of story. That might be reality but it does not make for a feel-good movie of the week. The film takes place in sunny California where Alison (Katherine Heigl) is diligently working her dream job at a television studio. In fact, within the first few minutes she gets a promotion to program host. Alison is a sweet, compassionate, intelligent young woman who lives with her sister, Debbie (Leslie Mann), her brother-in-law, Pete (Paul Rudd), and their two daughters (played by Judd Apatow’s daughters). She appears to have her life right on track and to be confident and happy with herself. Her sister, on the other hand, appears to be in a rather unhappy, monotonous marriage to a completely ignorant husband. He does his job and mopes around the house as if he has made such a sacrifice to play daddy. He never once acknowledges the fact that his wife has borne him two daughters and has spent her days making him a happy and comfortable home. Pete is just one of many clueless males in this film. To escape the drudgery of married life, Alison and Debbie decide to have a girls-night-out at the bars. It is here that Alison first meets Ben (Seth Rogan). Ben is, in almost every way, Alison’s opposite. He does not hold a job, he lives in a decrepit house with four other guys, his personal hygiene is mediocre at best, he spends his days watching TV and porn, he smokes pot and drinks beer constantly, he has no real goals and he probably smells pretty bad. Ben buys Alison a drink, stares at her awkwardly, and she makes small talk. Naturally, Mommy Debbie has to leave when she gets a call from home. Alison decides to stay and drink herself into oblivion with Ben for no apparent reason. This is the first of many inconsistencies in the film. Why does Alison, a seemingly intelligent woman who should have friends of her own, decide to stay and drink with this strange man? Director Judd Apatow makes no attempt at delving into Alison’s character very deeply. Her motivations are unclear throughout this film. Despite my disbelief at the plot of this film, I did have high hopes because Judd Apatow had produced some fantastic film and television. I have been a fan of his television series Freaks and Geeks since it first aired in 1999. I was also pleasantly surprised to see that Seth Rogan, Jason Segel, Martin Starr, Leslie Mann and the double-dreamy James Franco, all veterans of Freaks and Geeks, starred in Knocked Up. Despite this, Apatow’s Knocked Up failed because he is just another male director misrepresenting and under-representing women in film. Hollywood is notorious for its misogynistic lack of female directors and lack of powerful female lead characters. It is also known for its way behind the times plots and themes. This is where Knocked Up really loses a lot of points with me and why the movie ultimately fails to please. Alison and Ben end up going home together that night at the bar. They have sex. Ben, always the moron, thinks that Alison told him not to use a condom (why would this even be an option in this day and age??), so he does not. The next morning Alison is horrified by her mistake. Ever the kind and gentle spirit, she goes to breakfast with him and learns that he is an even bigger moron than first imagined. Alison goes on with her life until she realizes she is pregnant. Here is where the logic of the film fails massively. The viewers are asked to believe that Alison is an upper class, well-educated woman. We are then asked to believe that she becomes pregnant this way and does not even consider an abortion. I am willing to accept the fact that she did not want to have an abortion or that she really did want to have a baby, but I am unwilling to accept that she would not even consider it or offer us a reason as to why she maintained the pregnancy. The pregnancy obviously was not planned, so why does she decide to bear the child? It leads this viewer to believe that the decision not to include this discussion in Knocked Up was a political one. Apatow had the opportunity to explore some new terrain with this film, his choice not to is incredibly disappointing. I think that The Nation’s Katha Pollitt hit the proverbial nail on the head in her review of this film. On the surface Knocked Up appears to be a story about Alison Scott, which makes young feminists like myself gleeful. However, viewers never get to see how Alison feels or why she feels that way, we never get any glimpse into her psyche. All we get is a completely flat character whose actions do not mesh with her supposed personality. This is not a movie about a pregnancy, as Pollitt says, it is about the immaturity of men. “The real subject of Knocked Up is the immaturity of men: only under the most desperate circumstances will they put aside their bongs, or their porn, or their even more idiotic friends. If a woman had made this movie she'd be labeled a total man-hater: there isn't one man in it who isn't basically a teenager. But a woman never would have made this movie, because women don't have the fantasy in which willowy creamy world-class beauties like Alison, with brains, great clothes, and tons of self-confidence in bed and out of it, go for men like Ben... I'm trying to think of a romantic comedy where these roles are reversed.” Even Debbie’s husband is not mature enough to recognize his wife’s unhappiness and to fix it. He would rather play fantasy baseball than spend his ‘free’ time rearing his own children and Debbie is supposed to accept this with a grin because she is the all-forgiving wife. Alison is being bred to do the very same thing. I am not sure if Apatow was aware of it, but one can certainly see similarities between Alison and Ben’s relationship and Debbie and Pete’s relationship, if only in a few years. To conclude, this movie was good for a few laughs (immature men are hilarious) but it ultimately failed to please because it left too many questions unanswered and is dangerously out of touch with reality. Knocked Up is just another of many backlash films. Women are enjoying some reproductive freedom so Apatow presents them as somewhat clueless about contraception, eager to maintain an unwanted pregnancy and smiling all the way. Women are feeling less repressed about sex so Apatow presents them as eager to jump into bed with the first slacker who buys them a beer. Women are not playing June Cleaver any more so Apatow presents them as do-gooders with hearts of gold waiting to take care of slacker men and babies. There is nothing refreshing or new about backlash. This film gets two thumbs down. Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:29:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17487&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17487&mname=Article "Deliver Us From Evil" Director Amy Berg 103 minutes Unrated with adult subject matter “Deliver Us From Evil” is a heart-breaking, independent documentary that makes you question your faith and raise concerns about the Catholic Church. By the end, you’ll either be crying or just plain irate. The film revolves around some select cases of children who were sexually abused by the same man, Father Oliver O’Grady, a California priest during the ‘70s and ‘80s. Sadly, he could easily be continuing his torments to this day, but more on that later. “Deliver Us From Evil” has a common theme throughout: justice. All these victims want is justice served for the suffering they’ve endured over the years. It’s as if they can’t move on until they know he cannot claim anymore victims. Without fancy cinematography, director Amy Berg paints the picture of a man who is deeply troubled and obviously in the wrong profession. During an interview in a children’s park, he easily admits he likes kids a lot, especially if they’re naked. Talk about a truly disturbed person. When the archdiocese first hears complaints about Father Ollie, they are ignored. They are never fully addressed either, as Bishop Mahony only moves him to a different church when complaints begin. So not only are these children and their families mistreated by a trusted friend and clergy member, but they continue to lose their strong faith in their church. The family of Irish and Asian descent in particular is really tough to watch. They let Father Ollie live with them as a good friend of the family, all the while he was abusing their daughter. When the father finally finds out what was really going on (20 years later), he admits that he doesn’t believe in God anymore because God would not let that happen. It’s really a heart-wrenching moment. The documentary is basically a series of interviews with the victims and their families. These interviews really paint a chilling picture of what Father Ollie was and is capable of. Another part of the film revolves around two of the victims traveling to the Vatican in Rome to personally deliver letters to the Pope. But as soon as they get near, the Swiss Guard kicks them out, and their pleas are rejected. Director Amy Berg eventually tracks down Father Ollie in Dublin, Ireland, where he is currently living. He is no longer involved in the Catholic Church after serving a brief time in jail. He was deported thereafter and it is unknown if he has continued his molestations in Ireland. “Deliver Us from Evil” is a must-see documentary that will completely change your belief system, if you can get past how eerily comfortable Father Ollie is with being a child molester. Check local stores for rentals, as it has just recently finished playing at the Times Cinema. By Nicole Provencher Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:42:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17286&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17286&mname=Article Four men, motorcycles and the open road: What more could you ask for? The new release, “Wild Hogs,” hit pavement on Friday and the pavement hit back. Buena Vista’s new comedy “Wild Hogs” is making audiences laugh, cringe and sometimes even cry with enlightenment. The comedic genius of John Travolta, Tim Allen, William H. Macy and Martin Lawrence shines with a delightful luster in this brilliant comedy about finding yourself, enjoying life and good old-fashioned fun. Some movies are defined by script, cinematography or even the director. “Wild Hogs,” however, is definitely defined by a genius cast. Travolta, Allen, Macy and Lawrence are the backbone of the cast with great supporting roles by Ray Liotta, Marisa Tomei and a couple of all star guest cameos that are unforgettable. Going into the movie I thought to myself, “how good can something like this really be?” To my surprise, the film made me laugh uncontrollably, and the brilliant actors saved a blasé plot that many of us know all too well. The energizing cast, paired with lots of quick witted humor, made this film different from other main stream comedies where the jokes tend to be predictable and bland. It also was the best movie that I’ve seen with Allen and Lawrence. The movies plot isn’t very far fetched. Four friends, who enjoy riding motorcycles together, decide to ditch their boring lives and head out on the open road. The new-age “rat pack” consists of Travolta, Allen, Macy and Lawrence. On the outside, Woody Stevens (Travolta) seems to have the perfect life. He is married to a gorgeous swimsuit model, has a luxurious house and a great job. Or does he? Doug Madsen (Allen) is a suburban dentist who lives a suburban life with a wife and son. He dreams to relive his youth and strives for adventure. Dudley Frank (Macy) is a nerdy computer programmer who can’t talk to women and whose idea of “hard core” is an apple logo tattoo on his arm. Bobby Davis (Lawrence) is a normal father who hates his job and is utterly controlled by his overbearing wife. Woody, fed up with his life, pitches the idea of a road trip to the West Coast. After cautious deliberation, the guys realize that it’s just the ticket that they need. After a hard day of riding, the boys stop by a biker bar on the side of a deserted highway. The bar is inhabited by a group called “Del Fuegos,” lead by a tattoo covered Liotta. The boys are immediately unwelcome, and a brawl amongst them pursues. The stereotypical bikers, covered in tattoos and chain smoking, go on the hunt for the boys, and the plot takes a turn. The boys end up in a small town of 500 called Madrid, where Del Fuegos are intensely feared. The climax of the movie takes place when Del Fuegos and the Wild Hogs battle each other. Who wins must remain a secret! Throughout the movie the boys run into some sticky situations that are hysterically solved, such as having to slap a bull in the rear end, watching their tent and equipment burn down due to a marshmallow and hallucinating due to dehydration. Although the plot sometimes feels very familiar and basic, the boys brighten it up with genius comedic timing and hilarious puns galore. The boys save the plot and bring the script to life. The movie in general is a fun-filled must for anyone who wants a good belly laugh. B+ By Anna Petrofsky Buena Vista Studios Director: Walt Becker John Travolta, Tim Allen, William H. Macy, Martin Lawrence Run Time: 1 hour 39 minutes PG-13 Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:12:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17265&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17265&mname=Article By Jennifer Lindsley   The excitement started as the nominees talked about their work in front of a stark white background. Many rattled on about how they’d thank their mom. “It’s a good life to be allowed to write songs and to spread some hope and some joy and some humor around. It’s not so bad, I’m pretty lucky, ” said the last nominee shown in the montage. The Oscars tried, and succeeded, at celebrating the winners and the nominees a week ago Sunday. Ellen DeGeneres kept the night light and upbeat as she hosted the long but overall entertaining show. Her best moments included passing a screen play on to Martin Scorsese, getting her picture taken with Clint Eastwood to post on her MySpace page and reminding us all that “If there were no Blacks, Jews, and Gays, there would be no Oscars.” Other memorable moments of the evening included Will Ferrell and Jack Black’s duet about sad comedians attending the Oscars, Al Gore’s attempt to make a “big announcement” which was suddenly cut off by the band, and “The Devil Wore Prada” cameo skit that was played out by the stars of the film themselves. Popular favorite the “Departed” brought in the big win for best picture, as well as directing, film editing and best-adapted screenplay. According to backstage.com, William Monahan, winner of the best-adapted screenplay, and “Departed” buddy Leonardo Dicaprio are teaming up for a new film called “Confessions of Pain,” based off another Hong Kong thriller. Perhaps it will be a candidate for next year’s Oscars. The “Dreamgirls” hype only brought in two wins for best supporting actress, Jennifer Hudson, and best sound mixing. Al Gore‘s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” won the awards for documentary feature and original song. Conveniently the Oscars had also gone green this year for the first time ever, showing that the Academy supported the fight against global warming. Some star even arrived in modest, little hybrids. The sound effect chorus was a little weird, and the ceremony a little long, but this year’s Academy Awards was far from boring. DeGeneres should be asked to come back next year so she can live out her dream of hosting the ceremony for a second time. The moments that linger the most from that night are the great, memorable acceptance speeches from Alan Arkin (best supporting actor for “Little Miss Sunshine”), Ari Sandel (best live action short film for “West Bank Story”) and Forest Whitaker (best leading actor for “The Last King of Scotland”). Alan Arkin spoke of the “spirit of unity,” Ari Sandel stood up for the underdogs out there and Forest Whitaker talked about the connection between us all and how we can create a new reality if we all just believe. Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:06:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17251&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17251&mname=Article By Anna Petrofsky With the 79th Oscar celebration said and done, the dresses returned to million dollar hangers and crowned jewels placed safely back in their secret layers. The night was a sure fire hit. As fancy limos and hybrids pulled up to the red carpet, the ceremony was slowly but surely getting underway. The exciting events lasted only four hours, but I’m sure the after parties went well into the night. This year’s hostess, Ellen DeGeneres, was a very whimsical and hysterical choice. The talk show host promenaded across the stage in a beautiful maroon velvet suit with dazzling white loafers and sported a shag hair do. Every word that spilled through her lips was followed by mass laughter and ear-to-ear grins. The Oscars this year were the most International that they have ever been with nominees from places like Japan, Mexico, Spain and the Middle East. Some of the winners even accepted their awards with speeches in Italian and Chinese. A bright surprise to be announced this year was that the Oscars were entirely Green. That means that they vigilantly selected products that reduced the threats of Global Warming and the dangers in our society. This announcement was carefully planned and articulated mid ceremony by former vice president Al Gore and actor Leonardo DiCaprio. The list of nominees seemed endless, and some nominees were up for multiple awards. Such films as “Babel,” “Blood Diamond” and “The Departed” were up for more than five awards each. Many of the winners came as complete shocks, such as Forest Whitaker for best actor in a leading role. Others were obvious shoe ins, such as Jennifer Hudson for best actress in a supporting role. Will Ferrell, Jack Black, and John C. Riley delivered one of the night’s most memorable performances. Ferrell sat unaccompanied in front of a grand piano sporting a gargantuan afro and sang about how a comedian at the Oscars is the saddest sight. From the corner of the stage Black scuttles over to Ferrell to accompany him in a pity party. Together they concoct a wise scheme to destroy all the nominees when John C. Riley stood up from the crowd to rid them of their satanic thoughts. Watching all the beautiful people in their fancy gowns and tuxes swept me into a nice reality for four hours. The fantastic quips provided by Ellen DeGeneres made the time fly by even faster and that much more enjoyable. Some of my favorites did happen to win, such as Alan Arkin for the comedy “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Happy Feet” for best animated film. The Spanish film “Pans Labyrinth” grabbed three awards and, “The Departed,” one of my favorite films this year, won best picture. The Oscars proved to be as vivid, if not more interesting, than previous years due to hostess Ellen DeGeneres and special presentations by Ferrell and ensemble. The four hours of presentations, awards and speeches seemed to go by rather fast and was more interesting than my local Sunday night programming. For a complete listing of nominees and winners go to: www.oscar.com Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:05:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17247&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17247&mname=Article A thin red book sits directly in the middle of a novel shop, surrounded in a sea of mediocre books. The worn, withered binding and the elusive creases call the woman’s name from across the room as she saunters over to pick it up. It says: “The Number 23.” The new psychological thriller “The Number 23”, directed by Joel Schumacher and starring Jim Carrey, gives even the toughest critics satisfaction. Alas, director Schumacher gives a breath of fully needed fresh air to his work, after his miserable movie attempts, such as “Phone Booth” and “Batman and Robin.” “The Number 23” sheds new light onto his directing abilities as well as his fine choice in cinematographer Matthew Libatique. Not only does Schumacher deliver a fine performance, but Carrey strives for a new persona through his unique performance of Walter Sparrow. Straining away from his normal quirky, fun-loving self, Carrey delivers an eerie yet heartfelt performance as a sick tormented middle aged man sporting a suave shag hairdo. Carrey’s performance far outweighs any other serious role in his career such as “Man on the Moon,” “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and “The Majestic.” Although Carrey plays a profound physiologically twisted madman, he somehow finds a way to bring tenderness and a frightful amount of passion to this character where I thought none could be found. The movie itself focuses around a book called “The Number 23”, which Carrey just so happens to get as a birthday present from his lovely wife Agatha, played by Virginia Madsen. As Walter becomes entranced by the novel, he begins to twist it in any shape or form to suit his life and situations. By the second or third chapter, Walter’s inner demons start to take hold, and a transformation starts to slowly occur. As the novel plot thickens, so does the suspense. The unbelievable coincidences between Walter and the number 23 become more and more non-coincidental, and the number 23 begins to take his life over. He begins to see 23 not only as a number, but as a way of life thinking only in numerical terms, in which every question can be answered by the number 23. The movie takes a turn when Carrey convinces himself that the writer of the novel obviously knows him and wrote the book solely on him. Carrey begins a mad search for the writer and doesn’t give up until vital clues and plot twists are revealed. This dark and delightfully twisted tale about one man’s obsession with the number 23 and how it literally controls his life never once becomes dull or tedious. Schumacher makes it a point never to give out too much information while Carrey charmingly maneuvers his character in the best plausible direction. The story stays vivid and responsive all the way up to the last few scenes, where the timing is ever so perfect to reveal all. Although the plot becomes a tad confusing at times, the viewer is always returned to the reality of the situation. The plot moves at a steady pace and enthralls the reader instead of pushing them back into a lost movie dimension that their bound to get mixed up in. Not only does the plot bend and twist quite frequently, but there are flashbacks and dream sequences that, if one does not pay attention to, might easily become lost. These flashbacks work well, however, by giving Carrey yet another opportunity to expand his character's repertoire. Another thing that works well for the movie is that the characters, as well as the variations of the number 23, are memorable. After seeing this movie, you’ll begin to notice the number 23 in your life daily. It’s somewhat enthralling to see all the combinations that Carrey comes up with and how fast he does it. The film will have viewers guessing at all times and not knowing what the real truth of it all means until the very end. It is heart racing to the last drop with colorful vivacious scenes that keep audiences awake and entertained. I thoroughly enjoyed this film with all the breathtaking cinematography. I loved Carrey in a unique and different character rather than that crazy cookie cutter type as in “Dumb and Dumber.” Carrey delivers not only a career changing performance, but he kept me entertained, which most of his movies don’t. It’d definitely a must-see movie of the year that’s fresh with a new meaning to simple numbers. B+ The Number 23 New Line Studios Director: Joel Schumacher Jim Carrey, Virginia Madsen Run Time: 1 Hour 35 Minutes -By Anna Petrofsky Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:15:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17241&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17241&mname=Article By Eric Lewin Goodnight and Good Luck Warner Independent Pictures Directed by George Clooney David Strathairn, George Clooney, Patricia Clarkson, Robert Downey Jr. 93 minutes Many said that George Clooney’s career could die with Goodnight and Good Luck. After all, it’s hardly plausible that the same fan base who swooned over him as Dr. Douglass Ross in ER (or as Booker Brooks in Roseanne, for that matter) would know Edward R. Murrow from Errol Morris. I It’s even more unbelievable that said fan base could get behind a film that relies so heavily on file footage from the 1950s that deals chiefly with Senator Joseph McCarthy’s nationwide hunt for communists. The shrugs of confusion were almost audible from those who questioned the decision by the aging pinup who was running the risk of dating himself even further by directing, co-writing and co-starring in a movie about the news. Relax everyone; this man used to be a doctor! If you’re expecting a dry, slow moving documentary-style film about the rise and fall of McCarthyism, you’re in for a surprise. Sure, there are elements of documentary and of course McCarthy and his notoriously botched grab for power is the central theme, but Goodnight is so much more than that. It’s a story about crusading for the truth at any costs: advertisers and executives be damned. It’s an hour and a half of suspense that, if you didn’t know how it ended due to American history, would surely white-knuckle an audience. Hell, it still does! It’s that good of a film. In the modern day, when the news is often indicted for its slavery to ratings and exclusive stories, Goodnight’s real-life depiction of the Edward Murrow-hosted See it Now being a crusader against political goliath seems almost fictitious. Goodnight’s smoke-filled newsrooms are the setting for most of the film as the main characters Joe Wershba (Robert Downey Jr.), Don Hollenbeck (Ray Wise), Sig Mickelson (Jeff Daniels), Fred Friendly (Clooney) and the stoic Murrow (David Strathairn) plot their steps against the demonized McCarthy. Clooney manages to keep the behind-the-scenes dialogue intriguing as the men hash out their battle plan with plenty of tight face shots and believable speech cadences: a feather in the cap for the rookie director. The supporting characters are captivating (especially that of Daniels and Downey Jr., who turn in uncharacteristically strong performances), but the film belongs to Strathairn’s portrayal of Murrow. He remains stone-faced and confident throughout Goodnight, but that’s not to say Murrow’s humanity doesn’t shine through. Strathairn makes the occasional joke (“Well don’t tell him [he’s a jew], he loves Christmas), sweats and sighs nervously after the McCarthy episode, chain smokes and often retreats with Clooney to have a drink when things get tight (“how ‘bout a scotch, Fred?”). It’s not Murrow’s charm that makes the film tick, however: it’s his tenacity and forcefulness. As he manages to convince network boss Bill Paley (Frank Langella) to let his McCarthy story slide past skittish advertisers, he raises his voice to an intensity that lets the audience know exactly who’s in charge during the exchange. His toughness is re-enforced when responding to McCarthy’s rebuttal (read: the part when they show McCarthy lying about Murrow) as he doesn’t panic or shout. He defeats McCarthy with a collected response that God might have if President Bush challenged him for the throne: he’d pay attention, but he wouldn’t be scared. As far as cinematography goes, Clooney was correct in his black-and-white preference. The void of color complements the already-gained postmodern points for file footage and the period-specific jazz soundtrack. Without being prompted by outside knowledge, Goodnight could easily be confused to have been made several decades prior, thanks to a seamless wardrobe, emphasis on interoffice politics (Joe Wershba and Patricia Clarkson’s character Shirley were married despite strict rules against romance within the office) and the aforementioned pieces of mise-en-scene. Made for the relatively modest $8 million price tag, Goodnight makes thrifty use of its resources. It trims the ubiquitous Hollywood fat and focuses on the tightly crafted dialogue that anyone with a pulse can get behind. After all, there’s no need for an epic McCarthy/Murrow car chase. If the Academy snubs Strathain, Clooney and Goodnight come Oscar time, there will be no atonement. It will be a grievous crime that the world hasn’t seen since the Grammys passed over Metallica in favor of Jethro Tull for “Best Heavy Metal Performance” in 1989. To be clear, Goodnight isn’t some innocuous film with no message. Goodnight’s quality is just as clear as Clooney’s criticism for post-Patriot Act America in which it could be argued that Congress is filled with “little McCarthys” who are all scrambling for “patriotic” causes such as bans on flag burning and the Iraq war. Why else would he make this film at a time when he has so much to lose? As the saying goes, big risks yield big rewards. Congratulations, Clooney: you’ve made a perfect movie. @@@@@ (Five “At” signs) Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:52:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17237&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17237&mname=Article If there was an Oscar given for “Best One Liners,” Napoleon Dynamite would be a shoo-in. Popularized by its kooky characters and crazy quotes, Napoleon Dynamite has become a cultural icon. This movie has none of the typical blockbuster qualities like a big budget, special effects or high paid actors, but has still managed to become a classic. Newcomer, John Heder will definitely have a successful acting career to look forward to, as well as a much anticipated sequel to prepare for. Resembling humor often found among young teenagers and college students, Napoleon Dynamite has a wide range demographic appeal to an audience. Little kids have walked around with “Vote for Pedro” shirts on, while their parents have every hilarious line in the movie memorized. Compared to other popular comedies with a primarily adolescent demographic, such as Super Troopers or Scary Movie, Napoleon Dynamite reverts back to good ol' clean humor. With not so much as one obscenity throughout the entire 86 minute feature, this movie has easily earned itself a PG rating, contributing to the widespread audience. Talk about the dark horse that nobody bets on, Napoleon certainly came up from behind to win the race. With a $10,000 budget and a cast full of up-and-comings and unknowns, Napoleon spent over six months in the theater and made over $50 million gross in ticket sales alone. Napoleon Dynamite compares to the success as well as the humor of Austin Powers. Both started off slow in theaters only to later rake in the dough with video sales and popular merchandise. Different from Austin Powers' kooky humor, Napoleon takes place in rural small-town America, following the intertwined lives of five main characters with “vintage” style and individual problems. From wanting to go back in time, to bullies, to running for class President, these characters go through funny trials and tribulations to achieve their goals. A plot unique to that of no other, Napoleon has created a new genre of characters for people to relate to on a personal level. Anyone who has seen the movie has a favorite character, favorite scene, and favorite quote that he or she they loves. Napoleon Dynamite has become so popular because it is a fresh, new and original storyline. Scary Movie and other movies like it that are more like sketch comedy and have become tiresome. Director/writer Jared Hess states in the commentary on the DVD that many of the humorous events throughout the film came from reality and personal experiences. Many of the actors were also selected based on connections through Jared Hess. The cinematography was kept as simplistic as the characters and the storyline. There was no complexity of zooming or short fast shots, making Napoleon Dynamite very easy to watch. Creatively done in an unusual manner were the opening credits as well as the extra story that followed the ending credits. The opening credits were all spelled out in food and other tangible details that are in the film. Following the credits was a little extra tid-bit to give audiences just a bit more Napoleon for their money. The only thing I dislike about Napoleon Dynamite is the craze that followed. As with many movies that gain popularity suddenly, they lose that status just as quickly. People were quoting lines left and right, stores were stocked with merchandise, and people watched it so much, that as soon as it had come, it was on its way out the door. For some though, such as myself, the time of Napoleon is still here. The infamous dance scene will forever be a favorite and a sequel is definitely highly anticipated. It is original, uncomplicated, and hilarious. So if you have not gotten the chance to experience a one of a kind comedy in a while, Napoleon Dynamite is a must. 3.5 Stars By Amy Rottler Napoleon Dynamite (2004) MTV Studios Director: Jared Hess Actors John Heder – Napoleon Dynamite John Gries - Uncle Rico Efren Ramirez – Pedro Sanchez Tina Majorina – Deb Aaron Ruell – Kip Dynamite 86 minutes PG rating Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:48:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17206&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17206&mname=Article Science fiction authors like Isaac Asimov and H.G. Wells often portrayed the future as a time where humankind’s intelligence has created a technological renaissance. Whether the fates of such societies were utopian and peaceful or hellish and bleak varied from writer to writer. Still, the stories believed man’s ingenuity would make the impossible seem commonplace in everyday life. But director Mike Judge – the creator of “Bevis and Butthead,” “King of the Hill” and “Office Space” – doesn’t see the future as a world of scientists served by automatons. “Idiocracy,” Judge’s latest comedy, was recently released on DVD. If the film’s predictions are correct, mankind is in for some tough times. “Idiocracy” follows Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson), an army librarian who is discovered to be, in every aspect, the most average man in the service. Joe and Rita (Maya Rudolph), a prostitute living in constant fear of a pimp named Upgraydd, are selected as part of an experiment to see if humans can be frozen in suspended animation for one year. The experiment works too well, and the two subjects are accidentally left in hibernation for 500 years. Joe and Rita quickly discover the year 2555 is like past predictions. Instead, the planet is inhabited by a society of idiots, making Joe the smartest man alive. On the surface, “Idiocracy” has a very lowbrow sense of humor. Language has been reduced to a crude mixture of slangs, causing everyone Joe encounters to believe his use of 21st century English is a sign of homosexuality. Even cruder are the media viewed in this society, which includes “Ow! My Balls!,” a highly rated television program that portrays exactly what its title suggests. However, as the film progresses, it becomes apparent that the sophomoric jokes are intended to satirize aspects of present day society. For instance, Judge paints a terrible, yet humorous, picture of the path being paved by present day advertising methods. All clothing in 2555 features advertising for companies like fast food chain Carl’s Jr., and the U.S. president’s full name is Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho (Terry Crews). Judge also warns that all people will eventually be completely absorbed by their base desires: Violence, sex, and money. The Violence Channel is a fictional fixture on American television, and Starbucks becomes a prostitution ring, offering something called a “full body latte.” The highlighting of these rudimentary driving forces culminates near the film’s end ,when Frito (Dax Shepard), Joe’s guide, comically exclaims to a peer, “I can't believe you like money too! We should hang out.” The only area the film falls flat in is special effects. Judge had difficulties obtaining financial support from 20th Century Fox, the studio behind the film. As a result, some of the film's visuals took a hit. Scenes like “the great garbage collapse of 2555” were created using slightly outdated CGI, but these shortcomings don’t hurt the overall appeal of the film. The DVD could have also used some additional bonus features. While the disk contains five hilarious deleted scenes, it could have benefited from a commentary track or behind-the-scenes footage. “Idiocracy” solidifies Judge’s position as one of the best comedic social commentators alive. The film uses well-placed, crude humor to poke fun at humankind’s present path. It’s no “Brazil,” but it’s the best sci-fi comedy released in a long time. -By Nick Schurk Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:20:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17160&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17160&mname=Article Woody Allen and Scarlett Johansson prove to be a dynamic duo once again since 2005’s genius suspense film, “Match Point,” in their latest comedic collaboration, “Scoop.” The pair returned to London along with charming Hugh Jackman (X-Men) to meddle with the British aristocracy in this delightful murder-mystery comedy written and directed by Allen himself. Usual sexpot Johansson, who knocked socks off in “Match Point” as a sultry, wannabe actress, steps out of her box in “Scoop” to play quirky, aspiring journalist Sondra Pransky, who is visiting friends in London when she goes to a magic show, only to be visited by the spirit of a dead journalist with a great murder story scoop. At Sondra’s side delivering humorous one-liners while annoying most who come in contact with him is obnoxious magician, Sid Waterman (Woody Allen). The focus of the murder scoop is Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), a wealthy son of a Lord, who may very well be London’s “Tarot Card Killer.” Pransky and Waterman go to all ends to find out whether charming Lyman is really a cunning murderer. While “Scoop” and “Match Point” both focus on British life and culture, Allen sheds the “serious” mask he wore while directing “Match Point” in exchange for a witty comedy that his fans love and thank him for. “Scoop” is reminiscent of some of Allen’s previous murder-mysteries like “Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993),” and “The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001).” Allen plays his role so well that at times fans will want to scream at the TV screen because he is so obnoxious. His role as Sid Waterman is very similar to his role as C.W. Briggs in “The Curse of the Jade Scorpion.” Johansson sparkles as naïve and astute Sondra Pransky and shows that she has a knack for comedy, a film genre she hasn’t had much experience with until recently. Jackman was the attractive romantic as seen in his previous films like “Kate and Leopold (2001),” and “Someone Like You (2001).” This type of character seems typical of Jackman, but after seeing other action films of his such as “X-Men (2000),” and “X2 (2003),” it is apparent that he is a well-rounded actor. For the shooting of “Scoop,” Allen teamed up again with cinematographer Remi Adefarasin, who also worked on “Match Point.” They avoided shooting much of the film in direct sunlight, according to actor Hugh Jackman in an interview with Maitland McDonagh. This plays off well in the movie set in London streets and countryside, where most expect the weather to be overcast and gray anyway. This somewhat dark setting adds to the movie’s mysterious edge. The script of “Scoop” is quite simple to the average viewer, but fans of Allen will pick up on the sharp and dark humor tucked into every corner. The film is chock full of great one-liners. For example, Sid Waterman (Woody Allen) says, “I was born of the Hebrew persuasion, but I converted to narcissism,” when he’s talking to a couple London socialites. The characterization is lacking a bit in the film compared to “Match Point,” but for a murder-mystery comedy, this isn’t a fault. The audience is able to simply enjoy the movie, instead of analyzing the film’s psychology. Simple but dark comedies are what make Woody Allen films so lovable. “Scoop” began as “homage to first-rate investigative journalism,” according to Allen in an interview by Maitland McDonagh, by riding on the premise of a journalist so determined that he would actually come back from the afterlife to pursue a breaking story. After casting Johansson, the film took more focus on her character’s determination. As a Woody Allen fan, I was once again pleased with his latest film as I have been for most of his other films. Both fans and non-fans of Allen will appreciate “Scoop” as a clever comedy with a touch of mystery and suspense. -By Amanda Mauch Scoop – Focus Features – directed by Woody Allen – 96 minutes * * * * * (4/5) Sun, 11 Feb 2007 01:16:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17154&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17154&mname=Article Can a highly decorated war hero adjust to prison road-gang life? Cool Hand Luke, from Warner Bros., portrayed by cool Paul Newman, attempts to answer that question. He does so in typical Newman fashion through his manners, looks, smiles, and rebellious attitude. Luke’s crime was cutting the tops off town parking meters in a drunken stupor. This rather ludicrous offense leads to serious consequences. George Kennedy as Dragline provides the necessary friction in the beginning of the movie, as Luke is matriculated into prison. I feared a slow-moving; disappointing, Sixties film, but the performances of Newman and Kennedy made it an upbeat, outstanding movie. However, Kennedy as a hardened criminal is bit of a stretch, as I picture him more as a homespun, fatherly figure. To his credit, he played the role well. Newman as Luke in his non-conformist, bad-boy self will never conform to prison life. He sports a smile as the prison captain, played by Strother Martin, lectured new arrivals as to the rules. Martin’s psychotic voice seemed to mimic Truman Capote, which detracted from what he was saying. Dragline hated Luke and punches him silly in a boxing match. This pummeling was unrealistic, as he would have easily been killed by it. Predictably, they become friends, along with the other inmates, because of his never-say-die attitude. Luke bluffs at poker, boasts he can eat 50 eggs, and gets the others to finish a road project quickly, so they can have some free time. His playful arrogance gives way to human weakness at times, as he sickens trying to eat those eggs and conforms as the guards try to break his spirit. The inmates look up to him and live their dreams of rebellion through him. He does what they are afraid to do and for that they idolize him. He doesn’t want to be a hero, just himself. This lends credibility to the script, as it seems a realistic attitude for Luke to take. The movie is a romanticized account of prisoners as though they are somehow good guys. In the real prison world, they would be swearing, cursing, and exhibiting anti-social behavior. But, this movie is for entertainment, not social commentary, and, in that context, it does the job. It runs the gamut from high drama to light comedy. Cinematography was excellent throughout, especially in scenes of the gang clearing weeds on the side of the road. When a soaked Luke looked up at the rain with arms stretched upward, it mirrored the scene and freedom felt when Andy (Tim Robbins) escaped into the water in the Shawshank Redemption. Warner Bros. was well known for great sound effects at the time the movie was made, as gunfire echoed realistically. The movie transitioned at a pleasing pace, a sign of a good editing. Scenes of solitary confinement in “The Box,” could have lasted longer. His thoughts and mental anguish could have been expanded upon. The movie is best remembered for the Captain’s classic line, “What we got here is… failure to communicate.” Many great films have memorable lines like “Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn,” from Gone with the Wind, that leave a lasting impression. Cool Hand Luke will leave a lasting impression on you. Paul Newman fans are sure to love this flick and would probably give it the maximum 5 Stars. Kennedy won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his role as Dragline. Newman was also excellent and their performances combined to convince me that 5 Stars is an appropriate rating. -By James Herro Cool Hand Luke Warner Bros. Directed by Stuart Rosenberg Starring Paul Newman. Co-starring George Kennedy, J.D. Cannon, Lou Antonio, Strother Martin and Jo Van Fleet 127 minutes Not Rated Sun, 11 Feb 2007 01:11:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17153&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17153&mname=Article If you hadn’t heard of Borat Sagdiyev before, chances are you have now. He’s the awkward (and fictional) Kazakhstani journalist played by British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen. Borat was first introduced in the U.S. in 2003, when he appeared regularly on HBO’s “Da Ali G Show.” Baron Cohen, as Borat, created awkward interviews with unsuspecting people or groups (sometimes of very high positions) in order to make them appear foolish. The outcome for the viewer? Hilarity. Unfortunately, “Ali G” only lasted two seasons, but Borat lives on in his own mockumentary-comedy, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” which hit theaters on Nov. 3. The premise of the movie is the same as “Ali G’s” sketches. The fictional Borat conducts awkward interviews with real people in order to create social chaos. Except this time there’s a plot. Borat is sent to New York City by his home country of Kazakhstan in order to interview people and gain knowledge of American culture. However, upon seeing a rerun of “Baywatch” in his hotel room, Borat falls in love with Pamela Anderson and decides to make it his quest to find her and make her his wife while interviewing people along the way. Most of Borat’s interviews contain remarks that are anti-Semitic, anti-feminist, anti-gypsy and other statements that would typically be considered offensive. Additionally, Borat ups the discomfort level by telling people about his experiences, such as having relations with his own sister. For example, in one scene a driving instructor tells Borat that in America a woman can choose who she has sex with. Borat, shocked, responds, “WHAT?!” He gets away with all of this, for the most part, because it is all done under the guise of a naïve foreigner who does not understand what is and is not acceptable in American culture. But it works both ways. The key to understanding the humor in “Borat” is to understand the big joke. After the release of the movie, many people spoke out about how offensive they think it is. You couldn’t turn on the television without hearing a report about someone else complaining about the movie’s offensiveness. The Russian Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography even went so far as to ban it. On a more personal level, a couple of weeks after the film was released, Baron Cohen entered a bar in New York dressed as Borat and was punched in the face by a man inside. However, Baron Cohen, who is Jewish himself, has stated that the purpose of his entire Borat act is to make fun of racism, and discrimination and stereotyping in general, by making light of how ridiculous they really are. He says the scenes are a “dramatic demonstration of how racism feeds on dumb conformity, as much as rabid bigotry,” and are not a display of racism by Baron Cohen himself. If you don’t get it, you probably won’t like the movie. But if you do, this is one of the funniest movies in years. Either way, the controversy stirred up by Borat has made this movie one of the most successful films in recent years. The negative criticism may have proven to be a good thing for “Borat,” serving as a way of promoting the movie by drawing attention and sparking interest in it. It was released on only 837 screens during its first weekend, but still managed to open at #1 in the U.S., and made $26.4 million – which beats the record of Fahrenheit 9/11 as being the most successful opening weekend for a film released on less than 1,000 screens. In its second weekend in theaters, “Borat’ was expanded to 2,566 screens, and made an additional $29 million. It was proven long ago that shock-value humor sells, but “Borat” also helps us realize that whether people like you or not, if you create controversy you will make “great success.” “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” 20th Century Fox Director: Larry Charles Starring: Sacha Baron Cohen, Ken Davitian Rated R -By Lindsey Paulsen Sun, 07 Jan 2007 13:03:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17110&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17110&mname=Article “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” 20th Century Fox Director: Larry Charles Starring: Sacha Baron Cohen, Ken Davitian Rated R By Will Mueller The funniest movie since “Super Troopers” and the most outrageous since “Jackass”, is finally here – “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.” This non-stop laugh fest goes straight through from the introduction of Borat, to the Kazakhstan national anthem, which plays through the credits. The movie begins in Kazakhstan, where you meet Borat. He says, “My name a Borat, I like you, I like a sex...It's nice.” “Borat” exposes the true nature and prejudice of real people in this hilarious 82 minute mockumentary which follows the fictional Kazakhstani reporter Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen) as he makes a film to teach his people of Kazakhstan the American way of life. Borat takes the man-on-the-street bit one step further than either “Jackass” or Tom Green managed to by using real footage from his “documentary” to fit the storyline of a fictional movie. Borat is the seemingly innocent, lovable, yet wrong-headed character created by Cohen for his HBO hit, “Da Ali G Show.” The plot is simple: Borat comes to America to make a documentary, he falls in love with “Baywatch” character C.J. Parker (Pamela Anderson), then he talks his producer Azamat (Kenneth Davitian) into traveling from New York to California under the pretense of finishing their documentary, secretly scheming to meet and propose to the new love of his life. In the beginning of the film, Borat introduces family and friends from his small Kazakhstan village. Some of the memorable characters you meet include his sister who is “number four prostitute in all of Kazakhstan,” his neighbor, whom nobody likes, and his wife, Oksana: “She is 'a boring.” Borat also mentions his “retard brother Billo” who lives in a cage. Borat's beliefs seem severely warped by mainstream American standards, but through his confrontations with everyday Americans, he manages to reveal their prejudice against gays, women and especially Jews. One might argue that the true purpose of the movie is to expose people rather than to offend them. The two main characters, Borat and Azamat, are played flawlessly. There is little doubt that these two truly fool most of those they interview into believing that they are who they pretend to be. Borat is especially convincing, as he never breaks character in a movie which is mainly live footage. The script, if there was one, as well as the general concept is brilliant, as is the acting. Borat asks a group of feminists how they can think a woman is equal to a man since their brains are only the size of a squirrel's. He also gets an older gentleman at a rodeo to say he shaved his mustache to look Italian instead of like a terrorist, and the gentleman infers that we are trying to get rid of the gays here (in America) too. The film is enhanced by its low budget feel. The camera always seems to get a realistic response from the unsuspecting victims of the film. The movie is a highlight reel of funny events, including Borat's village, which has the annual “Running of the Jew.” Upon arriving in America, Borat washes his face in a toilet, introduces himself to unwilling people in the subway and keeps a chicken in his luggage. This experiment in reality not only gives viewers 82 straight minutes of laughter, but it is also a brilliant commentary on the prejudices of real people. Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:33:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17057&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17057&mname=Article “Apocalypto” Touchstone Pictures Director: Mel Gibson Starring: Rudy Youngblood, Dalia Hernandez Rated R By Mike Affholder When criticizing films, it is often difficult not to pull a celebrity’s personal life under the critical microscope along with their art. It’s just the nature of the business. So when Mel Gibson’s newest period epic, “Apocalypto,” hit theaters, many still had the bad taste in their mouths left by Gibson’s grossly anti-Semitic remarks a few months ago. One of the biggest mistakes anyone could make this year is using that as an excuse not to see “Apocalypto,” which stands testament as to how true genius sometimes tends to be undermined by bad personal judgment. The film follows the trials of a young Mayan hunter, Jaguar Paw (wonderfully acted by newcomer Rudy Youngblood), and his village in the remote jungles of pre-colonial Mesoamerica. When his village is ruthlessly attacked by a band of savage warriors, Jaguar Paw has to figure out how to save his wife and young son before he is killed himself. Youngblood is superb as the defiant Jaguar Paw, as are all of the other actors in the film. Any subtle nuances within individuals’ performances may be lost behind the language barrier (all the film’s dialogue is in an obscure ancient Mayan dialect), but real talent can’t be lost in translation. The most striking aspect of “Apocalypto” is the stunning imagery that cinematographer Dean Semler makes as much a character in the film as any of the actors. The lush jungle flora is brought to life like never before seen on film, largely due to the usage of digital cameras. Images are saturated in color and light, creating a world that won’t likely be forgotten come Oscar season. Clocking in at just over two hours, the film shows Gibson using a rarely-seen sense of restraint. The simplistic story is not as grabbing as the film’s universal representation of the human condition at odds with evil, which is something that can appeal to all cultures. The non-stop action, culminating in a nearly hour-long chase sequence, drives the film with its nail-biting intensity. The only real shortcoming of the film is Gibson’s insistence on unrelenting, oftentimes needless, gore. This isn’t like in “Passion of the Christ,” where violence and suffering was used to show a man’s daunting sacrifice for all of mankind. Showing someone getting their heart cut out serves no underlying allegory within the film. It’s just disturbing, and that’s the way Gibson wants it. “Apocalypto” stands next to “Braveheart” as one of Gibson’s crowning achievements as a director. With its unrivaled beauty, universally appealing story, and modern political relevance, this film engages the viewer in a way that few others have managed to do this year. Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:14:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17054&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17054&mname=Article “Apocalypto” Touchstone Pictures Director: Mel Gibson Starring: Rudy Youngblood, Dalia Hernandez Rated R By Ethan Hedman Mel Gibson has a penchant for the strange. Not only is the director/actor’s public persona an ever morphing enigma, but the projects he takes on seem to get further and further removed from the action standard he began his career on. “Apocalypto,” another strange directorial endeavor from Gibson, is a highly flawed historical epic that is blood-drenched and sadistic. Gibson’s reoccurring motif of gratuitous amounts of violence has surfaced again, and it seems that he is perpetually toeing a line of redemption through bloodshed. In this way, “Apocalytpo” is not that different than some of his other work behind the camera, such as “Braveheart” and “The Passion of the Christ.” Gibson’s blood-soaked historical epics are unique to be sure. “Braveheart” was a powerful film that garnered him a best director Oscar, and “The Passion of the Christ” was a controversial and moving, if not strangely void, film. “Apocalypto” is mercifully spare on the kind of bloodshed that “The Passion of the Christ” was filled with. While there is plenty to go around, it’s not as draining as his previous effort. That being said, “Apocalypto” is still a step backwards for Gibson. “Braveheart” was successful because he was capable of getting the audience emotionally invested in the characters, including his own charismatic performance as William Wallace. “Apocalytpo” is more along the lines of “The Passion of the Christ” in that regard, with the exception that there is no central, familiar figure. There is little character development, and the audience is given no vested reason to become emotionally connected to the characters. Many viewers will likely be alienated by this movie as Gibson’s anti-Semitic remarks set off a firestorm of controversy. That’s not the real reason to avoid “Apocalypto,” though, as it is far from a strong movie. The movie follows Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), a young Mayan man, around the time of the civilization’s mysterious collapse. His village is raided in an excessively loud and violent skirmish by an opposing Mayan tribe, and he is taken captive. Once Jaguar Paw escapes from his captors, he tries to find his way back to his pregnant wife (newcomer Dalia Hernandez) and eldest child, while being pursued. Youngblood is compelling to watch. He gives his character heart, and his mastery of the Mayan language makes his performance that much more impressive. It’s too bad the dialogue isn’t better. Gibson consistently seems to be inspired by his own work, however. While “Apocalypto” may be a historical epic, it is a bit too simplistic to call it simply that. It’s a story about inner conflicts and how they eventually take a society down. Gibson’s heavy idolizing of his own technique is also apparent in the visual style of the film. Whether viewers like to admit it or not, Gibson has a penchant for capturing some amazing images. The jungle landscapes are vibrant and beautiful, and the colors are so vivid they seem dream-like. There are also a lot of unique moving camera techniques that Gibson uses throughout the movie to speed up the action and give the pursuit scenes a sense of urgency that they might otherwise be missing. This is not to mention well done makeup effects that make the gore visceral and realistic. The problem is the amount of violence, though. It seems there is hardly a shot in “Apocalypto” where someone or something isn’t getting maimed or killed. Visually, “Apocalypto” is exceedingly impressive, but that is as far as it is willing to go. The characters are poorly written clichés of what Americans likely perceive the Mayan people were like, and Gibson often characterizes the entire civilization as little more than bloodthirsty savages. The story, while engaging, gets a little long in the tooth, and the resolution of the movie is hardly a resolution at all. There’s just something about it that seems like it was too easy. The reliance on clichés across the board ultimately spoils the film, and the excessive violence can get tedious. “Apocalypto” could have doubtlessly been a far more interesting film, but its poorly written script (which Gibson co-wrote) becomes its big stumbling block. Even the dialogue is obsessed with violence as is evident when a young girl asks in a sinister tone, “Would you like to know how you will die?” Given Gibson’s unique visual style, it would be interesting to see him do a film that is less oriented around violence for the sake of violence. “Apocalypto” is not that film. If his career serves as any indication of what his next project will be, it seems unlikely that he will drop the violence motif anytime soon. Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:12:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17053&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17053&mname=Article “The Departed” Warner Bros. Pictures/Vertigo Entertainment Director: Martin Scorsese Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jack Nicholson, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg Rated R By Ryan Cardarella If there is one thing Martin Scorcese has proven time and time again, it is that he knows how to direct a gangster film. With classics such as “Mean Streets,” “GoodFellas” and “Gangs of New York” under his belt, Scorsese returns to the genre he has shaped and defined over the past 30 years with The Departed, a story of two streetwise Irishmen who infiltrate both the mob and the state police. In a remake of the popular Japanese film “Infernal Affairs,” Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) plays an undercover Mass. state policeman who is assigned to infiltrate the Irish mob and to eventually take down its Boston kingpin, Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). Meanwhile, Costello has enlisted one of his own to infiltrate the state police, with Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) working his way up the ladder on the force. As a moviegoer, you can feel the building tension in each scene as the two desperately avoid being found out while trying to blow each other's cover. It is an ingenious and captivating plot that will keep your blood pumping until the credits roll. While Scorsese has long since staked claim as a master storyteller in the gangster genre, “The Departed” is elevated to another level by a five-star cast. The skill and charisma brought to the table by the likes of Jack Nicholson, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, and Alec Baldwin give ample substance to the gritty style perfected by Scorsese. In a film ripe with bravado and masculine gusto, you need actors who are capable of bringing the intensity of the streets to life, and this is where the movie really excels. The script hums along with one-liners and crude dialogue that may make the girlfriend uncomfortable. While crude, the dialogue really allows the characters to come to life, maintaining a sense of realism and place that is always evident in Scorsese films. The cast has great chemistry and the hilariously vulgar exchanges between Baldwin and Wahlberg in the police office will have moviegoers spewing quotes long after they head for home. DiCaprio steals the show as a hard-nosed, undercover police officer struggling to maintain a grip on his identity and his sanity as part of the Irish mob he was enlisted to take down. He walks a fine line between maintaining his cover in the mob and retaining his own personality and sanity as a man. He has finally shed his playboy image of Titanic fame and emerged as one of the finest and most versatile actors of present day. Damon is also solid, though he is overpowered at times by the dominant presence of DiCaprio and Nicholson in some scenes. Long one of Hollywood’s most prominent and captivating leading men, Nicholson brings his unique blend of charisma and menace. You feel the threat of violence every time you see his character on screen, watching and waiting as the calm Nicholson can turn it on at any time. He teases like a heavyweight boxer with knockout power, jabbing until he unleashes the occasional big punch and knocks us flat. The opening monologue, featuring Nicholson explaining his place and motives on the tough streets of Boston, hooks the audience immediately and sets the tone for the events to follow. Roughly 20 years pass during this speech, which establishes Nicholson as the kingpin that he is, instilling fear and respect into his environment and the audience itself. And when it comes to setting a tone, nobody does it better than Jack. Characters certainly drive the film and furthermore. The internal conflict within the main characters is what truly defines “The Departed,” providing the depth and substance that separates a great film from a good one. Each character is forced to make life altering decisions that allow them to develop outside of traditional good-versus-evil, clichéd definitions. Scorsese maintains a balance of complexity without the film feeling gimmicky or convoluted. Characters evolve based on the choices they make and are multi-faceted, a welcome change from a host of films featuring one-dimensional caricatures of Mafioso. Under an inexperienced or less talented director, “The Departed” could have fallen victim to becoming another complicated movie mess. Instead, Scorsese wastes nothing and displays a method to the plot madness as the film goes from one double-cross to the next. The gritty feel of the movie also contributes to its credibility as a reputable gangster film. While he has yet to win that elusive “Best Picture” Oscar, Scorsese simply keeps producing classic films. His style is often as subtle as a punch in the gut, but the raw emotion and grit felt in his films will often leave the moviegoer feeling like he or she took one in the midsection. Few directors and films can boast creating a picture that evokes such realism and emotion, making “The Departed” the latest in a long line of must see Scorsese masterpieces. You won’t spend a better $8.50 at the movies this year. Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:10:00 CST http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17052&mname=Article http://frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17052&mname=Article