Movie Review - Pacific Rim

Every now and again, a movie comes along that has "truth in advertising."  A lot of action movies are this way: What you see in the trailer is what you get. 

Pacific Rim is one of those movies.

I'll be the first to admit, much as I had trepidation over Cloverfield, Pacific Rim was another movie that I saw the trailers and thought "this is either going to be great or really suck."

I know some of my concerns had to do with having high hopes for the Joe Haldeman (one of my favorite authors) written and Stuart Gordon (ReAnimator, From Beyond) directed "Robot Jox" from 1990.  While the movie is not hideous, it never lived up to the movie I felt it could be.  If you haven't seen it, it is Cold War politics meets the Transformers with stop motion animation.  As the movie has aged it has become an interesting social commentary on both the cold war as well as the action movie "apprentice" sub-genre and the "style over substance" that heavily influenced the cyberpunk movement.

I've read a lot of reviews of Pacific Rim after seeing the film and many of them tend to be along the lines of "this is either the greatest shitty movie ever made or the shittiest great movie ever made."

For me, I enjoyed the film thoroughly.

With a lot of action films the biggest issue is pacing.  Either the director goes all in and you're subjected to a constant barrage of fights, chases and explosions all wrapped around a thin shell of story, or you're given an earnest attempt at a plot that just so happens to have a lot of action interspersed.  

The problem with the first type of film is any break in the action tends to throw the user out of their suspension of disbelief and they really start to question why they are watching this.  For those in this category you come across a problem with fatigue brought on by sensory overstimulation.  The second can work but it's a careful balance that most directors/editors get wrong and once again I, as the viewer, am left, usually after an over the top action scene looking around the theater/room as suspension of disbelief is lost.

Pacific Rim is one of the most perfectly paced films that I've seen.  

Guillermo Del Toro made a movie that made visual sense, had exposition that moved fast enough, especially after actions sequences that, as a viewer, I never lost the flow of the movie.

Speaking of visual, there are many reason I never watch the Academy Awards, and this year is no different.  I get it, awards ceremonies are political popularity contests.  However, as with Cloverfield and sound editing, that Pacific Rim was not nominated for any of the visual/technical awards is just insulting.  With most CG heavy movies the user is left with scenes that don't make visual sense or have such glaring spots where you are thrown out of the suspension of disbelief because the CG is just so unrealistic.

Pacific Rim balanced computer generated effects with practical beautifully.  This is a visually stunning movie, but the CG is so seamless that I never once stopped to think "hey this is CG."  Both the robots (Jaeger) and the monsters (Kaiju) where rendered with such care and precision that when they are fighting or moving toward a fight I never once considered this was CG.  Del Toro made some very smart choices to keep the movie visually dark; most of the battle scenes take place at night, but even when there are daylight shots the CG is not apparent.  

As this movie drew closer to release I did start watching the "making of" featurettes which Del Toro released.  To me one of the greatest achievements of this film is the practical effects.  The inside of the Jaegers are, for the most part practical.  They built multi-ton hydraulic platforms that the actors interacted with, including moving the arm and leg armatures.  It has always been a pet peeve of mine that both movies and TV shows seem to get very lazy, especially with coffee cups and don't fill them with liquid.  It is flat out obvious that there is no weight to these items and the actors aren't moving a muscle.  Not so with Pacific Rim.  You can tell the actors were seriously working out when inside the Jaegers. 

The sets on this film are also incredibly well done. From the wall in Alaska, to the Shatterdome where the Jaegers are housed to the downtown Hong Kong scenes everything makes visual sense.  Plus, as a cyberpunk writer/fan, I enjoyed the visual nod to Blade Runner in the Hong Kong scenes.  Granted, since I've never been to Hong Kong it's possible that is what it looks like, but since I have no experience, I'm going with an homage to Blade Runner.

So, is the movie perfect? 

No.

I had some nitpicks with both the casting of the movie as well as the acting. 

The main casting issue I had was the hero and his foil.  It's a time honored tradition, especially in action films with a war theme to have two strong male characters that butt heads.  And Pacific Rim is no different.  The issue I have is that the actors they cast where too physically similar so when they do get in a scuffle you lose their identity.

But maybe that was the point.  There is a lot of subtlety to this movie so it's possible that he was making a "two sides of the same coin" type of statement. 

A secondary casting problem I had was Charlie Day.  And this is personal.  I just don't like him as an actor and I know it is mostly his vocal inflections that grate against something within my head.  From an acting perspective his character was delivered very well, but when he opens his mouth I just want him to close it.

As I mentioned, my other issue was the acting and this could, once again, be a statement by Del Toro that just didn't resonate with me at times. 

Pacific Rim makes no bones that it is a movie of cinematic iconography.  The problem is that some of the actors delivered their iconic lines with Shakespearian fury while others, especially the foil seemed to think that these lines where to be delivered a la Sylvester Stallone.  It's a small criticism since the pacing of the movie generally pushed past some of the awkward acting moments such that it wasn't until after the film was over that I started to dissect the performances.

Finally I'd like to touch back on something I alluded to earlier, the subtlety of the film. 

While the movie is a grandiose spectacular, there are a lot of small touches that really enhance the film either in the immediacy or in thinking about it later.  The obvious homage is the pinup decal on Gipsy Danger, a nod to US bomber sin WW2. I noticed some of the color usage myself, but it really resonated with my wife.  If you want to read a great detailed analysis of it, please check out this link which is much more eloquent on the subject than I could ever be: http://stormingtheivorytower.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-visual-intelligence-of-pacific-rim.html

Overall I loved Pacific Rim and on subsequent viewings of it I keep picking out little details I missed in previous sittings.

Star Wars

Once upon a time, the man ripped off a classic samurai film and thus created an Empire. Ever since then, he's been under the delusion that his vision is paramount and that no ones opinion but his own matters.

My understanding is he rejected Frank Darabont's Indy 4 script because it wasn't the movie he wanted to make. One problem, George; you're not making it, Spielberg is.

As for miticlorians, I'm honestly not sure where he got the beta version of Crack 2.0, but somehow he didn't read the Terms of Service which says it might be buggy.

In either case, while I admire the original Star Wars trilogy, and while I appreciate some of the additions he did to them when he released the special editions, I think he needs to understand that the same people that lined up for weeks to see the Phantom Menace are the ones clamoring to not see the movies he wanted to make bit was limited by technology. These are the people who want to recapture the feelings they had when they first waited hours in line for a movie that had been out more than 52 weeks (remember when they used to announce "now in it's xx week" in the newspaper ads for films?) not only because it helps them recapture their youth, but more importantly, it helps them recapture the sense of Wonder they had when first watching them.

The comparison was made to Casablanca and how would I feel if Rick goes back for the girl. The answer is that's a different movie than Casablanca. Greedo firing first, a CGI Jabba in the bay where the Falcon is docked, those change the movie as well. Does it make it a better movie? Maybe, but it's not the movie I waited two hours in the Alaska winter to see.

George argues that technology has changed and he wants to update the movies to the vision he had. Good for him. But enhancing the death start going foom is one thing, additions actually detract from the original feeling of the movie. For me, it would be like how would I feel if the updated "mother" in Alien to have a GUI interface and given her the voice of Meryl Streep. Well that's fine and good (not really) but you've just changed the movie.

I guess what it really comes down to is, With the Blu-Ray release George is trying to push the SE editions as if they were Coke Classic. We all known they are different, and we choke it down, but in our hearts we remember how the originals were and we know we're being duped.

Movie Review - The Perks of Being a Wallflower

I will be the first to admit, I love movies, especially ones that tell a good story that I can identify with some part of the narrative or one of characters.  Once in a great while you run across a movie that you really connect with on multiple levels and that is something special. For me, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" was one of those films.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on how it compares, but, given that the author of the book both wrote the screenplay and directed the movie, I imagine that it's as faithful as an adaption can be.

The basic premise of the story is "alienated teen starts high school and finds their niche".  Most films that start with this premise quickly devolve into comedy with some serious overtones. This movie is a serious drama with well-timed comedic moments.

So why did this movie touch me so deeply?

In many ways, I was the protagonist of this film. While I had my own underlying issues that differ from Charlie, my story was not that different.  I started high school very much alone and was lucky enough to find a group of friends, much like Charlie does.  Friends that, to this day, I can arrange to meet, even after not seeing them for twenty plus years and it's as if there is no gap in time. Friends that I can open up to completely without fear of repercussion.  Friends who will not judge me for past transgressions, but for who I am today.

As someone who had to start over in high school, I can completely relate to Charlie.

 

It doesn't hurt that the group of friends he connects with are not dissimilar to the group of friends I connected with.  Nor does the fact that the movie takes place very close to the time I went to high school (a few years after).  I do question the group's commitment to music if they didn't recognize David Bowie's "Heroes," but that's my own viewer 50% kicking in.

 

The story has a lot of depth, character growth and some undertones that are not happy.  But that's high school.  I won't go into details of the story for a few reasons:

1. Spoilers are bad. 
2. As I said, there is a lot going on in this film, and talking about parts of it I believe would lessen the impact of the movie.
3. From my perspective, character driven dramas, especially good ones, draw the viewer in.  This did this very effectively for me and even revealing details about the characters feels like I'd be ruining the experience.

From a narrative standpoint, the movie unfolds very well.  There are some flashback scenes that normally pull me, as a viewer, out of a movie.  In this movie they were both unobtrusive and critical to the story.

The cinematography on this film is critical.  As much as I love "The Breakfast Club," for what becomes an intimate story, the actual technical filming of the movie felt like it distanced you from the characters.  Not so with "Perks."  The filming of the movie is done in an intimate fashion that makes you feel like you're part of the group and not an outsider looking in.

Where the movie really shines is the acting. As both the writer of the novel and director of the film, clearly Stephen Chbosky had control over who would play these characters who were so close to him.  And he chose well.  Logan Lerman, who plays Charlie was perfectly cast.  He has the acting range to pull off the depths in his character.  Emma Watson, as Sam, shows she can act (sorry Potter fans, but Hermione had very few character moments that stretched Emma Watson as an actress,) and act damn well.  Ezra Miller, who plays Patrick, Sam's stepbrother plays his part to perfection as well.

Though this is a movie focused on teenagers, it would not work without the adults in the film.  Dylan McDermott and Kate Walsh play small but very impactful roles as Charlie's parents and they do it in such a manner that I never doubted either their characters or their actions in any way.  Paul Rudd is his usual charming self in a pivotal role as a teacher at the high school.

I have to assume that much of the acting props really have to go to Stephen Chobsky.  This is his work of love and he has the talent as a director to make this come to life in the way he wanted.

Finally, I have to give a shout out to the music.  

As I mentioned, I went to high school a few years before this movie came out and music was a big part of my life.  The soundtrack to this movie is, in many ways, the soundtrack to my high school years and was just another level on which I connected to this film.

Not only was I entertained by "The Perks of Being a Wallflower," it's a movie I can and will re-watch many times.

Movies That Engage

I realized after rereading my "Desolation of Smaug" review and comparing it to others I've written there are two issues I have with the review:

1. Writing rust.  It's been years since I actually wrote a review and I was having some trouble finding an entry point.
2. I didn't engage with the movie.

I enjoyed watching "Desolation of Smaug," but I didn't immerse myself in the world.

At the core of most movies is suspension of disbelief.  This is especially important for movies that are set in a time frame/reality that is dissimilar from the one you live in.  If you don't achieve this in a movie, it leaves the viewer as just that: someone who is an outsider looking in.  The goal of most movies should  be to grab the viewer's attention and keep them surrounded in the story they have created as if they were experiencing it for themselves.  

In a heavily CG movie, writing, acting and pacing are key to this, though novelty also can be a valuable hook.

Part of the issue with "Desolation of Smaug" is that there really wasn't anything new with the movie.  There were no stunning CG moments that grabbed you and the cinematography could have been from any of the Middle Earth movies.  I mentioned a complaint about Jackson's use of long range shots in the review and that is also part of what kept me as a viewer of the movie and not a participant. 

There are two examples in the last five years that clearly come to mind of movies that got it right: James Cameron's "Avatar" and Guillermo del Toro's "Pacific Rim."

I'm not going to get into the "Avatar" debate right now (it is on my list of movies to review,) however for the purposes of this post, I will say that I enjoyed the movie for all its faults and my suspension of disbelief was total.  

"Avatar" was, in my eyes, a great movie from a cinematic standpoint. Cameron paced the movie well and the CG was such that it felt like you were immersed in the world.  I can clearly remember glancing to my wife during Jake's first flying sequence: she looked right at me and there was an amazing connection between us as we clearly were immersed in the world together.  It's rare that a movie can do that for one person, to have two people, granted like-minded people, share that connection is nearly unheard of, especially given my wife does not engage with movies as I do.

"Pacific Rim," was another example of how to pace a heavy CG movie correctly, but also how to do CG correctly.  "Pacific Rim" had all the makings of a movie that could have gone very wrong: a lot of CG, just about every character was an archetype, and a story that was very "take it or leave it," in its premise. Yet, for me the movie worked and for very specific reasons:

• The computer generated effects didn't feel CG to me. The effects were so painstakingly rendered that at no point did I think to question them. 
• Another aspect was the way the CG scenes were shot. It is one thing to create beautiful art via the computer. However if the lighting of the scenes and the camera angles are inadequate CG feels forced, which was the case with "Smaug."  The lighting and camera usage in "Pacific Rim" were very natural in an artificial environment which kept me engaged in the fantasy which was being created.
• There was a great balance of practical effects with the CG.  Many people might not be aware, but the inside of the Jaegers in the movie are an actual set.  Del Toro had a huge platform created with hydraulics for moving the head of the Jaeger and the entire suit connection including the armatures which were powered by the leg movement of the actors were real.  All too often in visual media based presentations the actors are acting with empty props.  I can't tell you how many times I've watched a scene where an actor has a coffee cup with a lid and I get annoyed because it's clear the cup is empty by the movements the actor's arms arm making. That Del Toro went the extra mile to create the machinery of the Jaeger paid off because you could tell the actors were physically working to move the rig and it made the scene that much more real.

It's not just movies with effects that need suspension of disbelief and the need to maintain it.  Comedies rely heavily on this as do action films and dramas, but each comes with different needs. 

For a comedy to work, you need to either buy into the story or be so taken by the characters that you need to engage with them.  A good example of this working is "Dodgeball: An Underdog Story."  The title tells you what you are in for: an underdog movie that takes place in the framework of a game you might have played as a child.  What makes the movie work are the characters. Just about every member of the Average Joe's Gym team has character development, and they are likeable people.  The humor in the movie is a great balance of visual, spoken and physical comedy and the usage of multiple types of comedy helps the movie, but without engaging characters you would have another one of the cookie cutter National Lampoon "Blah Movie" titles that are released every year.

For an action film to truly work, it's all about the pacing, the action and the characters.  A cookie cutter action film like "Cobra," leaves little to enjoy.  Sure, you can satisfy a craving to see some ass kicked, but really, there is not much there.  "300" came closer to a really good action film, but Zak Snyder's cinematic tricks (action pacing that stopped for a slowed motion close up) , rock video soundtrack (do we really need to have bombastic music only playing during the action?) detracted from the movie, but where it really fell down was the characters.  I hated Leonidas.  I knew he was going to die and could have cared less.  To get to that next level, you need characters that you care about.  One of the best examples in recent times has to be "Taken."  You can identify with Liam Neeson's character, the pacing of the movie is almost perfectly balanced and when he is in action mode, you believe he has these abilities and it's not an "actor" playing a role.

Drama is, in many ways, the hardest to have suspension of disbelief.  If the story and characters don't work, the movie fails and fails hard.  Yes there may be some action, but in order to maintain the viewer's attention, it all falls on the actors and writers with the director having an input in his camera usage choices.  To contrast, I'm going to use two Oliver Stone movies: "Platoon" and "Savages."  "Platoon" is an example of how to do things right.  You have characters that you care about and the story is both engaging and acted in such a manner that you are drawn into plot.  The cinematography on this film is beautiful and adds an extra dimension in engaging the viewer so they feel as if they are part of the plot.  I'm not sure where Oliver Stone went wrong after "Platoon," but by the time he got to "Savages," he'd clearly lost his way.  "Savages" is one of two movies I've actually turned off without finishing it in the last ten years.  If I had paid money for the movie, instead of DVR'ing it during a free preview weekend I'd have been really pissed. I never cared for any of the characters in "Savages," which made it hard to watch.  Stone's cinematography skills have regressed into almost a third party observer mode and by the time the movie devolved into the torture porn route it was headed but I hoped it wouldn't go, I was done. 

To sum things up, I can still enjoy a movie if I don't completely engage with a film.  I was entertained by  "Desolation of Smaug," and didn't engage.  Clearly, if I leave a theater and am talking a lot about the movie, both the good and bad, I've engaged on some level.  I left the theater after seeing "Desolation of Smaug," had a perfunctory discussion with my family as we walked to car and, by the time we left the parking lot I was already trying to figure out what to make for dinner instead of continuing the discussion about the film in the five minute drive home.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

After a five year hiatus from this blog I've decided to restart it.  I need to get back in the habit of writing and this will be part of that process.  Since I have five years of backlog material, I should not run out of material for quite some time.

Onto the review:

I first read the Hobbit when I was around 10 years old.  Unlike most of Tolkien's works, this is a book I can reread and do so every five to ten years.  I should do an accompanying review of "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey," and I might someday, but for now I will simply state that I thought it was "Just OK."  It met my criterion of "Was I Entertained," but not much more (though I will reference it for contrast many times).

So going into seeing the second part of the Hobbit trilogy I had some preconceptions:

• I knew this would stray from the book.
• I knew parts of the Silmarillion would be included.
• I knew there would be new material.
• I was not going to see the movie in 3D.  This will be another post/rant, but for a later day.

The rest I figured I would sit back and let the movie happen.

As with "An Unexpected Journey," I took exception to some of the changes Peter Jackson made.  Some parts of the material he bypassed were favorites of mine.  Given the changes in the first movie, I was not surprised by the alterations to Beorn's scene, but it left me with a slightly bitter taste to begin the movie. 

With that said, I'm going to avoid spoilers as much as possible, not because I think they are a surprise, but rather that I endeavor to keep my reviews spoiler free.

Let's start with acting.  I don't think anyone has any expectation that any of the actors in these movies will be awarded recognition as I'm not sure Peter Jackson knows how to tell a character driven story such that the actors are pushed in their craft.  The acting in this movie was actually a pleasant surprise, mostly due to the new written material.

The writing on the movie was interesting.  As I stated earlier, there were parts that were omitted that I whole heartedly disagree with.  And, while there are new additions I felt did not need to be included (Radagast being an obvious choice,) some of the new material is very enjoyable.  Kili becomes more than just the nephew of Thorin and Bard becomes a character of depth that gives a foundation for where he will wind up in the third movie (presuming it is not changed from the book).

While I'm not quite convinced that we needed a potential love triangle as a way of pushing Legolas into the movie, I actually liked the addition of Tauriel because, let's face it, Tolkien did not write a lot of female characters and having an elf who doesn't conform to their societal constraints is a fun idea.  I also found Evangaline Lilly's Tauriel much more likeable than Liv Tyler's whiny Arwen from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  

Next up is pacing.  "An Unexpected Journey" was horribly paced.  "Desolation of Smaug" was well paced for the most part.  Some of this goes back to the writing, some of it is we needed less exposition to introduce people and part of it was this felt like a movie with a purpose.  "Desolation of Smaug" found the story it was trying to tell and stuck to the tone.  There were many moments in the film where it could have fallen into the "I don't know if I want to be serious, a comedy or an adventure film," trap that I felt its predecessor did.  This film is, for the most part, a serious adventure film that, even in its slower sections does not lose sight of the end product.  Granted the film has much more action to it, mostly due to the source material, but none of it felt forced.

One place where I felt the film fell down was in camera work and CG.  There were more than a few moments in the film where the establishing shot was off angle, or zoomed out and then the camera view rotates in and centers.  I know this is a stylistic choice by Peter Jackson, but I hate it.  It feels like someone is playing with the 3D cameras that James Cameron created for "Avatar" and hasn't quite figured out how to use them yet.  I'm also not a fan of Jackson's aerial shots to establish perspective on a line of people walking/riding.  I understand he's using this to establish time passage in the journey but I'm really tired of them.  

My final concern about the camera work is Jackson's insistence of reusing shots.  I'm not sure if there hasn't been a movie in the five which have taken place in Middle Earth where a character presses themselves against something to hide themselves from whatever is hunting them. I get that it's a bread and butter shot for Jackson, but it's over used at this point and has started dragging me out of the tension in the scene because it feels like we've done this all before.

As for the CG, I'm not sure if it's a style choice or what but I felt really let down by a lot of the CG in this movie. Don't get me wrong, Smaug himself was beautifully done, however even he felt like he was CG.  I compare the effects from this movie to those of "Pacific Rim" and they aren't even close.  Too often in this film, when presented with CG rendered scenes they felt very artificial.  An example would be molten metal. As it flowed, it looked like someone was rendering it on a computer without thought to anything but the metal itself.  We should have seen heat waves coming up in layers, but we didn't.  And that made the CG both obvious and flat to me.

It does make me wish that Del Toro had stayed as director of the Hobbit films as I suspect the CG and direction issues I have would have been nullified.   

To balance out the above issues, I will say that, though Legolas and Tauriel's fighting style is a direct rehash of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the action in the movie is handled very well.  Jackson has always gone for a character focused action sequence, where Von Clausewitz's fog of war is mostly ignored as the action is centered on the character in the here and now and not even considering the big picture. In "Desolation" it works very well. 

One final thought:  "Desolation of Smaug" sets up the final movie very well.  We are going to get hammered with some serious action in the final installment of this trilogy and while I have concerns that Jackson will "Forest Gump" the end of the last movie the way he did with "Return of the King," (my "Forest Gump" reference is my opinion that a movie should have ended 15-20 minutes earlier but tacked on two to three scenes that didn't necessarily have to be there and could have been ending scenes on their own).

Overall I was entertained by "Desolation of Smaug,"and in such a manner that I didn't feel the need to spend a lot of time picking it apart afterward as I did with "An Unexpected Journey."

Movie Fest

So this is actually a complilation of some of the movies I've seen since going on vacation near the end of December (in no particular order.)

Vantage Point: This movie had all the makings of a potential disaster and avoided most of them. I wasn't sold on the "same incident from multiple viewpoints" concept, especially after the first time "reboot." However, the movie avoided rehashing "what has gone on before," to the point where they lost the viewer each time they reset the clock to show a new perspective, and rather did a very good job of advancing the plot. The action was handled well in the film, and while the twists were very predictable, the movie held together very well. From a plausability standpoint, I has concerns that this would turn into an extended episode of "24" which has more plot holes and plausability issues than a Laurell K. Hamilton novel, but, once again, the writing was handled very well and giving the personal perspective of everyone was a welcome touch.

However, there is no way this movie would have worked anywhere near as well as it did without Forrest Whitaker. I've been a fan of his since Fast Times and Ridgemont High and every movie he's in he brings a humanizing touch too (yes, even Last King of Scotland.) His character was not only central to bringing the whole plot together, but, without his ability to get you to believe in his character, this movie wouldn't have worked. I was entertained!

Southland Tales: Make no bones about it, this movie is a mess. The plot, unlike Richard Kelly's last film, Donnie Darko, never really came together into a satisfying conclusion. The writing is uneven and it was pretty obvious to me that Kevin Smith had at least a substantial contribution into the majority of Sarah Michelle Geller's character's lines, because Richard Kelley cannot write characters like her, and certainly a majority of what came out of her mouth sounded more in tune with a Kevin Smith film than a Richard Kelly.

The sad thing is, this movie has a ton of potential, not as a movie, but a 4-6 hour mini-series. The back story is interesting, the anthropology behind the world as it is in the movie was engaging. Even the "plot" of the film had potential, but it just never came together in any satisfying way.

From a visual perspective, most of the time the movie is really well put together, however, especially in the drug sequences, Richard Kelly went too overboard in trying to get us to see the scene as a dream and would have been better off taking them with a more realistic approach.

Three actors really stood out in the film for me: 1. Cheri Oteri. I would have liked to have seen her character foam at the mouth a little more, but she did very well in a mostly non-comedic role. 2. Jon Lovitz: All I can say is, holy crap. This small role gave me a perspective that he would make one heck of a "disturbed psychotic," in a psychological thriller. I didn't think he had it in him, but he does. 3. Dwayne Johnson. We know he can play "the Rock," and saw glimpses of that character here, but he impressed me as someone who was, at times, completly neurotic.

While the movie as a whole was a mess, I enjoyed parts of it.

The Bucket List: Take two great actors, put them in a melanchology buddy film and let them go. This movie had potential to head straight down the tubes and managed to avoid the drain. Once again, the markerting department screwed this one up, trying to play it as a comedy. Yes, there where funny moments in it, however, this was more of a character study focused on the character growth as they approach death. Sure, it's hard as heck to market a movie about two guys who are dying, but they could have done better.

One thing I noticed with this film is the trend Jack Nicholson is taking in his recent roles: He's still playing "Jack Nicholson" but with more introspection. It's almost as if he's taking roles that reflect where he's at in life after playing "Jack Nicholson" for the last 30 years. And, if he is, in fact making said decisions consciously, I suspect George Clooney may want to watch those films and figure out that the life of the Hollywood playboy will leave you quite alone in the end.

Regardless, I enjoyed this film.

Jane Austen Book Club: I like romatic dramas. Especially those which focus on characters with believable situations. This movie easily met this criteria. Both intelligent in the nature of the interpersonal relationships as well as the light humor which was used throughout the movie to keep it moving along, the movie flowed exceptionally well and, while I had a few quibbles with one of the characters, I enjoyed engaging with all the characters for the two hours of this movie. While I don't have as much to say about the film, it was probably the one I enjoyed the most.

Over Her Dead Body: This movie had a lot of potential and never reached it. A lot of the comedy fell flat (much of the "humor" was Eve Longoria Parker's character being mean to another and that type of humor never sits well with me,) the romance was stilted at best and I really felt bad for Jason Biggs who seems to be increasingly stereotyped into the comedic sidekick, but never seems to get the quality of material he deserves. I did laugh at a few of the jokes and while the movie was predictable, I didn't get up from the couch thinking "what a waste." On the other hand, I didn't leave the couch thinking "Wow, that was a lot of fun."

Bourne Ultimatum: The Jason Bourne films all seem to flow together to me in one giant mush. They remind me of the TV series 24, but with more intelligence. The third installment was no different. Yes, there are a few action scenes, however, the movie, like the first two is esentially one oddly paced chase film all the while trying to solve a mystery. That isn't to say they don't have their place and are certainly a welcome exception to the standard action films these days, however, there's just nothing unique enough between the three films to make them absolutley stand out for me. I am entertained by the series, but wish there was more to distinguish the three apart.

Doomed: Straight to cable film about a TV game show where people who are under the death penalty have the chance to win money and their freedom. Did I mention there were "zombies" on the island? The movie actually had potential to be a commentary on our society in a number of ways and fell flat. Really flat. While I didn't ask for my 85 minutes back, I didn't think the movie had much to offer after the fact and wouldn't reccomend it.

Gangs of the Dead: Another straight to cable film as far as I can tell. This time the Zombies are in the 'hood and two rival gangs and policemen have to cooperate to survive. This one was so bad I didn't even finish it. Medicore plot, awful effects, and acting that made me wince. I was not entertained.

Definitely, Maybe: So this was another film marketed as a "Romantic Comedy," but really, there wasn't a lot of comedy in the film. The premise of a soon to be divorced father telling his daughter the story of his love life without mentioning which woman in the sotry is his soon to be ex-wife has potential. And the movie was engaging in each of the pastiche's which forwarded the story. However, the pacing was off on this one. Ryan Reynolds did a good job as the main character, however, I felt his character should have been taken in a different direction by the director or writer in the "sad sack" part of the story. They played it for humor which was inappropriate and made his character less sympathetic, when the moments had the potential for you to really identify with him. Still, the movie was enjoyable.