Films Seen - 1929

Alibi (Roland West)
Asphalt (Joe May)
Applause (Rouben Mamoulian)
Arsenal (Alexander Dovzhenko)
Blackmail (Alfred Hitchcock)
The Broadway Melody (Harry Beaumont)
The Cocoanuts (Robert Florey, Joseph Santley)
Diary of a Lost Girl (GW Pabst)
Erotikon (Gustav Machaty)
Eternal Love (Ernst Libitsch)
Hallelujah! (King Vidor)
The Iron Mask (Allan Dwan)
The Last Warning (Paul Leni)
The Love Parade (Ernst Lubitsch)
The Love Trap (William Wyler)
Lucky Star (Frank Borzage)
Man With a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov)
The Manxman (Alfred Hitchcock)
Marianne (Robert Z. Leonard)
Napoleon (Abel Gance)
Pandora's Box (GW Pabst)
Spite Marriage (Edward Sedgwick)
Queen Kelly (Erich Von Stroheim)
Spies (Fritz Lang)
They Had to See Paris (Frank Borzage)

Films Seen - 1928

• A Girl in Every Port (Howard Hawks)
• A Woman of Affairs (Clarence Brown)
• Battle of the Sexes (DW Griffith)
• Beggars of Life (William Wellman)
• Berlin: Symphony of a Great City (Walter Ruttman)
• The Cameraman (Edward Sedgwick)
• The Circus (Charles Chaplin)
• The Crowd (King Vidor)
• The Docks of New York (Josef Von Sternberg)
• Doomsday (Rowland v. Lee)
• The End of St. Petersburg (Vsevolod Pudovkin)
• The Fall of the House of Usher (Jean Epstein)
• Four Sons (John Ford)
• The Garden of Eden (Lewis Milestone)
• Hangman's House (John Ford)
• The Last Command (Josef Von Sternberg)
• Laugh, Clown, Laugh (Herbert Brenon)
• The Lodger (Alfred Hitchcock)
• The Love of Jeanne Ney (GW Pabst)
• The Man Who Laughs (Paul Leni)
• The Mysterious Lady (Fred Niblo)
• October (Sergei Eisenstein)
• The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Dreyer)
• The Patsy (King Vidor)
• Show People (King Vidor)
• Speedy (Ted Wilde)
• Steamboat Bill Jr. (Charles Reisner)
• Street Angel (Frank Borzage)
• Tempest (Sam Taylor)
• The Wedding March (Erich Von Stroheim)
• The Wind (Victor Sjostrom)

Films Seen - 1927

• Bed and Sofa (Abram Room)
• The Cat and the Canary (Paul Leni)
• Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness (Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Shoedsack)
• College (James Horne, Buster Keaton)
• The General (Clyde Bruckman, Buster Keaton)
• It (Clarence Badger)
• The Jazz Singer (Alan Crosland)
• The Kid Brother (Ted Wilde and JA Howe)
• Love (Edmund Goulding)
• Metropolis (Fritz Lang)
• My Best Girl (Sam Taylor)
• Quality Street (Sidney Franklin)
• Seventh Heaven (Frank Borzage)
• The Siren of the Tropics (Henri Etievant, Mario Nalpas)
• The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg (Ernst Lubitsch)
• Sunrise (FW Murnau)
• Underworld (Josef von Sternberg)
• The Unknown (Tod Browning)
• Wings (William A. Wellman)

King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (Seth Gordon, 2007) ***

Dir. Seth Gordon
Starring Steve Wiebe, Billy Mitchell, Walter Day

One of the more popular formats for documentaries these days has been following a group of offbeat individuals who have a passion for some unique style of competition. The king of this genre was Jeffrey Blitz’s Spellbound, which followed teenagers competing in the national spelling bee. As the genre has expanded, the competitions followed become more and more peculiar. We’ve also recently seen documentaries about inner city kids learning ballroom dancing (Mad Hot Ballroom), and obsessive Scrabble players who travel the country to play in tournaments (Word Wars). Seth Gordon’s King of Kong is one of the most original yet; it follows the battle between two guys in achieving the highest score on the classic video game Donkey Kong.

Billy Mitchell is the all time Donkey Kong champion, achieving a score that is thought to be unbeatable. He is also an ambassador for classic video gaming and is well revered among enthusiasts in that area. In one interesting segment, he is shown offering encouragement to Doris Self, who was one of the few female players to have achieved a high score on a video game back in the 80s. Steve Wiebe is a married man and father who just got laid off from his job. During his down time (with the surprising support of his wife), he decides to make a run at Billy Mitchell’s high score on Donkey Kong.

King of Kong takes us inside the interesting world of classic video game competitors. These are guys that could care less about the latest high tech gaming system. They’d rather hang out at a place like the Funspot arcade in New Hampshire, playing old school arcade games like Pac Man, Burgertime, Centipede, and of course Donkey Kong in their original versions. One of these people, Walter Day, decided there should be a central resource that verifies the high score on all video games. In the early 80s, he created Twin Galaxies, an organization that verifies high score submissions from people around the country. This organization still exists today and is even endorsed by the Guiness Book of World Records.

Gordon does a really good job of exploring this world, and initiating the viewer in the various intricacies of classic video games. The concept of a “kill screen” (when the game stops because it has run out of memory) is introduced and shown to be the pinnacle achievement that gamers try to reach. There is also a clever use of diagrams that show the patterns in a game like Donkey Kong, and help explain how Steve Wiebe’s engineering background definitely comes in handy. The people that obsess over these games aren’t mindless idiots pushing around a joystick. Casual viewers will be surprised at the level of thought and planning that these gamers go through when attempting a new record.

The film really takes off when Steve Wiebe breaks Billy Mitchell’s legendary record and Twin Galaxies gets mixed up in the fight over the validity of that score. Up to this point, Gordon’s film had painted a very positive picture of Mitchell, but that comes to a screeching halt when Mitchell and his followers attempt to discredit Wiebe’s score. This leads to Wiebe making several attempts to prove his score in person, including direct challenges to facing off against Mitchell in head to head competition. Gordon takes a completely one-sided view of events at this point, and from here on out the film paints Steve as the hero and Billy as the enigmatic villain. Gordon piles it on a bit high to make his chosen hero to look like a saint (despite some obviously poor parenting skills exhibited at one point in the film). To be fair, he does have quite a bit of video evidence to support this viewpoint, but his inability to explore Billy’s motivations for his actions really hampers the overall story that the film presents.

Despite this flaw, King of Kong remains an entertaining film thanks to the colorful and informative presentation of an obsessive hobby not many people know still existed, at least in the format shown here. Like the best documentaries, it uses real life events and fashions them to form a very satisfying story arc that leads to a surprisingly rousing conclusion. It may not reach the heights of Spellbound, but it stands shoulder to shoulder with the other strong works in this genre.

Day Night, Day Night (Julia Loktev, 2007) ***

Dir. Julia Loktev
Starring Luisa Williams

She prays to someone. She could be Christian, or Muslim, or any other religion. The prayers are kept vague so we don’t know. The specific religion is not important. It’s all about the strong conviction she has to go through with the plan. We also don’t know her name or her ethnicity (thanks to smart casting), or her specific political opinions. What’s important is she has a strong belief that she wants to do something. Julia Loktev’s interesting experimental film Day Night, Day Night follows this young woman’s journey as she prepares to be a suicide bomber. This bold idea carries the film pretty far, but the lack of narrative rhythm and a huge misstep in the third act prevent it from being completely successful.

The film starts with the unnamed woman being picked up at the airport. From that point, she is taken to a hotel room where and is told to wait. Time passes as she paces the room, looks out the window (which gets her a warning phone call not to do that), and clips her toenails. Eventually, several men (of various ethnicities) wearing ski masks show up and take her (and us) through the extensively process of preparing for the mission. This sequence is appropriately tedious. Loktev rightly has no intention of make this seem like a thrilling venture.



One of the most interesting aspects of Day Night, Day Night is how it follows the rather mundane tasks of preparing for the bombing. The camera lingers on a blinking turn signal, as the woman is mere seconds from exiting the car to go and complete her task. The people who fit her with the bomb and explain her how to use do so in the most casual manner possible. It’s like they’re teaching her how to correctly use a home appliance. There’s a disturbingly amusing scene where the planners make her try on several different outfits as if it’s an episode of America’s Next Top Suicide Bomber.

This is all very interesting to be sure, but the lack of structure does make the proceedings tedious after a while. This wouldn’t be as much of a problem if Loktev had stayed true to her vision throughout. Unfortunately, she tries to get a little too clever with a sequence in the third act, attempting to inject some unnecessary humor into the film and completely undermining her central character’s plight. This sequence is surrounded by moments of excruciating tension, which lose a bit of steam when we see our usually quiet protagonist coming up with a clever quip like she’s walked off the set of 30 Rock. This brief moment is a huge miscalculation, ruining the consistency of the film’s style, and making the repetitive earlier scenes seem rather pointless.

The film isn’t completely apolitical. While avoiding the baggage that ethnicity or religion would bring, the depiction of the main character is very telling. As played by Luisa Williams, she is a somewhat naﶥ and very nervous, and can be seen snacking up to the very moment where she is expected to carry out the plan. We are given small hints that she was drawn into this because of something that happened to someone she loves, most likely her brother. This is not the typical obviously evil person that can be spotted in a crowd. She has the presence of someone who was that clumsy girl in your sociology class one day. This is a far more upsetting depiction than someone who is confident and more capable, which is why the little comedy sequence at the end is such a big mistake.

This film deserves bonus points for even being made. Unfortunately, it has very little chance of going anywhere. In an era where Hollywood pats itself on the back for the “courage” to tackle racism in the simplistic Oscar winner Crash, there is really no room for a movie about a suicide bomber. Hopefully films like this will get more and more attention and Hollywood will have the nerve to get more daring, but until then scour your arthouse theaters if you want to see films that really challenge you, and not ones where Sandra Bullock decides not to be racist because she fell down the stairs.

License to Wed (Ken Kwapis, 2007) *

Dir. Ken Kwapis
Starring John Krasinski, Mandy Moore, Robin Williams, Josh Flitter,

Sometimes you’re watching a movie and something happens that makes so little sense that you wish the director or screenwriter or anyone involved with the film were nearby so you could shake them and ask what the hell they were thinking. In Ken Kwapis’ License to Wed, this happened on at least a dozen occasions. The film’s inability to maintain any logical consistency is remarkable considering the relatively simple story. This isn’t a labyrinthine David Lynch plot after all. This wouldn’t be such a problem if the film were funny, but despite a handful (for someone with small hands) of amusing moments, this miserable film is uncomfortable and unintentionally creepy for a variety of reasons.

License to Wed focuses on the newly engaged Ben (John Krasinski) and Sadie (Mandy Moore) who are forced (well Sadie forces Ben, but we’ll get to that later) into taking a marriage preparation course so they can get married at her family church. The course is run by Rev. Frank (Robin Williams), who we can tell is an oddball preacher because he teaches children the Ten Commandments utilizing a game show format. He puts Ben and Sadie through a series of tests designed to help them get to know each other better and apparently this will prepare them for a successful marriage, but all it does is seem to drive them apart.

This silly high concept premise suffers from a very major flaw. There is no reason for us to believe that reasonable adults would willingly subject themselves to this nonsense. Some of the “hilarious” things that they have to do include taking care of robot babies, driving blindfolded, or talk openly about sex with him in the room. The entire idea of the Robin Williams character is fatally flawed and downright disturbing. In the game show sequence, they have him delivering sexual double entendres for some of the commandments. Then he spends the rest of the film with a young boy (Josh Flitter, in a performance so annoying that it merits a Razzie nomination) who helps him out with his schemes. At no point is the boy’s parental situation explained and he performs tasks for the Reverend at all hours of the night. In the wake of major church abuse scandals that are still fairly recent, the filmmakers here seem to not have any sense of perspective.

License to Wed marks John Krasinski’s first leading role after doing three seasons of duty on the splendid TV comedy The Office. His work there is some of the best on television and some of that does carry over to this film. Krasinski’s trademark on that show are offbeat facial reactions to the uncomfortable actions of other characters. That asset is on display here, but at times you wonder if he’s reacting in character to Reverend Frank’s actions or if he’s really reacting to the horrible film he’s found himself in. He does have an ingratiating charm that makes him the only character worth rooting for in the film. Thanks to Krasinski, it’s easy to identify with Ben’s exasperated anger at the ridiculous antics of those around him.

On the other hand, Mandy Moore is unable to rise above her blandly written character. She does nothing to make us understand why Ben would put himself through all of this to marry her. The way Sadie is written certainly does not help. At every single moment where Ben tries to explain that he’s uncomfortable with something the Reverend is making them do, she completely ignores him, essentially telling him to shut up and do it. The very worst moment is when Rev. Frank has them do a trust test where Sadie drives blindfolded while Ben is supposed to give her directions from the back seat. Ben clearly does not want to do this, but Sadie yells at him for it, calling him a quitter. This is not rational behavior from any adult. If not wanting to die in a stupid car accident, not to mention potentially kill innocent bystanders, makes me a quitter then sign me up. Ben clearly agrees as would most sane people, but the way the scene is played out, the view of the film is that he’s a jerk. This is the main scene where I would like to shake Kwapis and have him explain to me how that makes any sense.

There are traces of a dark comedy in here. Just changing the tone of the movie and the events of the 3rd act and you could have a pretty interesting film about a nice guy who unfortunately falls for a selfish woman who has a nasty family and creepy pastor. In fact, there are so many disturbing moments that I wonder if the screenplay was originally written as a dark comedy and later changed by the studio. It’s clearly not what Kwapis is going for here. The film features bright colors all the way through and a final sappy romantic gesture that seems stolen straight from an episode of Beverly Hills, 90210. Of course, I’m not sure which is more embarrassing; that this film stole from a scene in that show or that I remember the scene in question.

At the end, we’re expected to believe that what Rev. Frank has done is a good thing, but there is nary a moment in the entire film that supports that. We’re also supposed to buy that Ben loves Sadie, but the five minutes of courtship that we see at the beginning of the film do nothing to make the audience understand that. On top of that, Sadie’s actions in this story are so inexcusable that they would have destroyed even the most solid of relationships. Sadie should be single for the rest of her life and Rev. Frank deserves to be in jail. As for Ben, well I hear there’s a pretty cool receptionist in Scranton that would be perfect for him.

Transformers (Michael Bay, 2007) **

Dir. Michael Bay
Starring Shia Labeouf, Megan Fox, Jon Voight, John Turturro, Peter Cullen

Michael Bay has made a name for himself with big budget spectacles that have become enormously successful at the box office. They’ve also been consistently idiotic and insulting to the audience. In films such as Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, and The Rock (his only decent film thanks to a great cast), he has employed a very annoying filmmaking technique of rapid editing that distracts the audience from the fact thet there is very little going on in the movie. Thankfully, he jettisoned that approach for this update of the classic 80s cartoon series Transformers, but what’s really interesting is the style he decided to adopt. Transformers has quite a bit in common with the silly, sappy, and sometimes unintentionally funny Roland Emmerich blockbusters like Godzilla, Independence Day, and The Day After Tomorrow. It’s definitely a better approach, but not necessarily a good one, as Transformers falls apart due to Bay’s reliance on silliness to make up for logical gaps in the plot.

The story centers around a mysterious cube device called the Allspark. On the planet of Cybertron, the Autobots and Decepticons, waged war over this item which would grant unlimited power to the owner. The Autobots gained possession of it and hid the device on Earth. Now more than a century later they have come back to prevent the Decepticons from recapturing it and destroying mankind. High school student Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) gets involved in this mess because his ancestor discovered the Allspark in an arctic expedition in the 1850’s and whose glasses (that Sam is trying to sell on Ebay) may contain a map to the location. He is aided by an Autobot named Bumblebee, who protects him from the Decepticons while waiting for the rest of the Autobots to make their way to Earth.

This basic premise is not a bad one. They had to come up with a reason for the Transformers to fight on Earth and the Allspark served as a good MacGuffin. It’s clear what Bay was interested in was exciting and elaborate fights with the various robots. The movie is certainly successful at achieving that goal. The special effects are outstanding, with completely convincing shots of the robots interacting with the humans. Also, Bay seems more confident this time around, allowing shots to run for much longer than he usually does, which will certainly nix the huge increase in sales for Tylenol that usually accompanies his films. For the first time in a Bay film, you can actually follow the various players in each action sequence.

Unfortunately, the film runs into problems with a lazy script. The Allspark serves as a good plot device, but when it starts getting explained in detail becomes extremely silly. Midway through the film, there is a clumsy explanation of how the device can be destroyed, obviously setting things up for later in the movie. Unfortunately, this presents some moral problems with the actions of the Autobots, who argue that human life is worth preserving even when it would be necessary to kill one in order to rescue a comrade. If they really believe this, then the movie should have ended a bit earlier than it does because there was an obvious solution. How many humans had to die because Optimus Prime didn’t have the courage to do what he could’ve done much earlier in the film?

Transformers has a heavy reliance on comic relief. It’s always good to have some of that in an action film, but Bay completely loses control with this one. Anthony Anderson shows up in a pointless role just to deliver random one-liners. John Turturro inhabits much of the 2nd half of the film with a bizarre character that seems to have wandered in from an X-Files repeat. The absolute worst part is an extended sequence at Sam’s home as the Transformers hide in his backyard while he tries to dodge questioning from his parents and recover the glasses. What starts off as a mildly amusing joke soon falls to the level of an awful family sitcom (complete with an awkward masturbation joke!) and the scene just keeps going and going for what seems like an eternity. Since the film already had a pretty long running time at two and a half hours, there’s no reason large portions of this scene could not have been excised from the film.

Only Shia Labeouf is able to rise above the screenplay with a strong performance at the center, utilizing his everyman appeal with an offbeat line delivery to create an interesting character. In fact, he’s the only character worth caring about. As the defense secretary, Jon Voight sleepwalks through a role that he’s played countless times before. Megan Fox tries to invest some humanity into the typical hot girl love interest, but all attempts at giving her a third dimension are wrecked by a director and screenwriter clearly interested in something else. Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson show up as military men that battle the Decepticons, but they have nothing to do other than fire guns and yell generic military dialogue. Finally, the worst character is Rachael Taylor (not her fault, though) as the typical hacker that knows all the answers but no one will listen to. The movie tries to sell her as being smart, but then later she’s too stupid to cover her tracks after copying confidential files.

Without much to care for in terms of character, dialogue, or story, the action sequences feel repetitive and dull, no matter how well they’re conceived. Of course, there is little doubt that most audiences don’t really care about the flaws I’ve pointed out. Bay and the studio know their target audience and have hit it well. As a nostalgic fan of the original animated series, even I can’t deny the pure visceral thrill of seeing the live action version of Optimus Prime transform for the first time. It’s just too bad that it wasn’t in service of a more interesting and consistent story.

Knocked Up (Judd Apatow, 2007) ***1/2

Dir. Judd Apatow
Starring Seth Rogen, Katherine Heigl, Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann

Judd Apatow strikes again with another R-rated comedy that manages to be funny and sweet at the same time. It's refreshing for someone like Apatow to be churning out comedies. In an era where Hollywood tries to trim movies so they can get a PG-13 rating (the latest egregious example being the upcoming Die Hard sequel), Apatow has now struck gold with two movies that don't compromise to this mindset. Apatow’s The 40 Year Old Virgin was a vulgar comedy with a sweet romantic core that came out to surprising success a couple years ago and turned Steve Carell into a star. Now we have Knocked Up, an even more raunchy outing that still remains the core honesty and compassion of Apatow’s previous film.

The basic plot is pretty simple, following two people that are direct opposites and their unlikely romance. Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) is an unemployed slacker who sits around all day smoking pot and working on an adult website with his similarly immature friends. Alison (Katherine Heigl) works as a production assistant for E! Entertainment Television. After landing a huge promotion that gets her the chance to be on the air, she hits a nightclub to celebrate and ends up having a one night stand with Ben. Eight weeks later, she finds out this one night stand resulted in pregnancy.

Knocked Up is filled with vulgar humor from beginning to end. In that sense it’s not much different than American Pie, Road Trip, or the various comedies of that ilk that have popped up over the last decade. Apatow’s screenplay is filled with jokes about pot, sex, What makes this movie work so well is the underlying sweetness that evades any kind of cynicism. This is a movie that is actually serious about the central romance and doesn’t just use it as a vehicle for gross out jokes. In between the vulgar raunchiness, there’s an adorable romance at the center that builds believably throughout the movie. In most romantic comedies there is a forced breakup scene that usually ends up being hopelessly contrived, but in this movie the relationship between Alison and Ben is developed organically and not one moment of it feels forced.

Apatow is also a pro at coming up with a gifted ensemble to fill the background of the central premise. In Knocked Up, one of the main attractions is the somewhat rocky marriage between Allison’s sister Debbie (played by Apatow’s wife Leslie Mann) and Pete (played by the invaluable Paul Rudd). The seemingly happy couple is a nice counterpoint to the central romance. The pressures and fears faced by Pete and Debbie feel genuine, thanks to the well defined performances from Rudd and Mann. Also on board are Ben’s gang of immature friends, filled with Apatow vets Jay Baruchel, Jason Segel, Jonah Hill, and Martin Starr. They all lend solid support, generating a wonderful comic chemistry and are responsible for the biggest laughs in the film.

Knocked Up clearly relies heavily on improvisation, which has been a constant feature of Apatow’s previous projects. This one seems even more heavily improv based than 40 Year Old Virgin, as the structure feels a bit looser and some scenes run on past their obvious ending point. Perhaps the success of his previous film allowed him the courage to take more chances and for the most part it pays off. Rogen and Rudd especially have some terrific moments during their one on one scenes, and a dinner scene featuring references to Back to the Future is a highlight. The drawback are a few scenes that run out of steam long before Apatow yelled cut, including one where drugged up Ben and Pete freak out about chairs, which starts off as funny but ends up dragging the movie at a crucial point.

Seth Rogen is an interesting choice for a leading man as he’s far from the matinee idol type. Most directors or studios would not have the creativity to cast him, even in an underdog role like this one. Rogen got his start on Judd Apatow’s critically acclaimed television shows Freaks & Geeks and Undeclared, and then went on to steal several scenes in Apatow’s The 40 Year Old Virgin. In each of those projects he has pretty much played the same character; immature slackers that enjoy drugs, alcohol, and pornography. The amazing thing about Rogen’s natural screen presence is that he invests each of these characters with so much empathy that you can’t help but root for them. In Knocked Up, He proves that someone with this quality can make a memorable lead character in a romantic comedy.

The great news is the wonderful box office success of Knocked Up. Apatow struggled in the TV realm (in ratings, not quality), but is so far two for two with feature films. Hopefully this leads to more daring output from studio executives, who can no longer have excuses for their cowardly decision to cut films for a lower MPAA rating. Judd Apatow is leading the way himself as the producer or screenwriter in several upcoming R-rated comedies. Hopefully his influence will lead to more choices for solid adult comedy in the future.

Spider-man 3 (Sam Raimi, 2007) **

Dir. Sam Raimi
Starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace

If the makers of comic book movies don’t study history, then they’re doomed to repeat it. Such is the case with Spider-Man 3, which finds itself trapped in the same murkiness as the subpar Batman sequels. After the success of the original Batman, the series made a mistake by trying to shove as many villains as possible into each film. This culminated in the franchise nadir Batman and Robin, which contained three separate villains. Sam Raimi’s Spider-man 3 runs into the very same problem, and while not as awful as that entry into the Batman franchise, it is certainly beneath the level of quality in the first two Spider-Man films.

The 3rd film in the series picks up by exploring two major developments from the previous installment. Mary Jane now has knowledge of Peter’s dual identity and their newfound romance suffers as Peter struggles handling Spider-man’s fame. Peter’s friend Harry is also aware of the dual identity and is now out to get revenge for his father. Both of these stories would be enough to cover an entire film, and probably demanded such treatment to fully work. Unfortunately, Raimi decides to fill the film with two more villains for Spider-man to deal with, Venom and Sandman. Even at an extended running time of two hours and twenty minutes, there isn’t nearly enough screen time to cover all of these story threads.

The budding romance between Peter and Mary Jane was a strong asset to the first two outing. At the end of the 2nd film they finally ended up together, promising interesting potential story developments for Spider-?Man 3. Unfortunately, Raimi’s idea of developing this romance is making Peter into a complete jerk (with the help of Venom of course), causing conflict for the young couple. The problem with this is we barely get a handful of scenes that show the two of them actually enjoying each other’s company. After spending two films watching them get to this point, Raimi spends the third outing having them fight and bicker for nearly the entire running time. It’s hard to care about a failing romance when there isn’t much romance to begin with.

The direct fault of this is the decision to pack the film with so many villains. Without so much wasted screen time, the Peter-Mary Jane story would have had a complete arc, providing us a happy couple to care about when things went sour. This also impacts the character development for the individual villains. Just like in the Batman series, packing extra villains into one film makes the backstories for each villain feel rushed. Sandman is a particularly great character and is well played by Thomas Haden Church. Unfortunately, his lack of screen time prevents us from really getting to understand his inner turmoil and family background.

At least we finally get a resolution to the Harry Osborne storyline. It was handled fairly well in the first two films, but by this outing it started to drag. Part of the problem is James Franco’s performance His mumbling, sometimes incomprehensible line delivery has been a nuisance from the very beginning, and despite slight improvements here, it robs this important character of the proper emotional impact. However, it’s not just Franco’s fault this time around. The plot developments for this subplot are absolutely ridiculous. A crucial scene where Harry learns a very important piece of information from his butler (no explanation is given for why the butler chose to wait so long to deliver this news) is so contrived that I had to check the end credits just to make sure that this was the same director who had made the intricately plotted thriller A Simple Plan.

Spider-Man 3 is not a complete disaster. The FX work is still outstanding, perhaps even surpassing the excellence of part 2. There is an abundance of CGI used, particularly for Sandman, but none of it looks like fake digital images plastered on to film like you get with lesser CGI work. Raimi shows flashes of his old self with a nifty musical detour where Peter attempts to make Mary Jane jealous. It would also be unfair to ignore the stunning moment at the end between Peter and Mary Jane, which is so well acted by Maguire and Dunst that it almost makes up for incessant bickering that plagued the rest of the film. At least that gives them something to build on for the fourth outing.

28 Weeks Later (Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, 2007) ***

Dir. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
Starring Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Imogen Poots, Mackintosh Muggleton, Catherine McCormack, Jeremy Renner

28 Weeks Later has probably one of the best ideas for a sequel in a long time. Especially since 9/11, there have been numerous films where the threat of the world ending was looming throughout, and when that threat has been thwarted, the movie abruptly ends. It’s always been a curiosity to find out what happened once the apocalyptic nightmare is over. How many people survived? How do they rebuild? In this superior sequel to Danny Boyle's zombie nightmare 28 Days Later, director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo answers those questions with a frightening and timely story.

Fresnadillo wastes no time, opening with a harrowing scene that takes us back to the time of the original film, but focusing on a different group of survivors, including Don (Robert Carlyle) and his wife (Catherine McCormack). The zombies have come for them, and during the escape Don makes a disturbing moral decision that burns through the rest of the film. Then of course we flash forward to 28 weeks later. The US Army is in London, leading the rebuilding effort. They are introducing the first set of survivors, which include Don’s two children, who understandably have several questions about what happened to their mother.

It seems that every other movie this year has had some kind of reference or inspiration by the current political and military state of the world. While 28 Weeks Later works on the simple level of a zombie movie, it’s impossible to ignore the analogy of the US being portrayed as an occupying force, and an irresponsible one at that. The theme is even furthered by the inclusion of a US Army doctor (Rose Byrne) who is critical of the hasty rebuilding process, and a Army sniper (Jeremy Renner) whose conscience forces him to disobey his orders.

Fresnadillo employs a rapid fire editing style for most of his suspense sequences. In most movies, this tactic feels tired and annoying, particularly in the films of Michael Bay and his ilk. The difference is he doesn’t do this for the entire movie. Fresnadillo actually takes some time for quieter moments, such as the snipers who use their rifle scope to spy on survivors, or the quiet emotional scene where Don explains to his children what happened to their mother. Thus when we get to the shaky cam moments, we haven’t already been inundated with it, and the unsettling experience feels entirely appropriate.

There are some standout moments in this film that surpass anything from the original. Late in the film, one character is forced to lead two others through complete darkness using a night-vision rifle scope to guide them. Several critics who have complained that this scene makes it difficult to tell what’s going on have apparently missed the entire point of the sequence. My other favorite moment, one which makes the Iraq war comparisons hit very close to home, is when the US Army’s rooftop snipers have trouble distinguishing between the infected and the uninfected.

Unfortunately, the team of screenwriters (four are credited) come up with some very lazy explanations to get the plot moving. In a very simplistic scene (if you’re going to strain credibility at least make it fun!), Don’s children are able to breach army security a little too easily. Then later on, Don is able to walk into a room with the only known infected person on the planet, which is conveniently unguarded for a long period of time. I don’t know what kind of idiot was in charge of the security plan, but even Rumsfeld couldn’t have screwed up this badly.

Still, the lack of credibility in these two scenes is not enough to destroy the film. There’s just too much to enjoy here. The screenwriters did do a good job with characterization, making several characters interesting enough to care about: the children, the army doctor, the sniper, Don and his wife and even a helicopter pilot who shows up in the third act. It should go without saying that a thriller is even scarier when you actually care about the people under attack, and that is definitely the case here. The ending certainly leaves open the possibility of another sequel, and I suppose they can keep this going forever: 28 Months Later, 28 Years Later, maybe even 28 Decades Later. If they keep up this level of quality, then I’ll definitely be there.

Grindhouse (Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, 2007) ***1/2

Dir. Robert Rodriguez (Planet Terror) and Quentin Tarantino (Death Proof)
Starring (Planet Terror) Freddy Rodriguez, Rose McGowan, Marley Shelton, Jeff Fahey, Michael Biehn
Starring (Death Proof) Kurt Russell, Rosario Dawson, Zoe Bell, Syndey Tamia Poitier, Rose McGowan

The studios have had it all wrong for years. Instead of embracing the silly fun of the low budget genre pictures that sprinkled through the drive-ins and run down theaters, they went in the exact opposite direction. What we got were bigger, faster, more explosive special effects and stunts. The technology improved at an amazing rate and this certainly led to some memorable films. Unfortunately, Hollywood began to forget what made those genre films such fun in the first place. In response to this, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez bring us Grindhouse, a knockout feature that takes us on a wild ride back to the basic simplistic pleasures of film.

Grindhouse has been advertised as a double feature, but it’s so much more than that. Tarantino and Rodriguez have turned this into a movie event. Surrounding the two feature films from the esteemed directors are trailers for fake low budget horror films. These are mostly hilarious, best of which is Rodriguez’s Machete, a gloriously trashy movie that is rumored to be made into a full length film. The one fake trailer that doesn’t work is Rob Zombie’s Werewolf Women of the SS, which is a little too in on the joke, especially with an uninspired celebrity casting choice at the end that probably sounded much funnier on paper than it played out. Aside from the trailers, the show is spiced up with fake advertisements for nearby restaurants, old-fashioned snack shop ads, and fake damage to the film prints, including missing sections to each film.

The first film is Robert Rodriguez’s Planet Terror, which starts out as a classic zombie film and gets crazier by the minute. A deadly virus is spreading throughout a small Texas town, causing those infected to turn into savage zombies. A group of survivors band together against the zombies, including a stripper named Cherry (Rose McGown), her ex-boyfriend El Wray (Freddy Rodriguez), BBQ restaurant owner JT (Jeff Fahey), Sheriff Hague (Michael Biehn), and abused wife Dakota (Marley Shelton). Things get complicated when the military gets involved, giving the survivors an extra foe to deal with.

This only touches on the surface of the insane plot. Rodriguez is clearly having a blast here, and for the most part, so is the audience. The blistering pace barely leaves the viewer a chance to breathe, and the film is not afraid to shock you with moments that are undeniably disgusting. Fangoria fans will certainly find plenty to enjoy, especially since horror makeup legend Tom Savini shows up in a small role. Rodriguez loses his way a little bit with by veering into self-parody. At times Rodriguez seems to be winking at you, whereas a more straightforward style would have served him better. Also he fails to keep Quentin Tarantino behind the camera, allowing him to chew up the screen in an embarrassing performance that really hampers the film, especially considering it comes towards the end. The proceedings eventually get back on track, coming up with a glorious action sequence that features one of the coolest ways a machine gun has ever been used.

In a smart choice, Quentin Tarantino’s slow paced Death Proof is picked as the second half of the double feature. After the breathtaking action of Planet Terror, the audience gets a chance to catch their breath and look at some cool cars and hot women. The plot is much more basic in this one. It follows a group of female friends, one of whom is a disc jockey, celebrating their friend’s birthday at a low rent bar. The film also follows another set of women who work on a movie set and desire to test drive a car from the movie Vanishing Point. Unbeknownst to them, they are being stalked by the mysterious Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell, playing off his vintage 80s image).

Tarantino's film is the real standout of the double feature. It may make audiences restless on a first viewing, as it takes a very long time to go anywhere. Tarantino spends much of his running time on endless conversations about mundane topics. However, this has become his staple, and his dialogue is as electric as ever. There are plenty of references to both Vanishing Point and Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, films that clearly inspired Death Proof. However, Tarantino isn't interested in just fooling around. Once we learn Stuntman Mike's true motivations, the film becomes a blast. The finale is a memorable car chase that doubles back on itself and uses the real life talents of stuntwoman Zoe Bell, who plays herself in the film. The thrilling scene brings us back to pre-CGI days, making it feel remarkably authentic and makes the dangerous situation all the more terrifying

It wouldn't be fair to ignore the wonderful ensemble. Rodriguez and Tarantino have assembled a cast that is perfect for the material. Several B-movie actors are appropriately along for the ride, including Jeff Fahey, Michael Biehn, Michael Parks, Rose McGowan, and Danny Trejo. Even the A-list actors are obviously chosen for how well they fit into the rugged grindhouse style. Kurt Russell coolly coasts through his role reprising his earlier mannerisms in films like Escape From New York, Bruce Willis has an interesting uncredited part as a military officer, and Rosario Dawson's stunning screen presence adds strength to her resilient character. The most surprising performance comes from Marley Shelton, who comes out of nowhere with an intense wide-eyed performance to steal Planet Terror from her costars.

As a double feature Grindhouse is a very good experiment with two strong films to support the clever gimmick. It's not an insult to say Rodriguez's output is the lesser achievement, as comparisons to Tarantino would put most filmmakers to shame. Still, Rodriguez's film seems more like a really fun trick, whereas Tarantino's is the one that will stay with the viewer long after the lights come up. The most interesting thing about Grindhouse is that in doing films that were designed to mimic the "bad" exploitation films of yesteryear, Rodriguez and Tarantino have come up with films that far surpass the standard middling mainstream fare. Perhaps a return to the basics is just what the doctor ordered to wake Hollywood up.

In the Land of Women (Jon Kasdan, 2007) ***

Dir. Jon Kasdan
Starring Adam Brody, Meg Ryan, Kristen Stewart, Olympia Dukakis, Makenzie Vega

Now here comes a mainstream movie that has taken a beating by most critics and was mostly ignored by audiences everywhere. Yet this film (while certainly flawed) does so many things right and makes several refreshingly original choice that it becomes mind boggling to consider how duds like Blades of Glory and Disturbia have received much better press. It certainly makes sense, but is no less distressing, that the latter films would perform much better in the box office, but it would be nice if studios were encouraged to reach for some originality. This is a film that needed critical support to survive, but instead they were yukking it up at Will Ferrell's antics or pretending to be scared by Disturbia's lame slasher movie ending.

In the Land of Women is about Carter Webb (Adam Brody) a soft core porn writer who's just been dealt a devastating blow; the Hollywood superstar actress he had been dating broke up with him. In his grief, he decides to take a vacation, leaving the lights of Los Angeles to help take care of his ailing grandmother who lives in a quiet suburban neighborhood. While there, he develops a relationship with the family across the street, particularly Sarah Hardwicke (Meg Ryan) and her teenage daughter Lucy Hardwicke (Kristen Stewart). The story follows how these relationships affect the three characters involved.

The film comes from Jonathan Kasdan, son of Lawrence Kasdan, and it shares his father's focus on quiet character development. The premise sounds like something that could easily be turned into a wacky sex romp, but this is a mature film that takes time to develop its three leads. Kasdan has a rally nice touch for these soft moments, such as when Carter and Sarah take their daily walks, or when Carter and Lucy spend time on the football field. These moments work not only because the three leads have a very easy unforced chemistry between them, but also because Kasdan's observant screenplay does a good job capturing the way real people talk and interact.

Kasdan is not interested in letting a formula dictate the actions of his character. Other than a few moments in the third act, standard plot devices are not to be found in this movie. The relationships between the three leads develop in interesting and unpredictable ways. This is not a movie about which one Carter will get in the sack. It's not even about the trite romantic comedy cliche of who he will end up with happily ever after. Instead, the story explores how Carter's chance appearance makes all three characters reassess where they currently are in their lives.

As good as the film is developing its leads, the supporting characters are very poorly handled. Sarah's husband appears so infrequently that at first it was hard to tell if they were separated or not. His exclusion from much of the story cheapens the dramatic payoff of his character's revelation. Lucy has her own drama in the high school world and Kasdan never gets a chance to find a grasp on this section of the movie. Lucy's boyfriend is a typical jock but she seems to get along better with his best friend. Once again, the exclusion of these characters from most of the film hampers the eventual resolution of this subplot.

Also problematic is the treatment of Carter's grandmother. Portrayed by the great Olympia Dukakis, she is treated like a punch line throughout the movie. At one point, she answers the door without pants on, a scene that was played up in the few ads that were run for the film. Some of this was admittedly funny, but it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the film. Late in the film, when Kasdan asks us to care about the grandmother, it rings completely hollow and feels like a plot device more than anything else.

A film like this requires strong performances to carry it and that's we get here. Adam Brody gets away from The O.C. and shows he can play a character much different than hyper motor mouth Seth Cohen. He has perhaps the most difficult role, mostly reacting to the events around him, but sells it well and develops a nice chemistry with the other leads. Meg Ryan's performance remains refreshingly reserved even when events in the third act threaten to lead to overacting. However, the real revelation here is Kristen Stewart. In every single scene, you can sense a stunning screen presence threatening to break out and there always appears to be something going on behind those expressive eyes.

While In the Land of Women struggles a bit getting through its third act, its still a nice achievement for Kasdan's debut. He shows some promising filmmaking skill, especially the pacing. Despite the somewhat loose structure of his plot, the film never feels long. Actually the problems with subplots and supporting characters may be due to the short 97 minute running time. The film could have used a good extra 20 minutes and it would have been just fine. As is, this is simply a decent movie with some really strong moments between its three leads, and it should not be overlooked in favor of the more mundane studio fare.

Away From Her (Sarah Polley, 2007) ***1/2

Dir. Sarah Polley
Starring Gordon Pinsent, Julie Christie, Olympia Dukakis, Kristen Thomson, Wendy Crewson

In Away From Her, director Sarah Polley tackles the issue of Alzheimer’s disease and how it affects an older married couple. This is a movie that could have gone wrong in so many ways. With a young director, many might question her ability to handle such mature issues. Certainly she’d ruin it with cheap payoffs and ludicrous overacting. The plot itself could have easily been done as a cheap TV-movie. However, Sarah Polley the actress has always been known to make risky choices. After making her breakthrough with the lyrical Atom Egoyan masterpiece The Sweet Hereafter, Polley refused to take the easy route, choosing mostly independent films from directors as varied as David Cronenberg, Doug Liman, Michael Winterbottom, and Wim Wenders. With her first film as director, Polley stays true to that philosophy, making an honest and mature film without standard contrivances.

The film tells the story of Fiona (Julie Christie) and Grant (Gordon Pinsent), an older married couple who haven’t spent more than a month apart in thirty years. When Fiona begins forgetting simple things, they soon learn that she has Alzheimer’s disease. Even worse is the realization that the onset has been so severe that they’re left with no choice but to send her to a nursing home. Their once unbreakable bond becomes severely tested by this separation, especially when Fiona begins to turn her affections to a fellow patient.

Polley’s previous association with Atom Egoyan is evident in nearly every frame of this story. She adapted the screenplay from a short story by Alice Munro, and clearly made a point to make the dialogue as poetic as in Egoyan’s films. What’s amazing is how well it works. At no point does the dialogue feel forced, and that’s a testament to the performances of her cast. Working with actors mostly well above her age range, she shows a distinctive skill at coaxing natural performances from them. The only one that doesn’t work is Wendy Crewson as an annoyingly perky administrator at the nursing home. The idea of the character is sound, but Crewson plays it a bit too broadly to work in the context of this film.

An interesting narrative structure is employed to liven up a pretty basic plot. The story of Fiona and Grant dealing with news of the disease is intercut with scenes of Grant visiting the home of a woman who seems to know Fiona. This sort of time shifting structure has been employed excessively in recent films, but here it serves a better purpose than the director just showing off. The woman Grant visits, played by Olympia Dukakis, is extremely important to the overall story and the plot structure allows her relationship with Grant to have a complete arc, instead of a random interruption into the proceedings halfway through.

Julie Christie is sure to get plenty of attention for her wonderful portrait of a woman whose memory makes it difficult to remember where her emotions should lie, but the most stunning performance comes from Gordon Pinsent. A veteran Canadian actor with 99 credits to his name, he’s stayed mostly under the radar in the states, but hopefully that will change soon. His beautifully reserved performance is a splendid example of natural acting that hasn’t been seen since Peter Fonda in Ulee’s Gold. Also stunning in a supporting role is Kristen Thomson, as a nurse who presents Grant with the blunt realities of his situation.

There is one unfortunate moment where Polley takes us completely out of the film. While watching news coverage of the Iraq War, Fiona bursts out, “Don’t they remember Vietnam?” This analogy is not without merit (it has certainly made countless times), but it does not belong in this story. The entire movie takes place in the small context of the individual lives affected by the disease. This simplistic moment punctures that careful little world that Polley had created and interrupts the reserved, somber atmosphere of the film. While this may seem like a fairly small moment, it sticks out like a sore thumb, akin to a great novel having one page ripped out and replaced with something from Danielle Steele.

Thankfully the movie is able to recover its momentum, and other than some minor contrived plot points (in a key scene, Grant is able to retrieve an address too easily), Away From Her is a remarkable debut for Sarah Polley. She shows a maturity that surpasses most Hollywood filmmakers. There’s a suggestion that Grant had an affair, and he wonders if she is punishing him for it. At several points in the film, Polley is willing to let things go unresolved. She understands that what actually happened is far less important than how it affected the characters involved. There should be no question about it; Sarah Polley is a promising filmmaker, and at the age of 28 already has a great film under her belt.

The TV Set (Jake Kasdan, 2007) ***

Dir. Jake Kasdan
Starring David Duchovny, Sigourney Weaver, Ioan Gruffudd, Lindsay Sloane, Judy Greer

Jake Kasdan’s The TV Set is a comedy about veteran TV staff writer Mike Klein (David Duchovny). He’s just about to reach his dream of seeing his own pilot script being made into a TV series, but must jump through a few hoops before that happens. Those hoops include: slightly insane network president Lenny (Sigourney Weaver) who lets her preteen daughter make judgments on the prospective television shows, network interference with casting of his male lead, and network requests for script changes that water down his main premise. As Jake juggles artistic pride with financial necessity, Kasdan uses this story to make pointed comments about the nature of modern American television.

The TV Set is an amusing satire with several knowing jabs at Hollywood, and will probably be funniest to those familiar with how the TV industry works. They will understand the amusing swipes at the nature of pilot season, network upfronts, and demographic targets. That doesn’t mean it won’t be enjoyable for those unfamiliar with those terms. The overall story still stands fairly well on it’s own, and it’s very amusing to watch Mike’s increasing despair as his show gets trashed by the network and their reliance on focus groups.

It’s not a coincidence that Kasdan has populated this film with actors most known for their television experience. Besides David Duchovny (X-Files),we have Justine Bateman (Family Ties) as Mike’s wife, Lucy Davis (UK version of The Office) as a network exec’s wife, Kathryn Joosten (The West Wing) as an editor, and Lindsey Sloane (Grosse Point, also a TV industry satire) as the actress who wins the job of female lead. By doing this, you get the sense that while Kasdan is satirizing television, he’s doing it from the position of a nostalgic fan. This perspective is much more interesting than if it came from an arrogant elitist.

The TV Set loses its focus in a subplot that follows a former BBC executive (who struggles to deal with the American television format. It’s perfectly reasonable for Kasdan to criticize American television by comparing it to the BBC, and utilizing The Office’s Lucy Davis to dole out some of the criticism was a smart idea. Unfortunately, all of this is trapped in an annoying family subplot, as Davis struggles with adapting to the United States and is constantly seen either pouting or crying because her husband is working late and missing family functions. This becomes tiresome very quickly, and is an abhorrent waste of the actress’ considerable comedic talents.

There are some amusing sight gags in the film. During network meetings, the network primetime schedule can be seen in the background. Mixed in with real life programs are fake shows that unfortunately sound all too real, such as Malibu D.A., Skrewed, and Stat. The funniest is Slut Wars, a Survivor-type reality series with scantily clad women that becomes a major hit for the network. This at first seemed a bit too broad but when you consider the nature of prime time television, it’s really not that far off. Perhaps the scariest title of all is JAG. It’s frightening to think of a world where that didn’t get canceled yet.

Some of the gags are a bit too broad. A network session where they test two different versions of Mike’s show before a focus group has some great potential. Unfortunately, the people involved in the focus group are portrayed as ridiculous caricatures and the scene loses most of its inherent humor. Weaver’s entire performance is over the top, with contorted facial movements that distract from her otherwise amusing material. Mike’s constant back problems throughout the movie lead to an unnecessary development that turns out to be a contrived reason for him to not appear at the focus group meeting.

Kasdan occassionally falls prey to some of his own criticisms. He makes several points in the film about how TV caters to hormones and turns women into objects, noting how the focus group responds to Lindsey Sloane’s character. However, in an early scene he kinda does this to Sloane herself, showing her in a changing room with very little clothing. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it diminishes the strength of your argument when you do the very same thing.

Still, it’s hard to deny that this is a pretty funny film. Kasdan is a talented director with a good eye for satire and he’s put together an amusing cast. David Duchovny pulls off a great slow burn throughout the course of the film and Lindsey Sloane has the perfect pitch for her character. Despite the several flaws and an abrupt ending, this is an enjoyable comedy that hits its targets more often than not.

The Host (Bong Joon-Ho, 2007) ***1/2

Dir. Bong Joon-Ho
Starring Song Gang-ho, Byun Hee-bong, Ko Ah-sung, Park Hae-Il, Bae Du-na

Not many people would consider a South Korean horror film their idea of a fun night at the movies. And that is a shame because Joon-ho Bong's The Host (known as Gwoemul in South Korea) is a film that so many people would enjoy. It may come from a director that most people never heard of, or actors that most audiences haven't seen before, but it is made with so much artistry and unrelenting joy that it feels like an expertly made Hollywood film that could have come from the likes of Steven Spielberg. Unfortunately, language barriers have limited this film to only 70 theatres nationwide, but it is absolutely worth making the trip to the downtown art theater to catch this lively thriller.

After a silly setup involving chemical spillage, we are transported to an ordinary, sunny day in Seoul. Park Hee-Bong (Byun Hee-Bong) is a elderly man who owns a snack shop on the banks of the Han river. Working in the snack shop is his lazy, blundering son Gang-du (Song Gang-ho) whose wife abandoned the family long ago. One day, a gigantic sea creature appears out of nowhere and begins eating all the tourists and residents in sight. One of those eaten is Gang-du's daughter Hyun-Seo (Ko Ah-sung). As the family grieves over her loss, Gang-du gets a mysterious phone call from Hyun-Seo, learning that she is not dead but trapped. Gang-du and his family set out to rescue her from the sea creature.

The most notable thing about The Host is how much fun it has developing the individual family members. Also on board are Gang-Du's siblings; unemployed college graduate Nam-Il (Park Hae-Il) and expert archery competitor Nam-joo (Bae Du-na). Together, the group makes for a very amusing dysfunctional family. There are a number of emotional issues simmering underneath, and they all come out here. It's almost as if the sea creature attack is their own version of a typical American Thanksgiving dinner. The most interesting relationships are drawn between Gang-du and his seemingly disappointed father, and then between Gang-du and his pitying siblings. The way the family emotions work themselves out in humorous style throughout the course of the film is reminiscent of last year’s indie winner Little Miss Sunshine. Just imagine a large sea creature chasing Steve Carell.

The Host owes plenty to the classic monster movies of the past and it does them justice. The opening attack by the creature is beautifully staged, with crowds of people attempting to flee the scene, many of them unsuccessful. Gong-du attempts to battle the villain, using a variety of handy props to hurl in its direction. Sure, the creature is a bit silly, but that only reinforces the film’s knowing homage to the beloved genre. While the proceedings are mostly goofy, the action scenes are incredibly well put together, avoiding the rapid cutting technique that plagues modern Hollywood action directors. Instead, Bong chooses large shots that capture all of the action at once.

The Host is a fun ride, but there are a few missteps along the way. Showing us the exact location of the girl is a big mistake, as it takes away some of the mystery that could have been created otherwise. Also problematic is Bong’s decision to follow the girls exploits as the creature’s prisoner. This only takes away from the interesting far more interesting moments between the family members. The film tries to get a little too political for its own good. While an examination of US-South Korea relations is certainly a timely topic, it just doesn’t work here and feels unnecessary in a film that at 119 minutes already runs long for its genre.

The film has been praised for avoiding the sentimentalism of Spielberg, most notably in War of the Worlds. This is an odd comparison, because if anything, The Host has an overly sentimental ending with a sudden twist that does not work at all with the overall goofy nature of the movie. It forces the audience to accept something we don't really care about. Sure the end of War of the Worlds was ridiculously schmaltzy, but at least there was reason to care about father and son reuniting. In The Host, Bong attempts mixing a melancholy ending with ultimate happiness, but the result is a final scene so contrived that even Spielberg at his worst could never hope to achieve.

Despite getting lost at a few points, The Host is an extremely entertaining motion picture. Joon-ho Bong displays a keen eye for perfectly setting up an action sequence and perfectly balances exciting suspenseful moments with a series of comic moments exploring the dysfunctional family. His talented cast finds the perfect note for the characters, never allowing them to become so silly that all sense of reality is lost. American filmmakers have plenty to learn from this film, and American audiences would do well to embrace this film and the many others like it that come from overseas and struggle to find distribution.

Grade: B+

Disturbia (DJ Caruso, 2007) *1/2

Dir. DJ Caruso
Starring Shia LaBeouf, Sarah Roemer, David Morse, Carrie-Anne Moss, Aaron Yoo

There's a really nice shot early on in Disturbia that provides a glimmer of hope that director DJ Caruso might have a clue. After a harrowing car accident scene, one character escapes from the burning vehicle and rushes to the other side to check on the passenger. Caruso avoids showing a gruesome shot of what happened to the passenger, and instead shows us the horrified reaction of the other character. While this was likely done to achieve a PG-13 rating instead of an R, it still shows a nice instinct that is unfortunately missing from the rest of the film, which takes a premise based on Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window and throws it away with a third act that owes more to Friday the 13th.

Kale (Shia LaBeouf) is a troubled teenager dealing with his father’s recent death. One day he gets fed up with his teacher and punches him in the face. He avoids jail time but the judge decides to restrict him to house arrest. To enforce the conditions of house arrest, he must wear an ankle bracelet that prevents him from leaving his house. Stuck in his house for the summer, Kale starts to peep through his neighbor’s windows and begins to suspect that the mysterious Mr. Turner (David Morse) might be a serial killer.

The film has a very labored and slow build up to explain the central premise. Even after setting up the reasoning for the ankle bracelet, Caruso must go through a series of teen movie cliches before Kale's mother puts her foot down and cuts off his ability to play XBOX games, his ITunes account, and severs the power cord to the television. Now he watches the neighbors because he's bored, a point that could have been made in about 15 minutes less screen time.

The premise has plenty of potential, but the film severely limits itself by only really focusing on one person in the neighborhood to watch. Sure there is the requisite scene where Kale spies on various people in the neighborhood, noting a few that are having sex or have odd habits. But this is quickly dispensed with as he focuses on Mr. Turner. By doing so, it prevents the chance to give us any real surprise with the ending. It would have been much more interesting, and made the film’s ending seem less mundane, to follow multiple characters through the window.

Disturbia doesn’t have much time for that, because it wants to also tell a story of teen romance as Kale begins to fall for new neighbor Ashley (Sarah Roemer). To be fair, this doesn’t come off quite as bad as it could have. There is reasonable chemistry between LaBeouf and Roemer. However, this subplot becomes rather pointless as Ashley has very little impact on the outcome of the movie. An interesting thread, involving her emotionally abusive parents seems to have been excised from the film, and she stunningly disappears from sight during the film’s conclusion.

Despite this, there is some reasonable tension created by the central premise. The middle section of the film, where Kale and his friends try to figure out what Mr. Turner is up to, occasionally builds a decent amount of suspense. Unfortunately, Caruso is not interested in a psychological thriller or really doing anything thought provoking. He completely switches gears in the third act and abandons the entire story by turning the film into a slasher movie. And not even a very good one at that. The grand finale is a long sequence that takes place in an elaborate set that could not possibly exist given the character’s history at that house.

Instead of creating a stylish sense of atmosphere and building suspense to create scares, Caruso relies on cheap tactics to get to the viewer. There are numerous moments in Disturbia where a character bumps into someone or is suddenly surprised by another person, creating gasps in the audience. This is fine to do once, but here it is put to excessive use and by the time the 5th fake scare rolled around, it was hard to care about the real ones anymore. There is one sequence that almost works, where Kale’s friend Ronnie goes over to the house to try and find out what is inside a bag, while Kale does lookout duty. Unfortunately this scene is riddled with a number of logical inconsistencies, including Ronnie conveniently disappearing for a short time under circumstances that make absolutely zero sense in retrospect.

The most staggering thing to notice is that this film has received glowing reviews across the board. Respected critics from to David Edelstein to A.O. Scott are raving about this film and it received a 67% score from the Rotten Tomatoes website. It seems odd that this film would be rewarded with such high praise considering it fails at almost every level most critics tend to rate thrillers. I can understand getting wrapped up in the clever high concept premise, but there is no getting around the atrocious third act. If we don't challenge filmmakers to do anything more thoughtful than a slasher movie ending, then we don't deserve any better.

Grade: C

Blades of Glory (Josh Gordon and Will Speck, 2007) **

Dir. Josh Gordon and Will Speck
Starring Will Ferrell, Jon Heder, Jenna Fischer, Will Arnett, Amy Poehler

There’s nothing wrong with making an excessively silly movie. Sometimes it can be great to just sit back and laugh without concern for the deeper issues of the moment. In the past, movies such as The 40 Year Old Virgin and The Nutty Professor have had success at doing this. The problem with Blades of Glory is that it removes itself so far from reality that it’s hard to care about anything that happens in the film, and what we’re left with is not funny enough to overcome the paper thin premise.

Blades of Glory tells the story of rival figure skaters Chazz Michael Michaels (Will Ferrell) and Jimmy MacElroy (Jon Heder). At a major competition, they end up tied and must share the gold medal. During the medal ceremony, the jealous duo gets into an embarrassing fight, leading to their lifetime ban from the sport. Several years later, the pair are convinced to give it a go again as the first male-male pairs skating team. The requisite contrived explanation notes they were only banned from individual competition. They face difficulties along the way, including their own hatred for each other and the threat of a sadistic brother and sister pairs team (Amy Poehler, Will Arnett).

The events in Blades of Glory are played out in a ridiculous over the top manner. The routines that Chazz and Jimmy perform are not just exaggerated versions of real life routines, but a series of bizarre moments that are completely disconnected from reality. Jimmy pulls out a dove at the end of one of his performances, and Chazz doesn’t even perform a real routine, completely stopping at several points and interacting with the audience. Figure skating routines are ripe material for a good satire, but Blades of Glory goes too far and thus loses any connection with the very subject it wishes to parody.

The film makes sure to prevent any connection to the two main characters. Both of them are presented as silly caricatures instead of anything resembling real people. Perhaps the funniest aspect of the pair is that they are inspired by Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan (who makes her own cameo in the film). Unfortunately we’re not really given any reason to root for this duo, other than the fact that their rivals are horrible people. As the film builds in predictable fashion towards the climax, its hard to care if Chazz and Jimmy will win because the movie has been telling us all along to laugh at them, not root for them.

Of course, all of these gripes would be rather pointless if the film was funny enough. For the most part, Blades of Glory fails to maintain a consistent comic tone, missing its targets more often than not. The usual assortment of toilet humor is on display here, with plenty of crotch jokes, vomit scenes, and boob grabbing. Some of this is admittedly funny, particularly a scene where Chazz is caught in an uncompromising situation and his attempts to cover it up (so to speak) only makes things worse. Unfortunately, these moments are few and far between. The rest is a fairly repetitive sequence of events that gets old really fast and suggests that this was material better suited for a short Saturday Night Live sketch.

Part of the blame must go to filmmakers Josh Gordon and Will Speck, former directors of popular television commercials. They appear to be out of place with a 93 minute running time. The timing between the actors often seems to be out of sync, especially with Amy Poehler and Will Arnett. Both are extremely talented comic actors, but here the best they can do is sneer throughout the entire film, and many of the jokes written for the pair fall completely flat. Upstaging them is the wonderful Jenna Fischer, who plays the mistreated younger sister of the pair. Fischer’s sheepish vulnerability is put to good use here, and she is the only character in the entire film that resembles a human being.

There are a few things that work in the movie. Gordon and Speck put together a hilarious extended chase sequence near the end of the movie where characters must use figure skates on surfaces clearly not intended for that purpose. There’s an amusing running bit with a stalker, who casually mentions he will kill Jimmy one day, even while he’s gushing over him. This suggests some potential filmmaking talent, but perhaps for their next outing the pair will put as much thought and effort into their film as Jimmy and Chazz put into their routines.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley (Ken Loach, 2007) **

Dir. Ken Loach
Starring Cillian Murphy, Padraic Delaney, Liam Cunningham, Sabrina Barry, Gerard Kearney

The Wind That Shakes the Barley is a beautifully photographed film with expansive views of the Irish countryside. It contains a cast filled with authentic performers, who feel just right fitting into the period setting. It seems clear that the events of the film are very personal to director Ken Loach, given the way he understandably tips the scales in the favor of his own point of view. Despite these admirable strengths, the film never comes together because Loach’s reserved technique saps away the inherent dramatic power contained in the story.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley transports us to 1920’s Ireland and the struggle for Irish independence. Teddy (Padraic Delaney) is the leader of a local guerilla group, but his brother Damien (Cillian Murphy) just wants to get through medical school. After witnessing a series of atrocities, Damien is inspired to join the cause and fights valiantly for his country. When a treaty is signed that gives Ireland a limited version of home rule, the brothers priorities change once again and they end up fighting against each other in a brutal civil war that would tear Ireland apart.

This isn’t a typical war movie filled with expansive battle scenes. Loach portrays the war as a series of smaller conflicts led by guerilla groups. The men fighting aren’t your typical grunts, but the average working class man fed up with British rule. The hardworking local citizenry risk their homes and their lives to support the cause. The drab colors used suggest a dreary existence for these people, and fighting for independence is the one thing they can cling to that gives their life meaning.

Loach makes an incisive point about how war can change people. A truce is signed in 1921 that ends hostilities, but only allows a limited version of independence and still demands allegiance to the British crown. Teddy is a naturally gifted leader and he clearly doesn’t want to give that up, thus he supports the treaty, allowing him to continue a leadership role in the new Irish army. However, Damien is haunted by some of the actions he undertook during the war. He can only reconcile such actions with his total commitment to his belief in full Irish independence. To him, everything he had done was worthless if he has to swear an oath to the very country he changed his entire life to fight against. Thanks to Murphy's strong performance, Damien's transformation is one of the few aspects of the film that is emotionally involving.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley has a decidedly one sided view about the treaty situation. The film clearly takes a stand against the truce and those who support it are considered traitors or cowards. This is certainly Loach’s right to take the anti-treaty side, but he demeans the complexity of the situation by presenting a one-dimensional view of the opposing argument. Any attempt to give weight to the pro-treaty side is thrown aside by the thematic weight of the ending and the trashing of IRA hero Michael Collins (not to mention future British hero Winston Churchill). It should be noted that even Eamonn de Valera, the Irish president who opposed the treaty at the time, would later remark that his own opposition was a mistake.

Even this would be fine if there had been some passion in the filmmaking, but everything here is told in a dry, reserved manner better suited for a more objective view of events. During the most horrific moments, including the execution of a childhood friend, Loach generally pulls the camera back and observes things from a distance. This makes it feel more like a history lesson than a personal story about the fight for independence. Even in the film’s final scene, Loach doesn’t let us connect with a key character, almost completely muting the tragedy that has taken place.

Loach also fails with a misguided attempt to try and show a balanced portrait of the Catholic Church’s role during the conflict. Early in the film, a priest is shown nobly praying for the IRA members. Later on, during a sermon, a priest attacks the anti-treaty crowd and threatens them with excommunication. There is some potency to the complaint against the Church’s involvement in political matters, but without enough time to fully explore this or enough care to create a more three dimensional character, it would have been a better idea to leave it out completely.

There is no doubt that that the struggle for Irish independence was a very noble cause, and the argument against the treaty has considerable merit. The atrocities committed by the British throughout the film and throughout Irish history are certainly abhorrent. However, Loach’s vision ultimately fails because he is either uninterested in the deeper intricacies of the situation or unable to provide a more visceral and intimate connection to the very people fighting for independence.

Screening Log (May 2007)

---

Spider-man 3 (Sam Raimi, 2007) **
Seen: May 19th
Format: Theater (UA Perimeter Pointe 10)

Even with the somewhat subdued critical reception this one had received, this still has to rank as a major disappointment. The 3rd film in this series finds the same flaws as in the Batman series. There are just too many damned villains. Not only do we have Sandman and Venom, but there's still Harry Osborne to deal with. None of these are handled with satisfaction, particularly the Harry situation. The Harry storyline is horribly wrapped up, with an extremely contrived and cloying scene that is really beneath Raimi.

---

Day Night Day Night (Julia Loktev, 2007) ***
Seen: May 13th
Format: Comcast On Demand (IFC In Theaters)

Interesting experimental film about a young woman preparing to be a suicide bomber. You don't know her ethnicity, her religion, or her political motivation. The film rather plainly follows the various mundane activities that take place before she sets off on her mission. Almost has the courage to stay consistent all the way through, but gets a little too clever at one spot near the end. More interesting than compelling, but enough to make it worth watching. Full review forthcoming...

---

28 Weeks Later (Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, 2007) ***1/2
Seen: May 12th
Format: Theater (UA Perimeter Pointe 10)

Probably one of the best ideas for a sequel in a long time. In films with the threat of the world ending, its always been a curiosity to find out what happened once the apocalyptic nightmare was thwarted, and thats what we get here. The film has a wonderful little twist that adds a whole other villain for the survivors to be worried about. Director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo outdoes Danny Boyle on the suspense scale with several expertly staged scare sequences, including a brilliant opening that sets up a moral dilemma that reverberates throughout the rest of the film. The major problems are two incredibly contrived sequences where security is breached to move the plot along. Full review forthcoming...

---

Half Nelson (Anna Fleck, Ryan Boden, 2006) **1/2
Seen: May 10th
Format: DVD

Hard to wrap my head around this. It's certainly a movie that defies conventions, and contains terrific performances from leads Ryan Gosling and Shareeka Epps. However, the story just doesn't seem to go anywhere. Sure, it's supposed to deal with realistic situations instead of conventional movie storytelling, but so many scenes linger on for far too long and the pacing suffers as a result. However, the performances are strong enough to overcome this and the conclusion is undeniably moving.

---

Close to Home (Vardit Bilu and Dalia Hagar, 2007) *1/2
Seen: May 9th
Format: Comcast On Demand (IFC in Theaters)

Certainly a well meaning movie, but utterly inept on almost every level. Tells the story of two female soldiers in the Israeli army. The attempt to make a political statement is halfhearted at best, and the relationship between the two leads is not convincingly developed. There's a really nice scene near the end of the film, where the filmmakers cut away from a horrific moment, but you can still hear the audio. It's the only inspired moment in the entire film. Full review forthcoming...

---

The Prestige (Christopher Nolan, 2006) **1/2
Seen: May 9th
Format: DVD

Nolan's film is beloved by many, and it is certainly more substantial (in many ways) than The Illusionist. Unlike the latter film, this one actually has some clever twists to be proud of, and the technical work is even stronger. Sets up an interesting battle between two magicians; Borden (Christian Bale), who is a great illusionist but poor showman and Angier (Hugh Jackman) who is the direct opposite. What's intersting is that the film suffers from the same problems as Borden. There are plenty of neat tricks within the complicated plot, but its really not that much fun. The screenplay gets so caught up in trying to surprise that it forgets to develop any of the three major female roles. The result is a movie with some wonderful visuals and surprises, but in the end it's hard to care about anything that happens.

---

Spider-man (Sam Raimi, 2002) ***
Seen: May 5th
Format: Comcast On Demand

Watched this again in preparation for seeing the new film. Not nearly as good as I remembered it initially, and part 2 seems far superior at this point, although my impression of that one may change on a second viewing as well. This is still a decent adaptation of the comic book, but there is some clumsy plotting throughout, including the Peter/Mary Jane/Harry love triangle. The action scenes are also not quite as memorable this time around, with the climactic fight being particularly disappointing. Still some enjoyable stuff here, with Tobey and Kirsten putting in performances that are lively enough to stand out amongst all the CGI.

---