3 tomatoes are walking down the street
Now Playing: Catching up in a rather half-assed manner
Let's try one sentence apiece for everything I've seen since I last updated. I'll understand if you don't stick around. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother, which kind of sucks considering I'm doing this for the fun of it. But I also feel obligated, lest I lose both of you for good.

COOL HAND LUKE- vivid depiction of a charismatic con who refuses to stay within the system; Newman and George Kennedy are both excellent, and the film never portrays Luke as an outsize hero or a martyr, which keeps the story grounded. Rating: ***.

TURNING GATE- I love how Hong only gradually reveals what a dumbass his protagonist is, particularly in his relationships with women; the "do you like my move?" routine in bed is hilarious. Rating: ***1/2.

CASINO- better than I remembered, but still third-rate Scorsese; Pesci is surprisingly subdued when he's not beating the crap out of people; all the voiceover is overkill, but great layered sound track, and the music of course is killer. Rating: **1/2.

GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES- pure cinematic heaven, and surely the final word on the Monroe persona; almost incendiary from a thematic standpoint- as long as men rule the world, women must take advantage of their allure while they can, lest they be overlooked entirely- but there's hardly time to sweat the heavy stuff since you're having so much fun. Rating: ****.

THE TRIAL- still awesome. Rating: ****.

COME DRINK WITH ME- highly enjoyable, particularly the interplay between Cheng Pei-Pei and Yueh Hua; lots of ass-kicking in the film's first half, but gradually becomes more elegant until the final fight scene. Rating: ***1/2.

BROKEN FLOWERS- as low-key as Jarmusch and latter-day Murray are, it's a wonder this thing isn't catatonic, but it's not, courtesy of lovely performances (take a bow, Jeffrey Wright) and kid-gloved treatment of a potentially mawkish storyline; also, one doesn't expect female nudity in Jarmusch, not that I'm complaining... Rating: ***.

MURDERBALL- honestly, I wanted more about the sport- history, rules, non-sped-up game footage- and even the relatively small amount of "the disabled are people too" scenes still felt out of place in a movie that's allegedly about guys in wheelchairs beating the tar out of each other; I would've loved a movie just about Zupan. Rating: **1/2.

CALENDAR GIRLS- I wasn't that big a fan of THE FULL MONTY, and this gender-flipped variation did even less for me; Mirren's good, as usual. Rating: *1/2.

SKY HIGH- fun family-friendly junior-superhero comedy is also a twist on the John Hughes high-school movie template (heroes are popular, sidekicks are outcasts); dig Kurt Russell's Adam West routine as the Commander and Kids in the Hall alums Dave Foley and Kevin MacDonald as teachers. Rating: **1/2.

DICK TRACY- awesome stylized visuals, undercooked story; Beatty tries, but can't make Tracy into an interesting character, and Madonna is even less successful with Breathless; Pacino's Big Boy is actually a better Richard III than his performance in LOOKING FOR RICHARD, oddly enough. Rating: **1/2.

RED EYE- standard-issue suspense film is distinguished by the leads, both of whom dive in head-first; Rachel McAdams is wholly convincing as a victim who must think on her feet to survive, and Cillian Murphy is even better as her kidnapper; love his "sea breeze" hissy fit. Rating: **1/2.

THE IMMORTAL STORY- a near-masterpiece in miniature, with Welles giving a wonderfully theatrical performance as an old man who seeks to make real an old sailor's legend; many Wellesian tropes on display here- the lonely rich man, the obsession with storytelling, the decaying opulence; the dinner scene, as Welles and the sailor eat in a room lined with plush purple curtains, feels like the wellspring for a hundred Lynchian dreams. Rating: ***1/2.

THE SEA HAWK- rousing as all hell, but also as much of a rallying call as Olivier's HENRY V (Queen Elizabeth's final monologue makes this plain); having associated him almost entirely with CASABLANCA, I had forgotten Curtiz had such filmmaking panache, but he handles the derring-do magnificently. Rating: ***1/2.

JOUR DE FETE- disappointing only by Tati standards; here he foregrounds himself more than in his later work, and Francois the mailman engages in too much slapstick for my taste (though Tati is good at it); the old woman describing the goings-on is a bit much too; still, it's Tati, and so it's still quite entertaining. Rating: ***.

GRIZZLY MAN- Tim Treadwell was a fool, but he was Herzog's kind of fool, and sensational story aside, that's what the movie is about- a guy on an impossible and illogical (call it quixotic) journey; sequences like Herzog listening to the audio of Treadwell's killing and the coroner's description of the remains are indelible. Rating: ***1/2.

KINGPIN- still my favorite early "bad taste" Farelly movie, even if it's not quite as hilarious as I'd remembered; if nothing else, could be the last hurrah for the wacky Bill Murray. Rating: **1/2.

Whither THE ISLAND?
Now Playing: Buck-passing and the Hollywood blame game
SPOILERS contained herein- some which are mentioned, others implied.

So THE ISLAND is a flop. I didn't care for the movie all that much, but that doesn't really matter now. The big story coming out of Hollywood this summer is that box office receipts are down, and the movie the armchair QBs are pointing to is THE ISLAND. Some have called it Michael Bay's HEAVEN'S GATE, but that's a huge stretch- Cimino's film was hugely ambitious, made on a budget that was massive by 1980 standards, but Bay just made a slightly-philosophical chases-and-explosions movie, no big deal in this post-MATRIX era. Hell, even the budget of $120 million is no longer all that newsworthy compared to, say, WAR OF THE WORLDS. But THE ISLAND, as we know, is a box-office disappointment- "the movie that ruined Dreamworks," according to some. And now the film's producers, Walter Parkes and Laurie MacDonald have come out and placed the blame on the film's stars, Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, for the film's failure. In particular they've singled out Johansson for being subpar, stating that (I'm paraphrasing) any TV actress could have done as well or better than she did.

Um, what? As I said, I'm hardly an ISLAND apologist, but when I think of the film's problems the lead performances don't rank highly on the list. I'd say that McGregor and Johansson did as well as they could have under the circumstances, given Bay's less-than-actor-friendly shooting style (choppy editing makes it tough to sustain a cohesive performance). The characters aren't all that deep, but they sell the superficial stuff convincingly enough. And if Parkes and MacDonald are complaining about their leads' lack of star charisma- hey, you're the producers. Shouldn't you have expressed concern about them BEFORE NOW???

No, I think that what went wrong with the film has less to do with the stars than with the studio selling the film. Simply put, THE ISLAND isn't a movie that people are talking about. Working at the exhibition level, I deal directly with the people who are buying tickets, and there isn't a great deal of awareness of THE ISLAND among the ticket-buyers who come to my theatre. Sometimes people come to the multiplex without knowing what they want to watch, and when people are standing at the box office deciding on a movie, the title they seem the least sure of is THE ISLAND. Everyone knows what MR. AND MRS. SMITH is, likewise FOUR BROTHERS. But when it comes to THE ISLAND, they draw a blank. Which leads me to believe that someone should have changed the title somewhere along the line. Say what you will about utilizing abstract titles, but most people would prefer if the title of a movie actually, you know, said something about that movie.

The obvious example this summer is BATMAN BEGINS. What's it about? Well, it's about Batman's beginnings. Oh, cool.

All right, what about THE ISLAND? Um... (crickets chirping). OK, does it take place on an island? No. Are they going to an island in the movie? Not really. What does the island have to do with THE ISLAND? It's the place where they're supposedly going to go, except that there (SPOILER) isn't really an island, and the island is all a lie made up by SPOILER so that they can SPOILER our heroes. Oh.

You see a moviegoer's dilemma. Strange as it seems to a guy like me, most people out there aren't hyper-aware of every movie that's playing, and at the end of a hard work week, they want something they can settle into like a warm bath or a heaping plate of meatloaf- the cinematic equivalent of comfort food. And when the title confuses people, they'll more than likely think, why bother?

Which leads me to another major problem with THE ISLAND- the story. See, when people out there are looking for a fun night at the movies, they need what's called a "hook" to grab them so they'll get interested in what they're seeing. Sometimes that hook comes from the genre- MUST LOVE DOGS is doing well at my theatre because it's the only romantic comedy we have. Other times it's the film's premise. MR. AND MRS. SMITH isn't a hit simply because of its tabloid-ready stars and its big-budget action. What was unmistakable in the ads for the film was the premise- namely, the fear shared by anyone who's married or in a relationship that his significant other may be hiding a huge secret.

On the other hand, what is THE ISLAND's hook? That the heroes are really just clones of people, being hidden in a secret bunker, waiting to be harvested for spare organs? Not exactly what I'd call a universal fear. Hell, even BATMAN BEGINS has a better hook than that, and it didn't even need one, being a BATMAN movie.

It seems to me that what finally sunk THE ISLAND at the box office was that no one knew how to market the film to the public. Let's examine the most rudimentary visual marketing tool at the theatre, the mylar sign that adorns the box office marquee. Because the studio only has a small space to work with, they're only able to place a few elements on the sign, preferably the elements that would make the movie distinctive and appealing to the undecided ticket-buyer. The signs for SKY HIGH and HERBIE play up Disney, FOUR BROTHERS focuses on the poster image of the bi-racial siblings striking a badass-looking pose, and THE DEVIL'S REJECTS trumpets the name of writer/director Rob Zombie. But THE ISLAND... well, it's basically a futuristic-looking title adorned with the names of its not-quite A-list stars. No "from the director of THE ROCK", no images from the film, no tagline, nothing else. Hollywood's answer to this would no doubt be that THE ISLAND is "a tough sell." Given the convoluted story, how could they possibly boil down the movie into an easily-digestible image for ticket-buyers? Well, this is a lesson they'll have to learn, and quickly, lest they risk more mega-budget flops.

As I said before, I'm no fan of THE ISLAND, and indeed I welcome its flopping as a sign that maybe audiences are fed-up with routine Hollywood dreck, and possibly bring about a new renaissance like in the late 60s and early 70s. But I was also at a preview screening, and I know that, my feelings aside, the film plays well with an audience. What I fear then is that Hollywood will learn precisely the wrong lessons from this, that they'll pour an even higher percentage of studio money into "sure things"- remakes, sequels, TV adaptations- rather than actually learning to sell some trickier movies. Because honestly, if they can't even sell a Michael Bay movie, what chance does a real visionary have of connecting with an audience?

Miss Me?
Now Playing: Stuff you've probably already forgotten
THE DEVIL'S REJECTS (2005, Rob Zombie)- turns out Zombie can direct a movie after all, if this scruffy, violent thrill ride is any indication. Perhaps it took a guy who is more famous as a musician to make a film this unapologetic, amoral and unironic in its violence- since it's not beholden to Hollywood for his livelihood, he's free to crank everything up to 11, be it the story, the gore, or the performances (in particular the snarling indignation of William Forsythe). What's miraculous, then, is that the film is as good as it is- not for everyone, certainly, but surely good for anyone who grooves on a movie with a title like "The Devil's Rejects." The film also works as a kind of corrective to the romanticized "young-hot-fugitives" genre propagated by films like BONNIE AND CLYDE- why are the Firefly family's actions reprehensible, while Bonnie and Clyde became counterculture heroes? Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that Bonnie and Clyde were played by Dunaway and Beatty whereas the Fireflys are dentally-challenged rednecks? The final scene is a kind of masterpiece, rescuing "Freebird" from a thousand classic rock stations and turning it into the keenest re-examining of an old song since Tarantino found his Nancy Sinatra albums. Rating: ***.

BAD NEWS BEARS (2005, Richard Linkater)- think the original BNB mashed together with BAD SANTA, and you've got it. Often very funny, but doesn't really feel like Linklater until the final reel, when the heroes [SPOILER FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN THE ORIGINAL] commit to having fun and losing their way. Of contemporary American directors, maybe only Linklater could make a movie this enjoyable and still disappoint. Rating: **1/2.

HUSTLE AND FLOW (2005, Craig Brewer)- between this and DEVIL'S REJECTS, 70s-inspired cinema is out in force. The film's feel for the broken-down dirty south setting (strippers who don't look like models, two-tone cars, lots of sweat- and not movie-sweat either) makes the story feel almost secondary, but for such a formulaic plot- pimp dreams of being a rapper- it still works. I also enjoyed the unhurried feel of the recording-session scenes, in which the characters gradually hammer away at the music to create a finished song. Terence Howard is as good as you've heard here, particularly in his scene with Ludacris (I love the moment where he hangs back for a minute to smoke a cigarette before switching conversational gears), but the whole cast is effective. Also, the sexual politics are something less than cool, but when you're watching a movie about a pimp-turned-rapper, you don't expect political correctness. Rating: **1/2.

DONKEY SKIN (1970, Jacques Demy)- as Stults said, "the more Demy I see, the more canonical he gets." Even within the framework of a fairy tale, the film manages to be absurdly funny, full of the rough edges that get smoothed down by Disney and other American purveyors of "kiddie movies"- the incest plot, the donkey that "expels" jewels, and so on. I also love the repeated nods to Cocteau, from the "future poems" read by Cocteau regular Jean Marais (playing the widowed king) to the doozy of a non sequitur that comes at the film's climax. Some critics have complained about Deneuve's performance, but I liked the heightened theatricality of it- she plays the sheltered princess as an archetype rather than a fully-rounded person, which works in the film's favor, especially in bizarre moments like her duet... with herself. Views of several of France's most beautiful chateaus are icing on the love-cake. Rating: ***1/2.

DIARY OF A LOST GIRL (1929, G.W. Pabst)- not quite as awesome as PANDORA'S BOX, but even more sordid, as we follow run the gamut with Louise Brooks here, from virginal youth to pregnant daughter to reform-school girl to prostitute to respectable woman. What makes the film shocking is how unapologetic Brooks becomes about her sexuality by the end- even today, most Hollywood movies shy away from sexually-frank women, prefering to cast them as prostitute or edgy bad girls like Angelina Jolie. Also interesting to see how Pabst accomodated Brooks' trademark black hair into the style, avoiding any other use of the color until a funeral late in the film. Rating: ***1/2.

MARTIN (1977, George A. Romero)- a wicked piece of work, this, focusing on a young man who seems convinced that he's a vampire, despite his lack of fangs. Martin is a compelling character because he's so awkward socially, and his drinking the blood of others is the only real opportunity he gets to connect, which is not to say that the film excuses it, but merely sympathizes with his plight. It's entirely possible that he might not even be a vampire at all, but from a young age he has been told that he is, and his life has been shaped accordingly. Several awesome set pieces, with my favorite being a late-night home invasion by Martin that yields an unpleasant surprise. This film is proof positive that there's more to Romero than the DEAD movies. Rating: ***1/2.

PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1987, John Carpenter)- in which Carpenter creates a supernatural thriller from little more than a tank of green liquid, some mirrors, and an old church. The film is almost goofy in spots- as when the demonic liquid squirts out of people's mouths- but that's part of the charm. I'm convinced that, if Satan were to return to Earth, it would probably happen more like this than the way it does in movies like THE EXORCIST. The film also works almost like a cautionary tale of how matters of faith aren't to be treated lightly- scientists are called in to investigate strange goings-on, and the ones who perish are the ones who shrug them off and try to walk away. Favorite moment: Walter, trapped in a closet by two possessed colleagues, tries to keep them at bay with a bad Jewish-mother joke. Rating: ***.

Whew!
Now Playing: Yeah, I know I've been gone a while. Sorry, you two.
(listed roughly in the order in which I saw them)

THE FANTASTIC FOUR (2005, Tim Story)- not quite as lame as I was expecting, but not good either. It's certainly not as dark and serious as BATMAN BEGINS or the SPIDEY franchise, but much of the humor falls flat (despite Chris Evans' best efforts), Dr. Doom makes for a lame baddie, there's no chemistry between Jessica Alba and Iaon Gruffuffuff, and the rather sparse action scenes aren't all that exciting. It's harmless enough- it's probably doing well at the box office because it's less demanding than WAR OF THE WORLDS- but that doesn't quite cut it for me. Rating: *1/2.

HISTOIRE DE MARIE ET JULIEN (2003, Jacques Rivette)- I definitely need to see this again, but on first viewing I was positively entranced. Rivette lovers will find a lot to love here- languid pacing, piles-o'-books art direction, the expected great performances from Emmanuelle Beart and Jerzy Radziwilowicz. Likewise, his ability to apply his unique style to what could have simply been a forgettable genre piece has improved by leaps and bounds since SECRET DEFENSE (my least favorite Rivette of those I've seen). The final scene is sure to be a point of contention between romantics and cynics, but I loved it. Also, Beart boobies, for those interested parties. Rating: ***1/2.

IT'S A GIFT (1934, Norman Z. MacLeod)- everything I love about Fields movies is on display here, especially the uncomfortable nature of the big comic sequences. Fields movies were made by, about, and for put-upon misanthropic men who felt impotent in the face of difficult women, mischievious kids, and the like. That's what keeps them feeling completely modern in our more politically-correct world, I think, as many would maintain that this feeling of impotence has only become more pervasive since then. Rating: ***1/2.

DARK WATER (2005, Walter Salles)- yet another J-horror remake (I didn't bother with the original) with the usual storyline- kid dies and comes back to communicate with the living but can only scare them because, duh, she's a ghost. Yet the movie largely worked for me because the dramatic stuff was effective. Connelly of course excels as the mother whose issues only grow when the ghost comes on the scene, and the supporting cast is pretty awesome too (I especially enjoyed Tim Roth- where has he been lately?- as the only non-shyster lawyer in New York). The horror elements are almost an afterthought here, which may be why audiences aren't liking it, but I enjoyed the atmospheric style. This may be my favorite Salles film, but honestly that's not saying a lot. Rating: **1/2.

PASSPORT TO PIMLICO (1949, Henry Cornelius)- genial and fairly amusing, but I fear a lot of the satirical jabs may have been lost on a non-Anglophile half a century down the line. Rating: **1/2.

THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT (1951, Alexander Mackendrick)- I fear Ealing comedies may not be my thing, given that this is supposedly one of the greats and I merely liked it quite a bit. Alec Guinness is somewhat colorless (ha ha), though by design, while Joan Greenwood's awesome cultivated-yet-sultry voice and Ernest "Dr. Pretorius" Thesiger steal the show. Maybe I just need to see KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS... Rating: ***.

WEDDING CRASHERS (2005, David Dobkin)- lots of funny moments (dig Vaughn's "just the tip" speech or his demonstration of "motorboating"), but the trouble with a movie with "wedding" in the title is that too often the filmmakers feel the need to appeal to people who come to see a chick flick. Too bad, really, because the earnest romance between Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams clashes with the raucous, foul-mouthed majesty of the early scenes. Plus the "villainous" character of Sack is over-the-top in the wrong way- violent and psychotic, but not in a way that's funny. But Vaughn rules the movie, except whenever Isla Fisher's looney little sis character is onscreen. Rating: **.

THE ISLAND (2005, Michael Bay)- I always feel a little bad when I dislike a Michael Bay movie, since the guy's style is SO excessive, so cranked-up, that it should be right in my wheelhouse. Shame the movies themselves tend to be so stupid, although this one is slightly less so than usual, which creates a bit of a problem, as a GATTACA-style utopia-with-a-secret sci-fi drama careens repeatedly into a smash-'em-up Bay actioner, in which cars don't so much crash as SHRED. Don't know what detracts more- the rudimentary character motivations or the awkward comic relief (e.g. the "dude" scene). Plus there's Bay's usual reliance on all-American imagery, with Ewan MacGregor's "enlightened liberator" character oh-so-subtly named "Lincoln." Still, nice to see Djimon Hounsou playing a badass, even if he doesn't really get anything badass to do. Archetypal Bay moment comes when MacGregor sees a motorcycle for the first time: "I don't know what it is..." [pause] "... but I want one!" Rating: *1/2.

CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (2005, Tim Burton)- perhaps thirty years from now, the third time will be the charm. First movie had a better Wonka (Wilder's dry disdain trumps Depp's Jacko-esque stylings), but in this one the non-Wonka stuff is superior- better kids, better art direction, MUCH better songs. Loved the opening reel or so, with the poverty of the Bucket family a real presence in the film -the house is a design wonder- and real warmth and humor in the family (Freddie Highmore and David Kelly are great as Charlie and Grandpa Joe, respectively). Once they arrive at the factory, pickings are decidedly mixed, and the only time it really cooks from there on in is during Veruca's demise. It can only be a matter of time before an enterprising young editor attempts place Wilder's Wonka into this movie, which could turn out fascinating; but until then, read the book. Rating: **.

WERCKMEISTER HARMONIES (2000, Bela Tarr)- my first Tarr film, and now I see what Gus Van Sant was so excited about. I can't say I figured it all out on the first viewing, but I did like how the opening scene sets up the story as dealing with the ideal of cosmic order (as in the demonstration of the eclipse) only to see order pulled out from under the feet of the townspeople with the arrival of the traveling circus. Is the film saying that the whale and the Prince disrupted the careful order of the town (which Auntie Tunde clearly represents), or is the town's order an unnatural affectation to be torn asunder in favor of something more basic and primal (much like Uncle Gyorgy's musings on ransacking contemporary musical structure)? But who has time to answer this question on the first go-round when one can geek out on the gorgeous black-and-white cinematography and oh-so-smooth Steadicam work? There's even a side-by-side walking shot here, which Van Sant purloined (and somehow improved upon!) for GERRY. The raiding-the-hospital sequence is a marvel to behold. Is it too much to hope for that someone will put out SATANTANGO in DVD? Rating: ***1/2.

LOS OLVIDADOS (1950, Luis Bunuel)- it's Bunuel. Whaddya need, a map? Rating: ***1/2.

2005: Looking forward
Now Playing: My 25 most anticipated films for the rest of the year
Some of these films aren't currently scheduled for release before the end of the year, but that's not really a big deal for me. I'm more excited that they're coming out at all.

(in *grumble* alphabetical order)

(links provided to official sites where applicable)

ART SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL - Terry Zwigoff and Daniel Clowes, together again.

THE BAD NEWS BEARS - I'm a little weary of remakes, but I love Linklater and Billy Bob, plus the writers of BAD SANTA are doing this, and that sounds like a winning team to me.

THE BRAND UPON THE BRAIN! - a follow-up to COWARDS BEND THE KNEE? Seems too good to be true...

BROKEN FLOWERS - seems almost conventional by Jarmusch standards, but it has Bill Murray (or billmurray?) in wry-sad mode, and Jarmusch > Sofia Coppola in my opinion.

THE CHILD - the Dardenne brothers' first three films are all great, and all indications are that this one (which copped the Palme d'Or) is just as good.

CORPSE BRIDE - Tim Burton's first animated project since NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS looks great, and that he's co-directing has me intrigued. More than CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, anyway.

ELIZABETHTOWN - if you haven't checked out the online-only trailer yet, I HIGHLY recommend it (warning: huge file).

THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN - the cast (Carell, Keener, Rudd, Rogen) rocks, and the trailer is a hoot. I have high hopes.

THE FOUNTAIN - a hugely ambitious sci-fi film from Darren Aronofsky, starring Hugh Jackman (a talented actor who needs a worthy role), and allegedly spanning over a thousand years. Could go either way, really.

HIDDEN - Haneke is one of the greats, and this is allegedly one of his better works. Good enough for me.

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE - allegedly Cronenberg's most accessible work since THE FLY two decades ago. And THE FLY rocks, so that's cool with me.

IDIOCRACY - in spite of delays, I'm still excited. Mike Judge's stuff tends to be pretty hilarious.

KING KONG - lest we forget that this, not LORD OF THE RINGS, is Peter Jackson's dream project...

KISS KISS BANG BANG - Shane Black is back! If that doesn't excite you, then you have my pity.

MANDERLAY - oh that Lars. Stirring up trouble again. Either you can't wait to see this or you can't wait to skip it. You know which applies to you.

MATCH POINT - could it be that Woody Allen is really back?

ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW - early word is sparkling. Could be the year's "little-movie-that-could."

THE NEW WORLD - that it has been a mere seven years since the last Malick film was released is some kind of miracle.

PRINCESS RACCOON - I wasn't the biggest fan of PISTOL OPERA, but I'm nonetheless stoked at the idea that Seijun Suzuki is making films again, and is still completely nuts.

THE SUN - Sokurov's film about Hirohito, starring YI YI's great Issey Ogata.

TIDELAND - THE BROTHERS GRIMM looks fun, but I'm more intrigued by Gilliam's upcoming heartland odyssey, not least for Gilliam's reunion with FISHER KING's Jeff Bridges.

UNTITLED SPIELBERG 1972 OLYMPICS PROJECT - I was actually dreading this until I found out that it dealt mostly with the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Will he deal with the darker themes of the story (namely, vengeance), or will his tendency toward audience-pandering win the day?

WALLACE AND GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT - these guys rule.

THE WAYWARD CLOUD - along with the Maddin film, Tsai Ming-liang's follow-up to WHAT TIME IS IT THERE? is my most anticipated "sequel" of the year.

WHAT IS IT? - Indeed.

2005 so far: Looking back...
Now Playing: Top 10 films of the first half of 2005
Really, this feels more like a review of the first 1/3 of 2005, since so many movies for a given year don't arrive in Central Ohio until the first several months of the following calendar year. But never mind- I think we've had more than enough noteworthy offerings come to town to justify a pretty decent list.

1. KINGS AND QUEEN - as if it could really be anything else.

2. TROPICAL MALADY - Joe is definitely an acquired taste, but I love his work, and this is his best yet.

2.5.
NOT ON THE LIPS - if only this would get released theatrically, it would be one of the year's best.

3. OLDBOY - you'll never look at a hammer the same way again.

4. KUNG FU HUSTLE - maybe not respectable, but certainly awesome.

5. NOBODY KNOWS - that this isn't perched at #1 on this list is the kind of disappointment I guess I can accept.

6. DOWNFALL - the crunching of glass between little teeth is the most chilling sound effect of the year.

7. SEXUAL DEPENDENCY - the "Mirrors" monologue is harrowing stuff.

8. LAND OF THE DEAD - against all odds (budget-slashing, rushed production, semi-obsolescence), George pulled it off.

9. DALLAS 362 - Scott Caan is a natural filmmaker. Who knew?

10. HEAD-ON - I'm a little ashamed of the tiny blurb I wrote for this, a scruffy little gem about two lost souls who don't quite find happiness together. Aside from being a fascinating look into the subculture of Turkish immigrants in Germany, the film is also a love story of a different stripe, in which life has other plans for the lovers that don't include a clean happy ending.

And the worst...

KING'S RANSOM - everyone in this movie is a moron, though almost none of them are acknowledged as such. If I was African-American, I'd be offended that someone thought this would appeal to me. Comedy at its most dire.

Five-and-seventy, and away we go.
Now Playing: Honestly, I'm running out of catchy titles for these things.
WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005, Steven Spielberg)- starts off awesome, with some of the tensest sequences Spielberg has ever committed to film (my favorite being the single shot where the stolen minivan careens down the highway full of broken-down cars just after the initial attack, as the family struggles to maintain sanity within). Too bad the second hour kinda blows. Rating: **1/2.

UNDERGROUND (1995, Emir Kusturica)- The Palme d’Or winner tackles a heavy, ambitious topic (nothing less than fifty years of Yugoslav history) but is surprisingly raucous. Miki Manojlovic is awesome here as and opportunist who deceives his best friend and others into thinking the war is still going long after it has ended, for his own profit. Many details might mean more to me were I more familiar with Serbo-Croatian history, but even now the film is pretty transfixing. Rating: ***1/2.

IVAN THE TERRIBLE: PARTS I and II (1945/1958, Sergei Eisenstein)- Nikolai Cherkassov’s highly theatrical title performance carries this film, not a womb-to-tomb biopic but the story of one man’s rise to power and his defeat of his enemies. There’s less incident than one might expect, as Eisenstein wisely pares down the story in a way that increases the impact of the climactic sequence. The Technicolor sequences in Part II are gorgeous, as is Sergei Prokoviev’s score. A classic, and rightly so. Rating for both films: ***1/2.

MY SUMMER OF LOVE (2004, Pawel Pawlikowski)- Point seems to be that Mona is the only principal character who is completely straightforward- Tasmin (SPOILER!) sees her relationship as a lark, a way divorce herself from serious life before returning to school, and Phil’s born-again Christianity is largely self-deluding, as he tries to will himself free from his violent nature. However, it all feels too inevitable- both Tasmin and Phil feel like they’re trying too hard, blunting the impact of the final realizations. Rating: **.

Sorry I'm late, guys...
Now Playing: A few more 75ers for ya.
GEORGE A. ROMERO'S LAND OF THE DEAD (2005)- Best zombie flick in years, a worthy entry into the DEAD cycle, but also the best Carpenter movie Carpenter never made (ESCAPE FROM PITTSBURGH?). Even with R rating, some killer gore, but also more action than expected- that DVD’s gonna ROCK.. All this plus Leguizamo acting crazy, Hopper underplaying to nice effect, Simon Baker making a solid Romero hero, and social commentary (haves vs. have-nots) for those who are so inclined. More to come, probably. Rating: ***.

HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE (2004, Hayao Miyazaki)- Once again, Visual Flair dukes it out with Muddled Storytelling, but it’s a closer fight than expected, with Muddled Storytelling giving a surprisingly good showing and Visual Flair getting winded after the first hour. Visual Flair eventually pulls off the decision (thanks to Turniphead, Old Sophie, Calcifer et al), but honestly Miyazaki needs to get some help writing the movies and concentrate on making with the awesome images. Rating: **1/2.

BEWITCHED (2005, Nora Ephron)- In which an insipid heroine and a douchebag of a hero fall in love while “re-imagining” the BEWITCHED series. “Clever” story told in most prosaic manner imaginable, with Kidman and Ferrell on seemingly completely different wavelengths, Caine and MacLaine phoning it in, Schwartzman swearing more than everyone else in the film put together and (SPOILER!) a bizarre late-coming cameo that gets more laughs from sheer disbelief than anything that came before. Harmless, but hardly good. Rating: *1/2.

IT'S ALL GONE PETER TORK, er, PETE TONG (2004, Michael Dowse)- Honestly I have forgotten just about everything about this movie. Let’s see… mockumentary form not really carried through the film… DJ Frankie is pretty obnoxious, even when we’re supposed to like him… “make the most of your condition” isn’t really a world-beater of a theme… the club scene isn’t my scene… drugs bad, love good. Am I right? Am I close? Rating: *1/2.

HIGH TENSION (2003, Alexandre Aja)- A gruesomely effective splatter flick in the vein of original TEXAS CHAINSAW for most of the duration (no wonder Aja landed the HILLS HAVE EYES remake), featuring a performance by Cecile de France that’s fairly accomplished for the genre. But even her performance can’t sell that ending, which is pretty (no offense intended) retarded. Half-subtitles, half-dubbing compromise pretty jarring, but it doesn’t matter much after the first reel. Rating: **.

THE MIRROR (1975, Andrei Tarkovsky)- My first exposure to this, which some believe is Tarkovsky’s best. In some respects, pretty simple- the filmmaker reflects on his life and how it affected those closest to him, particularly his mother and his wife (played by the same actress) as well as his son. But Tarkovsky’s storytelling is enigmatic to the point of being impenetrable in spots. But it’s never less than completely transfixing, with the expected corker of an ending (though this one’s fairly simple by his standards). Could very well be a masterpiece, once I figure out what’s going on. And yes, I know this is more than 75 words already. Rating: ***1/2.

FURY (1936, Fritz Lang)
THE LEOPARD (1963, Luchino Visconti)
MASCULINE-FEMININE (1966, Jean-Luc Godard)-
All three of these movies are just as awesome as they were the last time I watched them, but I don't have a whole lot to say about them right now (I'll refer you to this guy's M-F review if you're hungry for more). Also, why does it always seem like I'm winding up with girls like Elizabeth (sexually inviting but distant) when deep down I pine for someone like Catherine (seemingly innocent, but kinda freaky deep down)? Or am I projecting too much onto the film? Ratings for all three films: ***1/2.

Yeah, it's late this week. So what?
Now Playing: Some more shorties for ya
BATMAN BEGINS (2005, Christopher Nolan)- A perfectly entertaining superhero origin story, though rarely more than that. Nolan wisely downplays Burton’s gothic style (and Schumacher’s day-glo mess) in favor of character study, and Bale is up to the task as Batman and especially as Bruce Wayne. Supporting cast a mixed bag- Wilkinson overplays and Holmes sleepwalks, but Murphy steals all his scenes and everyone else does respectable work. A step in the right direction, though final scene’s a too-blatant sequel grab. Rating: **1/2.

MR. AND MRS. SMITH (2005, Doug Liman)- Diverting but rarely fun, Liman’s heavily-armed action comedy feels like a missed opportunity. Pitt’s loose and fun- his scenes with Vince Vaughn made me yearn to see them work together again- but Jolie’s a buzzkill, a self-absorbed glamourpuss packing heat but little of her much-hyped “edge.” Liman forgets he’s making a comedy in the last half-hour, concentrating instead on blowing stuff up, save an elevator gag that was done better in THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE. Rating: **.

THE ADVENTURES OF SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL IN 3D (2005, Robert Rodriguez)- Oh, my eyes! What might’ve been a lame but forgettable kids’ movie becomes a chore due to horrible 3D that caused me to remove the glasses after twenty minutes. Watching the balance in 2D, I don’t think I missed much- lousy acting (by both kids and adults), Rodriguez’s cheeseball DIY effects, and occasional objects being hurled (in either sense of the word) at the camera. Co-written by Rodriguez’s 7-year-old kid, and man does it show. Rating: 0 stars.

THE PERFECT MAN (2005, Mark Rosman)- This movie smells like television, from the telegenic cast (Duff, Locklear, Chris Noth, Mike O’Malley, Carson from QUEER EYE- nothing against TV, but we’re hardly talking Ian McShane here) to the heartwarming and inoffensive messages (scheming is bad, you don’t need a man to be happy, single moms have it tough). Wouldn’t complain about something so bland except that there’s nothing to it besides the tasteless mush. Ah well, at least Hilary Duff doesn’t sing. Rating: *.

WALK ON WATER (2005, Eytan Fox)- An effective, mostly underplayed film about the delicate situation in modern Israel. Lior Ashkenazi is particularly good here as cold Mossad assassin Eyal, coming to grips with his own life through his German “friends.” Fox uses everyday realities such as suicide bombers as fodder for wry humor- cellphones go down, sad music on the radio- while more dramatic moments sneak up on us. Final act in Germany disappoints a bit, but still a strong film. Rating: **1/2.

25 out of 26 ain't bad...
Now Playing: Originally posted at Epinions.com, although this one has way more links.
26 letters, at least 25 have yielded awesome movies (a pox upon thee, accursed X!!!). I had four criteria for the films on this list, listed below in no particular order:
1. I wanted to select films that hadn't been mentioned by too many people, if any,
2. I tried to pick films I've reviewed either here or on my personal site (a link will be provided for Epinions reviews),
3. I didn't want to use filmmakers more than once on the list, and
4. Whenever possible, the films I selected had to be awesome.

Let's see how well I did.

A is for AFTER LIFE- a film that is never less that profound while simultaneously turning me into a wreck at the end (other contenders: ALIEN, ANNIE HALL, L'ATALANTE AU HASARD BALTHASAR).

B is for BELLE DE JOUR- my all-time favorite film, which I refrain from writing about in depth for fear of not doing it justice. Deneuve is my favorite movie star ever, and she's at her most bewitching here, and Bunuel is at his wittiest and most crochety (other contenders: BAND OF OUTSIDERS, BARRY LYNDON, BLOWUP, LES BONNES FEMMES).

C is for COME AND SEE- for my money, the most affecting war film ever made, turning the Nazi invasion of White Russia into a nightmare seen through the eyes of a patriotic teenager (other contenders: CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING, CHILDREN OF PARADISE, CHINATOWN, CLOSE-UP).

D is for DON- not quite the best "D" film ever made, but certainly the most fun. Amitabh Bachchan is unbelievably cool, especially when he's being loose and goofy (other contenders: DEAD MAN, DO THE RIGHT THING, DETOUR, DOUBLE INDEMNITY).

E is for EIGHT WOMEN- yeah, so it's been used before, but who cares? I love love love this movie, a francophile's fever dream in candy colors, with a surprising final emotional punch (other contenders: 8 1/2, ERASERHEAD, EXOTICA, EYE MYTH).

F is for FACES- Cassavetes is amazing, and for my money this is his best. Rowlands, Marley and Cassel are predictably great, but it's Lynn Carlin who's the showstopper here (other contenders: A FACE IN THE CROWD, FAST CHEAP AND OUT OF CONTROL, THE FOUR HUNDRED BLOWS, FREAKS).

G is for GATES OF HEAVEN>- yes, the pet cemetary doc, as eloquent and graceful a film as has been made about the way we find meaning for our own lives through the deaths of those we care about (other contenders: THE GENERAL [Keaton], GIMME SHELTER, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, GRAND ILLUSION).

H for for A HARD DAY'S NIGHT- the Beatles will always rock, and so will this film, which used cinema-verite techniques to reinvigorate the rock musical, previously embalmed by too many Elvis (and Elvis-wannabe) cheapies (other contenders: HEAVENLY CREATURES, HIGH AND LOW, HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR, THE HUSTLER).

I is for IRMA VEP- a pointed film about the making and unmaking of a forgettable film, it's like DAY FOR NIGHT if Truffaut had shot his film hung over, and I mean that in the best of ways (other contenders: IKIRU, IN A LONELY PLACE, IRREVERSIBLE, ISHTAR).

J is for JEANNE DIELMAN- "a film about nothing," says fan Todd Haynes, and he's not far off in his assessment of this 3.5-hour film that uses real-time extensively to follow the everyday routines of the titular housewife. Difficult but completely engrossing (other contenders: JAWS, LA JETEE, JFK, JOAN THE MAID).

K is for KINGS AND QUEEN- I've been obsessed with this movie ever since I first saw it two months ago, and for good reason, as it's the most exciting, disorienting, unpredicable, and alive film to come out in years (other contenders: the KiLL BiLL double feature, THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE, KING KONG).

L is for THE LADY EVE- in a dream matchup of old-school stars, con-artist Barbara Stanwyck seduces bookish heir Henry Fonda only to fall in love with him. Hilarious, beautifully-written, and surprisingly sexy (other contenders: LAST TANGO IN PARIS, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE LIFE OF BRIAN, LOLA (Demy)).

M is for THE MOTHER AND THE WHORELA MAMAN ET LA PUTAIN- "I like French films/ pretentious, boring French films/ I like French films/ three tickets, s'il vous plait..."~ Jay Sherman a.k.a. THE CRITIC (other contenders: M, M. HULOT'S HOLIDAY, MCCABE & MRS. MILLER, MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S).

N is for NOTORIOUS- Hitchcock's best, and that's saying a lot. Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and especially Claude Rains have never been better (other contenders: NAKED, NASHVILLE, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, NORTH BY NORTHWEST).

O is for ORPHEUS- Cocteau was perhaps cinema's great renaissance man: a poet, an artist, a writer, and a director of some of the greatest visions of fantasy ever seen on the silver screen. That he worked with such limited budgets only made his flights of fancy that much more vivid (other contenders: O LUCKY MAN!, ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, ON THE WATERFRONT, ORDET).

P is for PLAY TIME- to paraphrase Rosenbaum's review, see it as many times as you can in the theatre, sitting in different places in the theatre, in order to discover new treasures contained within (other contenders: PANDORA'S BOX, THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, PEEPING TOM, THE PRODUCERS).

Q is for LE QUAI DES BRUMES- this wonderful 30s French drama has Jean Gabin and Michel Simon and a great score, and it's miles better than THE QUIET MAN, THE QUICK AND THE DEAD, and Q: THE WINGED SERPENT.

R is for RUSHMORE- aside from the discomfort that came from seeing something of myself in Max Fischer, I loved this film the first time I saw it, and have grown to love it even more since (other contenders: RED, THE RED SHOES, RIFIFI, RULES OF THE GAME).

S is for THE SINGING DETECTIVE- not a movie technically, but amazing all the same. Gambon's performance and Potter's teleplay are legendary (other contenders: THE SEVEN SAMURAI, SHAME, SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, SUPERSTAR: THE KAREN CARPENTER STORY).

T is for THE THIRD MAN- I saw this in a little theatre in Vienna once when I was 21, and afterwards I strolled over to the Prater, rode the Ferris wheel, and spent the afternoon deep in thought. It's the kind of film you grow into (other contenders: 2001, TAXI DRIVER, THIS IS SPINAL TAP, TWO ENGLISH GIRLS)

U is for THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING- one of the only movies I can think of that are both literate and blindingly sexy, which I chalk up to the lack of literacy in cinema. Heartbreaking stuff (other contenders: THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG, UNFORGIVEN).

V is for VIVRE SA VIE- Godard was untouchable in his prime, and this is one of his greatest films from that period. Anna Karina was so bewitching back in the day (other contenders: VERTIGO, VIRIDIANA).

W is for WALKABOUT- nature and civilization come face to face but the gap is never bridged; therein lies this harshly beautiful film's central tragedy (other contenders: WAKING LIFE, WEEKEND, THE WILD BUNCH, WOMAN IN THE DUNES).

X is for XIU XIU: THE SENT-DOWN GIRL- the only one on the list I'm not really happy with, but at least it's better than XANADU or the X-MEN franchise. Maybe I need to see XALA (Sembene) and XIAO WU (Jia) and resubmit this list.

Y is for THE YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT- Deneuve is just one of the treats this film has to offer (along with her sister Francoise Dorleac, Danielle Darrieux, Michel Piccoli, Gene Kelly, and many more). The jazzy score gets stuck in your head for weeks, but it's so much fun you don't mind a bit (other contenders: YELLOW SUBMARINE, YI YI, YOJIMBO, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN).

Z is for ZENTROPA- not quite a great movie, but interesting nonetheless (when is Von Trier boring), and certainly better than Z, ZARDOZ, ZOOLANDER, and ZORRO: THE GAY BLADE.

Find short pieces on some of the other listed films at my top 100 films page.