'Pirate Radio USA' explores how FCC limits freedom

Pirate Radio USA (2006)
Director: Jeff Pearson
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Veteran pirate radio broadcasters DJ Him and DJ Her take viewers inside the underground world of illegal, low-watt (usually 2-5 watts) radio stations, where people play and say what they want—until the FCC catches them and tramples all over their Constitutional Rights.

"Pirate Radio USA" is a funny, fast-paced, and important documentary that chronicles a decade of struggle by activists and operators of low-wattage micro-radio stations against the FCC and a United States Congress that seems more interested in adhering to the whims and wishes of media corporations than in the Constitutional rights of American citizens. It's a film made by someone who knows its subject well, as director Jeff Pearson and his partner in production and radio broadcast crime Mary Jones are both longtime radio pirates themselves.

The film shows the means and methods of micro-broadcasters across the United States while documenting a troubling and intentional pattern of abuse of the authority and outright Constitutional violations by the Federal government through the FCC. The filmmakers and their subjects focus primarily on the concerted efforts to quash the First Amendment rights of the micro-broadcasters, but what should be of far greater concern to all Americans is the way the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are also played fast-and-loose or outright ignored by the Feds when it comes to pirate radio. (If there's no protection from illegal searches and seizures of personal property, nor any guarantee of due process in the courts, then freedom of speech is pretty much non-existent because no one will dare use it. And THAT is what it seems the FCC has been trying to achieve in the pattern of behavior documented in this film.)

Although Pearson's admitted liberal biases occasionally shine through (such as an irrelevant reference to the "stolen" Presidential election in 2000, and a misfocused coverage of the Seattle WTO riots), "Pirate Radio USA" is mostly an evenhanded film that shows that a talented filmmaker with an honest heart can make an entertaining and informative documentary without having to distort facts or edit interviews to make subjects say or do things they never did (I'm looking at you, Michael "Fahrenheit 9/11" Moore and Ben "Expelled" Stein). It's an excellent piece of work.

No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, "Pirate Radio USA" is worth checking out. Even if you aren't particularly interested in pirate radio and low-watt broadcastiong (although at the end of the movie, I guarantee you'll feel like heading down to Radio Shack for the equipment needed), you'll have your eyes opened to the way the Federal government is stomping all over the Constitution.

moreless

'Entry Level' is a well-tuned comedy

Entry Level (2007)
Starring: D.B. Sweeney, Missi Pyle, Kurtwood Smith, Cedric Yarbrough, Taylor Negron, Dan Southworth, and Steve Ryan
Director: Douglas Horn
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Frustrated over the failure of his restraunt, Clay (Sweeney) decides to abandon his career as a chef and start over in the workforce. But can a man whose pushing 40 really start over again at the bottom?

"Entry Level" is an excellent comedy that satirizes the interview and hiring processes at large companies and the American Employment Security system while delivering a well-stated message about the importance of finding one's talent and sticking with that throughout life, particularly if one enjoys doing whatever it is the talent is.

"Entry Level" is a character-driven comedy that has as its prime focus the above-mentioned Clay (who is in search of a fresh start, but who continues to prepare gourmet meals, only now he's making deliciously creative sandwiches for his fellow job-seekers) and the fellow unemployed people he befriends while making the rounds from job interview to job interview. The sandwiches are one of the film's funniest running jokes, as well as the plot element that leads to the film predictable but still very satisfying happy ending.

For most part, the film draws its comedy from absurd but-all-too-realistic-seeming situations in corporate waiting rooms and job interviews, remaining mostly low-key. It strays into two bouts of over-the-top, comic excess that feel like they might be comedy sketches and out of place in the overall movie. One of these--where Clay triggers a burned-out HR executive to flame out and quit his job in a rather spectacular fashion--the film recovers from because a new character gets added to the story as a result, while the other--featuring the worst job interview from the worst possible boss ever--feels out of place and, while funny, ends up detracting more from the movie than strengthening it.

However, even those two scenes I feel don't quite match the rest of the film's tone, are very well done. The film has an excellent script with great dialogue and well-honed jokes, giving its cast of very talented actors the material they need to shine in every shot.

moreless

'For Your Consideration' is a shaky mockumentary that can't maintain a tone

With the 2011 Oscar Awards ballots being mailed to members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences today, this seems like the perfect time for a review of this movie.


For Your Consideration (2006)
Starring: Catherine O'Hare, Harry Shearer, Parker Posey, Eugene Levy, Christopher Moynihan, Jim Piddock, and Christopher Guest
Director: Christopher Guest
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

When a rumor gets started that three stars in "Home of Purum", a third-rate, low-budget art film (that is still in production) are going to nominated for an Oscar, the Hollywood dream machine and egoes kick into high gear. Can there be a happy Hollywood ending for once?


"For Your Consideration" is a real step downward for Christopher Guest, a writer/actor/director who has turned in some of the best mockumentaries ever made. But his magic formula--which involves a group of actors he works with on movie after movie ad-libbing scenes based on a story outline and that worked so well in Waiting for Guffman", "Best in Show", and "A Mighty Wind"--doesn't quite click in this case.

The fatal problem with "For Your Consideration" is Guest doesn't seem to have a firm handle on the film's tone and style. The film doesn't have a convincing documentary feel to it, and the story is too loose and rambling to be a good "traditional" movie. It occupies a middleground between Guest's mockumentary style and his 1989 film "The Big Show", a straight movie that spoofed the Hollywood establishment and delivered much the same observatiions and messages as this latest film. But, although "The Big Show" had its problems, it was secure in its style. "For Your Consideration" is not, and it ultimately fails, because it feels phony as it unfolds.

The movie features all the faces we've come to expect in one of Guest's mockumentaries, but no one manages to be quite as funny as they were in "Best in Show" or "Waiting for Guffman". Stand-out cast members are Catherine O'Hare (who portrays a Hollywood has-been who comes to believe "Home for Purum" is her final shot at stardom), but she is remarkable here because her character is more tragic than funny and Parker Posey (who plays an obnoxious up-and-coming actress with devastating perfection).

Despite the good performances, this film is only of interest to the biggest fans of this troupe and Christopher Guest. Because the director failed to create a convincing tone--Guest utterly fails at making the film feel like a documentary--the film is shot through with a sense of fakeness and hollowness.

moreless

Not much Christmas for the Grinch to steal here

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
Starring: Jim Carrey, Taylor Momson, and Jeffrey Tambor
Director: Ron Howard
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

In "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (a movie that has about as much in common with the Dr. Seuss book of the same name as "Bram Stoker's Dracula" had with the book it was supposedly based on), the Grinch (Carrey)--a lifelong outcast from the terribly vicious, self-centered and materialistic Whovian society devises a plan to destroy Christmas and the 1,000th Whovilation after one final insult too many.

When watching "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", I was aghast at by how wide a margin the filmmakers seemed to miss the message of not only Dr. Suess' original book but even the cartoon. (Yes, I can envision some Hollywood types not feeling up to reading even a picture book, but they had the cartoon to go by.) The Whos have got to be the most evil, self-centered species in all of creation--the 10-year-old Grinch gets teased by classmates, vanishes, and no one cares to bring him back into the community, just to mention the worst of the characterizations of the Whos in the film--and where they pretty much lived the Christmas spirit in the Suess' book, with the feasts and the parties being an enhancement to their joy not the source of it, in the live-action film, a tiny minority of one (Cindy-Lou Who) has any Christmas spirit at all.

I was also very annoyed at the way the film was written. It shifted back and forth between a straight adaptation of Suess' story and a bunch of extra stuff, but one didn't seem to have an impact on the other. The most glaring of these was after the Grinch comes down to Whoville and takes part in one of the pre-Christmas celebrations only to be humiliated by the Whoville's mayor and his sycophantic sidekick (extra stuff), he returns to his mountain lair and schemes to destroy Christmas in a direct adaptation (line by line in some cases) of the book... but there is no sense or reflection in what he says that he's already been down to Whoville. It's as if no one bothered to go through the entire script and made sure that all the scenes fed properly into one another. It's as if they decided that all the movie needed was a slip-shod adaptation and Jim Carrey doing schtick in a very well-done Grinch suit.

Speaking of Carrey. I've never been a huge fan of his post "In Living Color" comedy... I find him more annoying than funny. I thought that he'd make a good Grinch--based on memories of the previews I saw when the film was originally released--but unfortunately, all he really does is his standard routines wearing a furry suit. Some of it IS pretty funny, but it would have been nice if someone (Carrey... or maybe even the film's apparently MIA director) had bothered to develop a character for the live-action Grinch, aside from "it's Jim Carrey doing schtick in a very well-done Grinch suit."

On, and I won't get started on the absolute butchery they do to the wonderful "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" song.

On the surface, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" seems like a well-done adaptation of Suess' fantastic children's book, and what rating I'm giving it beyond Zero is for the sets and costumes. In actuality, though, it's an embodiment of everything that book was trying to speak AGAINST--empty flash and commercialism that's devoid of heart and true spirit. This Howard-directed abomniation basically takes Suess' message and turns it on its head. In the original story, the Grinch was mean because he had no Christmas spirit... in the movie, he's mean because the Whos neglected him in every possible way and stripped him of all Christmas spirit. The Whos as portrayed in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" deserved EVERYTHING the Grinch wanted to do them and much more.

The cartoon, although nearly 40 years old now, is still the only good adaptation of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", and I recommend you avoid this version. I make my recommendation even more strenuously if you have young children. How will you answer the question "Why didn't his mommies and teacher go looking for him?" after the Grinch runs away from home? Do you really want to explain to your child why a Christmas movie casts such a heartless bunch of creatures as the Whos as the sympathetic characters in the film?

moreless

'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' is an epic comedy

Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

Starring: George Clooney, John Tuturro, Tim Blake Nelson, Chris Thomas King, Charles Durning, John Goodman, Holly Hunter, Wayne Duvall, Michael Badalucco, Ray McKinnon and Daniel von Bargen

Director: Joel Coen

Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

Three convicts (Clooney, Tuturro and Nelson) escape from a chaingang and embark on a quest across Great Depression-era Missisippi in search of buried loot from an armored car heist and a reunion with family.

"O Brother, Where Art Thou?" is perhaps the cutest comedy from the chaemeleon-like Coen Brothers who have not yet made a movie I've seen that has resembled any of the other movies i've seen from them. This one has the feel of a 1940s musical and/or road picture, complete with a spirit-lifting ending that will leave you feeling cheerful no matter how glum you might have been when you sat down to see the movie. Even better, they've used the plot Homer's "The Odyssey" as the framework for this story, and the way they have it manifesting itself in 20th century America is surprising, smart, and very funny.

There is much to love about this movie, but commenting on it would ruin the surprise. This is a movie it's best to come to cold, without anyone having rambled on about about the funny twists and turns of the plot. I will say this: The way they work in fate, prophesies of doom and glory, Circe, the Sirens, the Cyclops, the Ulysses' wife and her criminal, two-faced suitors are not at all going to be what you might expect.

The film is also worth seeing for a very funny performance by George Clooney as the dapper, smooth-tongued leader of the band of adventurers on the quest. I've come to the conclusion after watching this film that no living actor does the "Did I just see what I think I saw?" face like he does... I now understand the comparison between him and Cary Grant, something I've dismissed up to now.

If you're in the mood for a clever comedy that's going to leave you feeling happy and upbeat about life, I can't recommend "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" strongly enough.





For another comedy that makes great use of the under-pinnings of ancient literature, check out "Nacho Libre". Reviews at the time showed a serious flaw in the American education system, as critics focused on the film as a "sports comedy," but completely missed the fact that it's also a step-by-step retelling of "The Epic of Gilgamesh". Or maybe it just showed that even some Jack Black comedies are too intellectual for most movie critics.

moreless

'The Big Empty' is an apt title

The Big Empty (2003)
Starring: Jon Favreau, Rachael Leigh Cook, Joey Lauren Adams, Daryl Hannah, John Gries, Adam Beach, Bud Cort, Kelsey Grammer, and Sean Bean
Director: Steve Anderson
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

A struggling actor (Favreau) is promised money to pay off his overwhelming debts if he go to a small town in the Mojave Desert and wait there with a blue suitcase and bowling ball bag until a man called Cowboy (Bean) comes to claim them. As he waits for his contact, he interacts with the odd inhabitants of a small truck stop... and eventually witnesses what may or may not be alien abductions.

"The Big Empty" is a film full of quirky and interesting characters, portrayed by a cast of talented and charismatic actors. It's got lots of great-looking cinematography that takes full advantage of the locations, perfect pacing, and a minimalist score that comes and goes at the absolute right moments.

Among the actors of particular note are Jon Favreau, as the Everyman drawn into a bizarre situation involving murders and space aliens; Daryl Hannah, John Gries, and Adam Beach are funny and at times more than a little sinister as the small-town folk who may have spent a little too much time in the desert sun; Rachael Leigh Cook is perfect as a teenager who may not just seem like she's some sort of alien but who actually might be one; and Kelsey Grammer and Sean Bean cut mysterious figures who may or may not be involved with aliens visiting Earth, if not actual aliens themselves. The interaction between all these characters is fun to watch, the dialogue is sharp and well-crafted, and you will become drawn into the mysterious swirling through the plot: Just what is in the blue suitcase and what exactly has our hero gotten himself involved in?

Unfortunately, for all the great characters, great writing, and great technical achievement that leads up to the climax of the film, writer/director Steve Anderson chooses to provide absolutely no hints whatsoever as to the ultimate point of the story. We are given some clues--the duster-wearing weirdo character played by Sean Bean identifies himself as someone who helps people "move on," the suitcases [because as the film heads to its climax, one suitcase multiplies into a dozen of them] contain "whatever you need"--the number 11 appears over and over--but Anderson chooses to not provide anything substantial to link these elements, and in the end viewers are left more annoyed than intrigued by the film's ending. As the end credits start to roll, the entire movie takes on a feeling so hollow that one wonders whether the title refers to the desert, the frustration of the main character's drab life, or the box holding Anderson's ideas for what his story meant.

And that's a shame, because the sequence in the desert that makes up the movie's climax is one of the weirdest and most fascinating bits of "aliens walk among us" bit of story telling I've ever seen on screen. However, Anderson's unwillingness to provide any sort of real conclusion ends up undermining everything he's created.

In fact, in some ways, the bonus features on the DVD are almost more interesting than the film itself. Anderson's alternative audio track film commentary is fascinating and interesting, both on the film and on the cut scenes among the bonus features. Particularly interesting are the cut scenes that would have made the desert climax less mysterious (so cutting them was the right thing do do), as well as an alternate ending that would have gone a long way to restoring the magic of that desert scene to the film's final moments (and which might even have made the lack of solid meaning more acceptable because it's so abstract. If you have any fascination whatsoever with the process of filmmaking--be it the creative, technical, or business part--this DVD is one that you want to check out, no matter how flawed the main attraction is.

moreless

'The Big Empty' is a little bit of weirdness

The Big Empty (2005)
Starring: Selma Blair, Elias Koteas, Richard Kind, Gabriel Mann, and Hugh Laurie
Director: J. Lisa Chang
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

When its discovered that Alice (Blair) has a vagina that serves as the gateway to a vast, frozen wasteland, the doctor who makes the discovery (Koteas) takes her on the lecture and talk show circuits, using her as his own ticket to fame and fortune. But an encounter with a caring young man (Mann) may finally alleviate the painful, cold aching inside her.

I'm not sure what to make of this 21-minute film. My first thought was that maybe it was the story of the pain a woman unable to have children might feel, but toward the end I thought it might be about the emptiness and heartache one feels living without love in one's life. Perhaps the message in this film is a Woman Thing, because I'm left scratching my head.

Despite my uncertainty of what the filmmakers are trying to say, I am impressed with the creativity (and touch of craziness) in the idea of this film, as well in its execution. The oddness of the film isn't restricted to its subject matter, but also to its costume and production design which is a mixture of modern-day and 1950sh sort of look that gives it a timeless, dreamlike quality. It's also impressive that, despite the sad tone that runs through the piece, the filmmakers bring on a high number of laughs as it unfolds, with the cameo appearance by Hugh "Dr. House" Laurie being funny just because of who he is. The concluding special effects shot is also jaw-droppingly gorgeous.

All in all, this is a film that's a fitting work product for all the movie heavy-weights involved, ranging from the well-known actors to executive producers George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh.

You can watch "The Big Empty" in its entirety via this very post. Just click on the arrow below. I hope you enjoy the film, and I hope you'll share your opinion of it.



(This is actually the first of two films titled "The Big Empty" that I'll be reviewing before November has run its course.)

moreless

''Watching the Detectives' not up to legacy

Watching the Detectives (2007)
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Lucy Liu, Michael Panes, and Jason Sudeikis
Director: Paul Soder
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

Neil (Murphy), a self-professed film geek and owner of a small video store, has his life turned upside-down when he falls in love with a thrill-seeking woman who may actually be certifiable insane (Liu).

While I was watching "Watching the Detectives", my mind kept flashing back to "Bringing Up Baby", a movie where a decent guy finds his life demolished by a crazed prankster but who finds himself in love with the girl and the excitement she brings to his days. The same dynamic is in effect here, but transplanted to modern-day and set a little bit further down the social latter.

Unfortunately, whenever "Bringing Up Baby" came to mind, this movie was found lacking. Now, it may not be entirely fair to compare anything to one of the greatest romantic comedies ever created, but almost everything that made that movie so great is what's missing in "Watching the Detectives".

"Bringing Up Baby" had a rapid-fire, never-stop-for-breath pace which made the craziness seem even crazier and even the calm moments seem like the characters were running a mile a minute. It was lean with not a second on the screen that was wasted. This movie is nowhere near as swift or trim, and it seems to be jogging from joke to joke rather than sprinting. The pacing of the film is far to languid for the kind of movie it wants to be, which is a modern screwball romantic comedy.

Another bigger problem with the film is that Lucy Liu is no Katherine Hepburn. While Liu is a fun and sexy actress who I've enjoyed even in parts that I felt were badly written (such has her role as the love interest in "Lucky Number Slevin"), she just doesn't have the charisma needed to pull off the sort of character she portrays in this film. She has more energy than a nuclear reactor, tons of sex appeal, and, like always, there seems to be a little bit of crazy lurking just below the surface, but without the charm and grace of a Hepburn, her character comes across as mean-spirited and vicious rather than just a little over-the-top and ultimately loveable. Heck, if Liu had been able to project innocence and naivety like Heather Angel in "Half an Angel" was able to do, she might have worked in the part... but that is even more remote a quality in Liu's bag of acting tricks. While Cillian Murphy is just about perfect in his role, his falling for Liu and tolerating her placing him in real danger just isn't believable, because she doesn't have the "right stuff" for her part.

It also doesn't help that the script never draws back the curtain on the mystery that is Lucy Liu's Violet. She remains as strange and distant to the audience at the end of the film as she was when she first appears in the video store. If the screenwriters had allowed Neil, and the viewers, to get a real glimpse into her world instead of always seeing the results of her lies and manipulations, the character would have seemed a bit more sympathetic and Neil's falling for her a bit more credible. As it stands, the fact Violet remains a cypher makes Liu's lack of charm all the more damaging to the film.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the film is that it's trying to modernize a type of film that simply can't be made today. The more films I watch, the more convinced I become that actors simply aren't trained in ways that allow them to effectively play the sort of characters found in the old Howard Hawkes-type comedies.

"Watching the Detectives" might be worth seeking out if you're a huge fan of Lucy Liu or Cillian Murphy, but if you are attracted to it, because of the promise of a modern-day screwball comedy, you're going to be disappointed.

moreless

In observance of Guy Fawkes Night...

V for Vendetta (2006)
Starring: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea, and John Hurt
Director: James McTeigue
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

In the chaotic world of the near future, Great Britain is ruled by a facist government led by the charismatic Adam Sutler (Hurt). Sutler's government controls everything from top to bottom--the schools, all media outlets, the police, everything--but when a radical, flamboyant terrorist known only as "V" (Weaving) starts a one-man war against the government, Sutler senses the danger and unleashes the might of the government against him. But "V" outsmarts the authorities at every turn, including the loyal civil servant Chief Inspector Finch (Rea). But as Finch investigates "V", he uncovers such dire implications about his government that he finds himself wondering if "V" may not be in the right.

When this film was first released, I saw many people refer to it as an instant classic. I didn't believe that to be the case then--even setting aside the fundamental stupidity of the statement--and I believe it even less now. The movie adaptation has the same problem the graphic novel upon which it is based had... too much of both are ham-fisted screeds against political trends of the moment (the graphic novel railed in a nearly hysterical fashion against British politics of the 1980s, and the movie goes out of its way to take juvenile and simpleminded jabs at American politics of the early 2000s) with too little timeless commentaries on the issues of government vs. personal freedoms and what is right and wrong in politics and society.

(That said, the world of the movie does feel as if it's a tiny bit closer now, at least as far as the absolutely worthless media goes, especially here in the United States. Never have so many journalists been so eager to do the bidding of the politicians.)

Having recently "V for Vendetta", though, I remain confused about why Alan Moore (the writer of the graphic novel) hated it so much. The film captured the essense of the original book just fine. Is it because the filmmakers fleshed out the character of Evey (Portman) with a somewhat overly melodramatic backstory? Is it because the movie was so faithful to the core of the graphic novel that they turned out an adaptation as dated as the original book is, thus showing that the Emperor wasn't wearing much in the way clothing? (Don't get me wrong... "V for Vendetta" is well-written, and I enjoyed reading it, but it's no different than the "Captain Marvel Jr." comics of the 1940s as far as the relevance it's going to have to future readers. Heck, it might even have less, because David Lloyd is no Mac Raboy.)

At any rate, the film features some nice performances--Portman and Rea are particularly excellent in their parts--and its few action scenes are well done as well. Unfortunately, the film exposes a difficulty in translating a comic book character to the screen... what looks cool on a printed page can come across as lifeless or silly when its set in motion. This is the case with "V", the vengeful terrorist at the center of the story. The Guy Fawkes mask and pilgrim get-up was spooky in the comic, but it borders on goofy here.

This isn't a bad film, but it's going to be embarrasingly dated in just a few years. (Come to think of it, the movie will be even more dated than the graphic novel because it's even more ham-fisted and simpleminded in its criticism of increasingly distant blip in history.)

moreless

'Red Shadow' brings sharp objects and ninja laughs

Red Shadow (2004)
Starring: Masanobu Ando, Megumi Okina, Jun Murakamim and Kumiko Aso
Director: Hiroyuki Nakano
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Three young Ninjas (Ando, Aso and Morakamim) of a clan devoted to keeping peace among the many warring nobles of 16th century Japan inadvertantly find themselves at odds with a completing Ninja cland and in the middle of a plot to overthrow Princess Koto (Okina) by powerhungry and bloodthirsty members of her court.

"Red Shadow" is a fast-moving action-comedy with cool and honorable (if occassionally clumsy) Ninjas, sinister and treacherous Samurai that presents just the right mix of action, humor, drama and over-the-top Ninja action to make it a fun viewing experience from beginning to end. Good acting and a neat pop-rock, guitar-driven soundtrack also adds greatly to the both the fun and the excitement.

With great looking sets and costumes, virtually no blood and no sex or nudity, this is a Ninja film that the entire family can enjoy together. The story is a bit disjointed at times, but the exceptional quality in all other departments make up for this.

moreless

'Thank You for Smoking' is an hilarious satire

Thank You for Smoking (2005)

Starring: Aaron Eckhart, J.K. Simmons, William H. Macy, Cameron Bright, Maria Bello, David Koechner, Sam Elliot, Rob Lowe, Robert Duvall, and Katie Holmes

Director: Jason Reitman

Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Follow the adventures of Nick Naylor (Eckhart), chief lobbyist for the tobacco industry, as he advocates for the rights of smokers and tobacco companies while serving as a good role model for his son and hanging out with his best friends Polly (Bello) and Bobby (Koechner), lobbyists for the alcohol industry and gun manufacturers respectively. (Together, they make up the MOD [Merchants of Death] Squad.)

"Thank You for Smoking" is a hilarious satire that skewers American business, politics, pop culture, family life... it touches on just about every aspect of life for the American middle- and upper-middle class.

Aaron Eckhart is the single true star of this film, and he is perfect as the lovable rogue Nick Naylor--the Sultan of Spin who could argue that black is white and make it seem sensible. He is supported by a crisp, well-written script, a tightly edited and well-paced film, and a supported by a group of actors who are perfectly cast in their roles. William H. Macy as the obnoxious crusading US Senator is particularly good, but Rob Lowe as a slimey Hollywood producer, Katie Holmes as a sexpot reporter, and Maria Bello and David Koechner as Nick's best friends--his only friends when he hits a rough spot--also turn in excellent and funny performances.

"Thank for Smoking" is a movie that most thinking adults will watch with a constant smile on their face. The exception would be particularly demented anti-smoking Nazis who will almost certainly be upset by the lack of preaching, annoyed that all the characters are likable, and frustrated by the happy ending for Nick and his pals.

moreless

'He Was a Quiet Man' is a well-done drama

He Was A Quiet Man (2006)
Starring: Christian Slater, Elisha Cuthbert, and William H. Macy
Director: Frank A Cappello
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A deranged office worker (Slater) is going to act on fantasies of murdering his co-workers, he becomes a hero when he shoots another man who was "going postal" at the office. Finally noticed by his boss (Macy), he gets promoted, he becomes the most important person in the life of a pretty co-worker who never noticed him before (Cuthbert)... a violent tragedy has turned his nightmare life into a dream. But is it a dream that can last?


"He Was a Quiet Man" is a film featuring some excellent performances by all its principles--Christian Slater plays another quirky, unbalanced character but he does it in far more restrained a manner than ever before, and he's probably better than he ever has been before--and features a "too good to be true" fantasy story that is made successful and put into perspective by a one of those rarest of things: A twist ending that actually works.

The script is mostly well-written, with an unsual romance story at its core that fits well with the overall quirky nature of the film. However, there are times when it gets redundant and goes overboard with driving home story elements, as if the filmmakers either doubted their own abilities to communicate, or the audience's intelligence and ability to comprehend.





Read more reviews of films with Christian Slater at the Watching the Detectives and Terror Titans blogs.

moreless

'Kung Pow: Enter the Fist' is a masterfulcollection of lunacy and special effects

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)
Starring: Jennifer Tung and Steve Oedekerk
Director: Steve Oedekerk
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

"Kung Pow: Enter the Fist" is a tale of two movies. First, there was a weak Kung Fu flim from the 70s. Then, writer Steve Oedekerk got his hands on it, wrote an all new storyline and English dialogue for redubbing, rearranged many of the scenes (and shot a few new ones) accordingly, tricked himself into the film in place of the original hero, and performed other CGI manipulations to produce a truly hilarious spoof.


The story is of an orphan who becomes a martial arts expert (chosen weapon: a matched pair of gophers) who is on a quest to find Master Pain, the villain who killed his parents when he was but a baby. Never has a quest been so insane, however.

You won't find any highbrow humor here--and I suspect that there will soon be a study issued that watching "Kung Pow: Enter the Fist" causes the IQ of viewers to drop at least a dozen points--but it is repleat with hilarous quotable lines, nonsequitors, and jokes that will first leave you wondering if you witnesses what you think you witnessed and then have you howling with laughter.

It's definately a film for lovers of base, stupid humor, and for anyone who's ever mocked one of those truly craptacular Kung Fu movies from the 70s. If you belong to either grooup, you'll have fun. If young belong to both, you might even enjoy watching "Kung Pow" more than once.

(BTW, the DVD has a whole raft of hilarous and interesting extras, with the "Long-lost Book on Tape Version" being particularly funny.)

moreless

'Best in Show' is among the best mockumentaries

Best In Show (2000)
Starring: Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Catherine O'Hara, Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, Jim Piddock, Parker Posey, John Michael Higgens, Jane Lynch, and Michael Hitchcock
Director: Christopher Guest
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

I first came across this film while channel-hopping, and I thought I was documentary or maybe some reality show. I was astonished at what I was seeing. Yeah, I know people forget the documentary crew is there as time goes on, but these people pitching a fit in an airport with their dog were almost too much to be true. Then, I started seeing familiar faces, and I realized I was watching a movie from the makers of "This Is Spinal Tap", "A Mighty Wind", and other "mockumentaries." Like the two great comedies I just mentioned, "Best In Show" is a fabulous bit of comedic movie making.

"Best In Show" follows a number of show-dog owners as they take part in the Mayflower Dog Club's "Best In Show" competition, where dogs of all breeds come to compete to see who is the top dog and walk away with the Blue Ribbon. There's the lovable country boy Harry Pepper (Guest) with his bloodhound, the simple Gerry & Cookie Fleck (Levy & O'Hara) with their terriers, nut-case yuppies Hamilton & Meg Swan (Hitchcock & Posey) with their hunting dog, the loving gay couple Scott Dolan & Stefan Vanderhoof (Higgins & McKean), and the airheaded millionare Sheri Ann Ward Cabot along with her trainer Christy Cummings (Lynch). From the trips to the show, through the pre-show party, the show itself, and a wrap-up detailing "where they are now", the film stays solidly grounded in the pretense of being a documentary, never breaking style once.


Several of the actors portray their characters so naturally that it's easy to believe their the real thing, such as McKean as the low-key gay hairdresser and Piddock as the consumate professional dog expert who is stuck doing show commentary with an idiot TV announcer (Willard). Other actors, such as Levy and portray such hapless characters that it's impossible to not feel sympathy for them. Finally, we have naked satires, like Hitchcock and Posey's ever-bickering obnoxious yuppie couple and the aforementioned Willard. The mix of these types of characters interacting and moving through a story more realistic-feeling than any of the previous mockumentaries from this same general crew makes this an engaging and constantly hilarious movie.

The DVD version of the film is also excellent. It's got about an hours worth of excellent additional scenes that weren't in the film. These are all great, previously unseen bits... unlike the dreck that is often present as "extras" on DVDs. These scenes were cut for length, not because they were crap. It's also got a commentary track by Guest and Levy that's actually interesting to listen to, and that sheds all sorts of light on how Guest and his actors make these sorts of movies.

moreless

Looking, but not finding, comedy anywhere

Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World (2005)
Starring: Albert Brooks, Sheetal Sheth, and John Carroll Lynch
Director: Albert Brooks
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

When comedian Albert Brooks (Brooks) is sent to India and Pakistan to compile a report for the United States government on what makes Muslims laugh, he finds the task more difficult than he imagined.


To say that "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World" is mild-mannered is an understatement. The movie is so polite and respectable, its voice so soft, that the audience has a hard time figuring out what exactly it's trying to say. Is it a film about a man who is too wrapped up in himself to see that he misses many examples of comedy and what amuses Muslims (and Hindi, since Brooks spends most of his time in Hindu-dominated parts of India)? Is it a film about the ineffectiveness of political bodies to truly deal with the human element (which the film shows all sorts of examples of)? Is it just a string of mildly amusing skits that aren't supposed to be anything else but mildly amusing (something the film also has plenty of examples of)? Is it supposed to be about differing cultures failing to intersect (something the film also provides multiple examples of)?

Frankly, I'm not sure, but I do know that the post-script was the only thing I actually laughed at. I spent most of the rest of the film feeling embarrassed on behalf of Brooks (the character, not the actor) and thinking about how if the film didn't feature the very attractive Sheth as Brook's local ever-cheerful assistant, I probably wouldn't have stuck with this film.

It's not that it's a bad movie, and I really wanted to like it more than I did. Every actor featured does a good job, and every character that appears is perfectly believable--perhaps a little too believable, because watching this film isn't that different from every day life. In other words, "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World" is so blandly polite that it's no different than what you'd probably experience if you were to head down to the local shopping mall and spend an afternoon people-watching. Worse, it's probably not all that different from just another day at the office. (Well, except for the hashish smoking, AK47-toting Pakistani wanna-be comedians.)

moreless

'Dream of a Warrior' is a confused mess

Dream of a Warrior (2002)
Starring: Leon Lai, Park Eun-Hye, and Lee Na-Young
Director: Park Hee-Joon
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

Dean, a Soul police detective (Lai) starts having strange dreams of a beautiful girl being menaced by monsters (Eun-Hye). He is soon assigned by his superiors to help Dr. Jang, a researcher working on time travel experiments. Dean learns that the girl of his dreams is the doctor's daughter, who he, in true mad scientist fashion, used as the test subject in one of his experiments and ended up stranding her in a distant time and place. Dean is the only one who can save her, and soon he too is sent long ago and far, far away, to the world of Dillmoon where the last outpost of civilization is being menaced by evil madmen who wield second-rate computer graphics as their primary weapons!


"Dream of a Warrior" is a fantasy movie that wants to be a sci-fi film. Or maybe it's a sci-fi movie that wants to be a fantasy film. Whatever it is, it's a hodge-podge of ideas that don't mesh very well. Most of the film consists of the story of the final days of Dillmoon and the last incarnations of Lai and Eun-Park as the doomed lovers, Dean and Princess Rose.

In fact, the whole time travel concept is such a small part of what goes on that it's almost extraneous. However, add to the mix a group of cultists that appear early in the film who warn about dire consequences when Jang's experiment links our world to Dillmoon (who then never reappear, and whose predicted dire consequences never pay off), as well as the fact that Dean isn't the only character in the movie that has a counterpart on Dillmoon, and the time travel aspect goes from a ill-fitting add-on to a sword-and-sorcery fantasy film to a convoluted and ill-conceived twist.

There's an average time-travel/eternal-warrior love story that's been smashed together with an average sword-and-sorcery story in "Dream of a Warrior", but the combined total is something that's less than worthwhile. Maybe the 100-minute version that was released in Hong Kong and Korea makes more sense, but the 87-minute international version (the one I viewed) was entertaining but severely lacking in any decent pay-offs from its disparate elements.

moreless

Best to keep 'Ali G' out of your house

Ali G Indahouse: The Movie (2004)
Starring: Sacha Baron Cohen, Charles Dance, Michael Gambon, Kate Hedges, and Kellie Bright
Director: Mark Mylod
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

British gansta-rapper wanna-be and village-dwelling moron Ali G (Cohen) becomes the pawn of an evil politician (Dance) who wants to discredit the Prime Minister (Gambon) so he can seize the reins of power.


"Ali G Indahouse" is one of those comedies I have a hard time watching. Its main character is so stupid that I am so embarrassed on his behalf that it pains me to watch the story unfold. I am also embarrassed on the behalf of the people he interacts with. The end result is that the comedy is a bit muted for me, and I suspect that things others are falling off the couch in fits over have me merely chuckling.

However, the fact that the character of Ali G is such a moron that my pity for him overwhelms the fun I might otherwise have with this movie is but a small part of the problems with it.

A far bigger problem is that it's too slow in the wind-up. The first half hour is tortuously slow and the jokes are fairly unfunny (even when allowing for my personality quirks). I understand the film's desire to establish its cast of British "wiggers", but it does so in too languid a pace and it doesn't give quite enough contrast between them and normal society to make this part of the movie entertaining.

Things start picking up when the villains (the evil Deputy Prince Minister and his personal assistant, played with perfect English upper-crust snobbishness by veteran actor Charles Dance and the gorgeous Kate Hedges) are firmly placed in the picture and Ali G. runs his campaign for election to the House of Commons. And by the time Ali G. is dealing with British and global politics, screwing up an audience with the Queen, and proving to be the worst thing for a villain's master plot ever, the film finally obtains the break-neck pace it should have started with. And the jokes are also funnier.

Despite getting better in its second and third acts, the biggest problem with the film is that the character of Ali G. doesn't work very well outside the context it was originally created in. Ali G. originated as a faux reporter who would hold interviews with real politicians and public figures who didn't know they being set up. Ali G. the interviewer generated humor by mocking rap culture stereotypes and confusing people with utter stupidity, a mix that doesn't quite work in this film. Out of his intended context, Ali G. is simply too dumb to be believable or even entertaining, particularly when surrounded by a fairly tame and realistic world.

That said, the actors who belong in that tame and realistic world that Ali G's antics unfold against all perform superbly, and the film works far better for the fact that serious actors like Michael Gambon and the aforementioned Dance and Hedges play their characters straight. But that's still not enough to fully make "Ali G indahouse" worth sitting through. (Check out "Hot Fuzz" for far more effective British satire.)

moreless

'Let's Go to Prison' should be locked away

Let's Go to Prison (2006)
Starring: Dax Shepard, Will Arnett, Chi McBride, Dylan Baker, and David Koechner
Director: Bob Odenkirk
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

John (Shepard), a career criminal, plots to gain revenge against the judge who repeatedly sentenced him to prison by first getting Nelson (Arnett), the judge's obnoxious, self-important son sent to prison, and then arranging to have himself incarcerated with him. Although John's goal is to see the object of his hatred destroyed by the prison system and the violent inmates, his plan goes wrong at every turn.


"Let's Go to Prison" is a mostly misfired attempt at a comedy. It features good acting and provides a slew of mild chuckles, but in almost every case, the laughs could have been bigger if the scene had been better staged or if the script had been a bit tighter. In fact, there isn't a part of this film that didn't make me feel like it could have been improved if the script had been taken through an additional draft or two.

The fact this film kept flirting with full-blown farce but never crossed the line ended up harming it more than helping it. While part of me finds it interesting that the script could have been reshot as a "serious" and very scary thriller with only minor tweaks, this aspect also keeps it from being a decent comedy.

moreless

The Complete Adventures of Harold & Kumar

Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (aka "Harold & Kumar Get the Munchies") (2004)
Starring: John Cho, Kal Penn, Dan Bochart, Neil Patrick Harris, Ethan Embry, and Paula Garces
Director: Danny Leiner
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

A pair of pot-smoking roommates, Harold and Kumar (Cho and Penn), get a severe case of the munchies and an overwhelming craving for hamburgers after seeing a TV commercial for fastfood chain White Castle. They set out to visit an all-night White Castle, but their simple trip turns into a major quest as they drive, run, ride, and hangglide through the strangest night of their lives.

"Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle" starts out seeming like it's going to be a predictable cross between a stoner comedy and a road picture. As it unfolds, however, it becomes far more than that, brimming with well-delivered social commentary and bizarre surreal humor.

The film's title characters are likewise a multicultural cross between Bing Crosby and Bob Hope from the "Road to..." pictures, and Jack Lemon and Walter Mathau's "Odd Couple" characters--Harold is of Korean extraction and Kumar has Indian roots, but they are both very firmly American. They serve as the primary conduit for the film's running commentary on what a bad idea it is to buy into the notion that there is such a thing as "race identity" and the film's constant use of stereotypes to both undermine that they are useful when dealing with other individuals and to make points about how they may even limit our ideas about ourselves. (Kumar, for example, spends so much time fighting against the stereotypical notion that Indians are either overachieving doctors or store clerks that he's been ignoring his own exceptional abilities and talents, while Harold has so bought into the notion that Asians are boring numbers-crunchers that he's been denying himself and Kumar all sorts of opportunities for partying and more.


As for the film's progression, it starts out fairly tame, but gets stranger and wilder as it unfolds. The high point of the absurdity (and hilarity) comes when our heroes find themselves face-to-face with an escaped cheetah that is referred to repeatedly in the background. A close second is when Neil Patrick Harris appears in a small role spoofing himself.

"Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle" delivers intelligent messages and commentary wrapped within the lowest of lowbrow humor--such as a game of "Battleshits" and the aforementioned appearance by Neil Patrick Harris--without ever straying into the territory of being preachy. If you don't mind offcolour humour and satire taken to extreme levels of absurdity, you'll love this movie.




Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008)
Starring: John Cho, Kal Penn, Rob Corddroy, Danneel Harris, and Neil Patrick Harris
Directors: Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Harold (Cho) and Kumar (Penn) are mistaken for terrorists when Kumar decides to use his smokeless bong on a Trans-Atlantic flight. They are confined to Guantanamo Bay by an overzealous (and dumb-as-a-bag-of-rocks) Homeland Security official (Corddroy). Will our heroes manage to escape the toughest prison on Earth in time to stop Kumar's ex-girlfriend (Harris) from marrying a complete douchebag? Will they manage to prove they're just regular Americans instead of terrorists? Will they survive another encounter with former child star Neil Patrick Harris (played by Neil Patrick Harris)?


"Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay" has all the lowbrow humor, shots to the crotch, nudity, and off-color jokes than you'd expect from a stoner comedy. However, it also delivers some hilarious political satire--which seems to have gone over the heads of most critics--and a running commentary on American culture and race relations, multiculturalism, and REAL patriotism and love for America.

Yes, this is one very smart and intelligent stoner comedy that provides more serious and insightful commentary on the current state of American society and the "War on Terror" than all those crappy political screeds (like "Lions for Lambs" and "Stop-Loss") combined. If you have patience for off-color humor, I recommend you check out this movie. You'll smile, you'll laugh, AND you'll do some thinking. Plus, Harold and Kumar are two of the most loveable characters you'll ever laugh at... and Neil Patrick Harris is one of the scariest characters you'll ever laugh at.

(By the way, if you're at the conservative end of the political spectrum and you like listening to talk radio, don't buy what some of the hosts were saying about this film when it was released. While they were busy taking offense over the film's portrayal of President George Bush, they failed to notice that Bush is a good guy in the film, and he's one of the few characters that Harold and Kumar interact with who actually truly is interested in their well-being, helps them, and does exactly what he promises to do.





If the Harold & Kumar movies sound interesting to you, you might like the "Evil Bong" movies, which are reviewed here, at the Charles Band Collection. A third "Evil Bong" movie is currently under development and scheduled to start shooting this Fall.

moreless

'Shoot or Be Shot' is comedic near-miss

Shoot or Be Shot (aka "Shooting Stars") (2002)
Starring: William Shatner, Harry Hamlin, Julianne Christie, and Scott Rinker
Director: J. Randall Argue
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

An escaped lunatic (Shatner) holds a film crew hostage to force them to make his screen play. Meanwhile, love blooms between the creatively lazy diretor (Rinker) and his leading lady who, to show she can do something other than low-budget crap, has taken on a new identity... and is an actress pretending to be a struggling actress (Christie).


"Shoot or Be Shot" is a fairly predictable and thoroughly unbelievable movie populated by stereotypes belonging to the bottom rung of Hollywood's film business--the low-budget outfits that have been the source of the vast majority of the film's reviewed on this very page. Despite the lack of surprises, the film offers up a large amount of laughs, and William Shatner is lots of fun as he cuts completely loose as a technical writer who snapped after writing one VCR instruction manual too many and who now has turned to screen writing. (It's even funnier that his character is probably the only one in the whole film who has any real talent.)

Speaking of talent, there seems to be a bare minimum of it coming into play in this film. The script has some great jokes and Shatner is riot... and these elements by themselves keep this film slipping below the high end of average. Most of the featured actors give weak performances, and the director was unable to keep the reality of the film he created intact by engaging in the sort of sloppiness that should have gone out with the 1970s and which indicates that J. Randall Argue was almsot as lazy as the fictional director in the film. Of course, it's possible that "Shoot or Be Shot" was trying to be self-ironic, but I doubt it, because nowhere else in the film is there a sense that it is. (I can't go into details without revealing the ending--although any attentive viewer guess it well before the filmmakers reach it--but suffice to say that the movie that supposdely results from the tribulations of the film crew isn't one that anyone could possibly have shot.)

With just a little more effort, this could have been a good movie instead of mediocre one.

moreless