Inside Man 2/5 reviewed by Mike

Try this cast on for size: Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster, Christopher Plummer, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Willem Dafoe. This sounds like it would have to be a good movie to get all these actors to agree to do it--and it almost is.

The impressive cast all do a good job with the parts they are given, there's no doubt about that. These people are big names for a reason, and it shows here. The acting is good. But I'm convinced (yet again) that director Spike Lee doesn't know what he's doing.

The basic idea is a simple bank robbery/hostage situation in New York. The movie takes about ten minutes to let you know that it was filmed in New York, by the way. Denzel Washington plays a dectective that gets called in to handle the situation, which quickly spirals out of control. It becomes clear that this isn't the average bank robbery, and something else is going on besides just money.

The first major problem I had here is the music. The opening credits and end credits both have this wierd, unplaceable music that really disorients the viewer, not only because it's not very well done, but because it's so out of place for a bank heist movie. It's like some dumbed-down version of Indian traditional music, with oversimplified percussion backing it. The scoring of the bulk of the film was horrendous. It was like listening to some cheesy version of Henry Mancini scoring a 1960's cop drama. I think Lee was trying to create a nostalgic thriller-movie feel, but it doesn't work. Especially when the music spouts annoying cliche's at random times, that are punctuated by wierd jump cuts and predictably cheesy camera angles.

Spike Lee has this habit of derailing his movies to make unneccesary points about race relations. It's clear that he will sacrifice plot and character so he can vent about rasicsm. It just seems like everytime he gets a script, he goes, "hey, lets add like 30 minutes of people complaining about how they're mistreated because of their race--no, I don't care if it's not what the character would do--make him do it! And make sure all the white people look like idiotic bigots!" Spike's random race talks really take away from the pacing of this film, which wasn't that good to begin with. There are entire subplots--and Jodie Foster's entire character--that are completely irrelevant to anything. If they were erased completely from the film, no one could tell the difference. Not to mention the fact that Spike tries to be like Tarantino, and jump around in time--but the cuts don't make sense, and are clearly there because because it "seems cool and hip" rather than because it helps the story. There's about 25 minutes at the end that should be erased as well. Things resolve, and there's a predictable subplot left to the viewers imagination--but instead of leaving it there, it follows that plot for 25 minutes, still doesn't resolve it, and then ends. It feels tagged on and unecessary. You'd think someone hailed as such a good director would understand how to pace a film--129 minutes never felt so long.

If you're looking to see a good cop movie, check out 16 Blocks. If you want to explore race relations, go rent Crash. Leave Inside Man for the people who give Spike Lee a free pass because he sacrifices his movies to make political points.

See this movie if:
-You've already seen "V" and "16 Blocks" and you're still dying to get to a theatre. There's just nothing else out.
-You're looking for more reasons to be mad at white people, and "Crash" was too complex and honest for you.
-You love seeing Denzel be cool, and nothing else matters.

Don't see this movie if:
-A movie's soundtrack is an important part of storytelling for you.
-You want to think you're being smart, political, and informed, yet seeing a quasi-action movie at the same time.
-The last time you saw Jodie Foster was the original "Freaky Friday." Let the innocence stay there...

V for Vendetta 3/5 reviewed by Mike

Ok, lets get a couple of things straight. "V for Vendetta" is one of the best graphic novels ever made. Period. If you haven't read it, go here and order it. It was written by Alan Moore, who is one of the best writers in American and British history. It is masterfully illustrated by Davil Lloyd. Even if you're not into comics, maybe especially if you're not into comics, this book will floor you, check it out.

Now, there is a danger when something this close to my heart gets adapted into a movie. Especially with Alan Moore's work--a lot of what he does on the page are techniques that are unique to the printed page, making traslation into film difficult. Also, this work is so smart and deeply layered that a film would have a hard time containing it's complexity. Basically, the point is--I expected this movie to suck. Especially when I knew the Wachowski's (those responsilbe for the matrix debacles) were involved. Then I heard that Alan Moore refused to have his name attached to the work (which is why only Lloyd's name appears in the credits).


Let's just say that this movie was a lot better than I expected. They were very faithful to the book. If you don't know, let me briefly tell you the plot. Basically, it's "1984" meets "Batman." Imagine a world where England has become a totalitarian, nazi-like regime. Every aspect of society is controlled by a fascist dictator, and anyone who doesn't like it (or is "different") is killed. In this society springs up a man known only as "V." He wears a Guy Fawkes mask (reference to British history, read about it here) and proceeds to challenge the government, instigating massive social change. Along the way he befriends a young woman named Evey (played brilliantly by Natalie Portman) and you learn that V is not only challenging the government, but has a more personal agenda as well...

This movie is very well acted, and I'm not just saying that because I'm madly in love with Natalie Portman. I loved all the set designs, and the costumes--they were very true to the book and very cool to watch. The camera work isn't ground breaking, but its good, and serves the story well. Overall, the movie is smart, and is sure to raise many questions in your mind about life, government, people, philosophy, etc. Make no mistake, this is an intellectually challenging film. I'm already hearing the moanings of people who are misinterpreting it, saying it's "anti-Christian," or "promotes homosexuality." In my opinion, these people are just looking for something else to be mad at. But watch the film and see for yourself. Religion and homosexuality are but two of many tough issues raised by this film. I never felt like the film tried to preach, or force its view on others--rather you are invited to take matters and ideas into your own hands.


The downside is that as smart and challenging as this film is, it is a mere shadow of the book. It feels like a watered down version of Moore's brilliance. Although many of the ideas and issues are there, the genius of it isn't. So, if you like this film at all, check out the book. An adaptation doesn't have to be exactly like the book to please me, as long as the spirit is kept (X-Men is a great example). However, in "V," there were some liberties taken which bothered me--mostly the making of Evey and V's relationship into a love interest. Their relationship is supposed to be that of father/daughter,not lover. The love thing gets in the way and really confuses things. There were some disapointments which I can't mention because it'll spoil the story, but let's just say that V's character is slightly compromised a few times--not in major ways, but enough to make me think they were trying to make it more appealing to a mass audience--ironic since that is almost completely against the statement the story is trying to make. Maybe there were parts of the book they just "didn't get."

Another thing that bothered me a bit about this film was the pacing. In the graphic novel, the story is told as a series of vignettes, which is how they were originally published. The film translates this quite literally, so the beginning feels rushed to me, while the middle seemed a little tedious. The first third of the film is dizzying action, and then it seems to grind to a halt for a while, and Evey comes in and out of the picture. Sometimes shes with V, sometimes she leaves for a while, and its not clear where she goes or why. In the comic, these pacing changes flow well and are natural, given the form. In film, the pacing just seems a bit jagged. These reasons are why the film doesn't rise to the status of a 4.

Overall, it's a good film, and a successful adaptation. If you are in any way shape or form intrigued by it, please check out the book. I garuntee it'll push the limits of what you think comics can do.

See this movie if:
-You enjoy being challenged by new views on politics and philosophy.
-You think "comic book movies" are just for kids.
-You're tired of the Hollywood action blockbusters with no substance.

Don't see this movie if:
-You live in a bubble and don't like being exposed to views contrary to your own.
-Images of people being tortured in concentration-camp-like settings disturbs you.
-You're looking for a movie to see right before you propose to your girlfriend. (Yes, this happened to someone close to me.)

Syriana 4/5 (so close to a 5/5) reviewed by Chris

I just got around to seeing this film. I had been really excited to see it from the time I first heard about it. Film critics (real ones) and Hollywood-types did a grand job of hyping it up last year, if you’ll remember. It more or less slipped through the cracks for me though and something else kept trumping it when it came time to pick a movie to go see. If you read this review soon and live near me, be informed that it is at the Lewisville dollar theater. Nothing gets me to go see a movie quicker than telling me I only have to pay a buck.

Syriana

-Now in theaters, soon to be on DVD?-

Chris’s review:
As I was experiencing this movie I thought of a phrase to put in my review. That phrase is:

The most important film that Americans won’t see, care about, or understand.

By now you probably know the basic story of Syriana. It is a film by Stephen Gaghan, of “Traffic” fame, based on a book called “See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism” by Bob Baer. Basically it is multi-layered, inter-weaving story about the global oil industry and all of the politics, business, and various groups involved.
I can’t say that I know enough about the workings of the world to tell you how accurate this film is to real life but I’m not entirely sure that has anything to do with the importance of Syriana. The importance lies in the fact that this movie raises questions. This movie makes you think about the big picture. This movie “pulls back the curtain.” I think it manages to do that brilliantly, but still keeps you emotionally interested in the characters.
I had read reviews that warned this movie is hard to follow, so I went in to it a bit worried. When all was said and done, I actually had no trouble digesting everything that happened. Now, DURING the movie you DO get thrown from story to story a bit, but I think that is a device of the well-written adaptation. Part of the action and intrigue is NOT knowing everything all at once. Be warned though, this is not a movie to go to expecting everything to be given to you. There is a certain amount of effort the viewer needs to put in to keep up.
As far as craft I was very impressed. The directing, cinematography, acting, writing, etc. are all very strong. Notable performances from Matt Damon and George Clooney were highlights from a very large and skilled cast. Surprisingly, Amanda Peet rose above her typical shallow comedic roles to play the wife of Matt Damon’s character VERY well.

In conclusion (see I CAN write short reviews every now and then) I want to reiterate my feelings that this is a very important film for Americans to see. You will either come away from it having done no more than pass a few hours with a well made film, or, more importantly, you may come away from it with a slightly broader view of the world around you.

Chris’s recommendations:
See this movie if…
-You enjoy having a film present you with real world issues in a manner that is easier to follow and more entertaining than sifting through the countless cable news channels and their talking head robot anchors.
-Every now and then you are OK with having to think while you wolf down over-priced popcorn chased by your favorite soda pop.
-You sometimes question the manifest destiny type attitude of the country you live in.

Don’t see this movie if…
-The plot twists in the Charlie’s Angels movies were “too much of a distraction from looking at boobies.”
-You think even the slightest questioning of our nation’s policies and practices is not only un-American but one step away from terrorism.
-Your name is Tad.

Night Watch 3/5 or 4/5 reviewed by Chris (JoePunchface)

Lucky for me, I am the second Crew member to review this movie so I won’t have to give you much story or plot background on Night Watch. I would like to point out though that I AM reviewing this movie second because I saw it AFTER Mike though oddly enough, I was the one that discovered this film and TOLD Mike about it. That is right; he went and saw it first without me…AFTER I was the one that even put it on his radar before he knew what a Night Watch even was! Ok, sorry, had to get that off my chest. He DID make up for it by going and seeing it again with me last night, so I still think he is cool. ON WITH THE REVIEW!!!

Night Watch

-Limited Release-

Chris’s review:
First and foremost I must explain my rating of this movie. In my title I do the worst thing a reviewer can do and give this movie a “tweener grade” of 3/5 or 4/5. Allow me to elaborate for you. As the Hankinstien explained in his review, this is the first movie of a trilogy. AS the first movie in a trilogy which will only further develop the world presented here, Night Watch would easily earn a 4/5. It is VERY deserving of that ranking. However, if you went in to this movie not expecting it to be a beginning of an epic story you might be disappointed. Thus, as a stand-alone film, Night Watch is probably a 3/5. Again, by all means this is a 4/5 movie (possibly pushing the barrier of a 5/5 once the trilogy is complete) but for the time being it is a weaker 4/5.

OK, explanation made. Now, why do I think this is such a good film? Well, Mike nailed a few of my points, which I agree with him on so I will only brush over them again before going in to some of my own DIFFERENT points that make this a great film.
As Mike mentioned, this is a great dark fantasy type of movie, but it never pushes that SO hard that you get tired head. Most movies you see with vampires, wizards, witches, shape shifters, etc., there is always a good amount of “explanation time” where the film makers feel they have to lay out all of the “rules” for you. “This wizard can do this, this, and this, but not this or this,” is a good example. There is always an attempt to make you understand the limitations of the powers of characters with “special powers.” NOT Night Watch! Night Watch throws you into this world and lets you make your own assumptions based on what you see. There are rarely scenes where a character sits down and explains the entire science, metaphysics, and “rules” of the world you are in. That is wonderful in my opinion. That lends itself to a more “real” feel. Mike also pointed out that though this is an “action” type movie it does not conform to standard practices in that vein either. The film is not just a vehicle for big time action sequences and mind blowing special effects as many action films are. What I mean by that is this is not a movie with a minimal story line just so they can blow up a car or do some wire fighting. If anything the action takes a back seat to the story and does not draw attention to itself but instead serves to move the story along further. That too was a refreshing approach to film making in this “genre” if you will.

Now, let me hit you with the most impressive bit of information in my opinion. This film was made for an estimated budget of 4.2 million dollars. An ACTION film, with GREAT special effects, WONDERFUL cinematography, SWEET settings, and SUPERB character actors (though unknowns from all accounts) was made for 4.2 freaking million dollars! That, my friends, is staggering. Let us compare Spiderman 2 which had a boisterous estimated budget of 200 million. I think the visuals of Night Watch are every bit as eye popping as Spiderman 2 but for an unbelievably lower price tag. Please also consider the cost of the following indie type movies that had NO special effects and were nothing more than characters acting out situations with a few cameras in the room:
Sideways had a budget of 16 million.
Good Night and Good Luck came in at 7.5 million.
It boggles the mind that such a visually captivating film could be made for so very little. If nothing else, it speaks to the supreme craft of this film because not a single special effect looked cheap or weak. You will see things in Night Watch that you have never seen before and each time you will be wowed.

I applaud those crazy Russian film makers. They have started something which has the potential to be nothing short of greatness if they hold true to the course.

Chris’s recommendations:
See this movie if…
-You can still remember what a fun experience it was the first time you saw the Matrix.
-You are a sucker for a good vampire/fantasy movie…especially one that is well done.
-You speak Russian and want to look cool in front of your friends/girlfriend.
-You want to go to a movie and continually be forced to utter this phrase under your breath: “Dude, that was awesome!”

Don’t see this movie if…
-Sci fi/Fantasy makes you doze off because you can’t handle using your imagination.
-You won’t sit through a film where the actors don’t speak your language because the mighty God himself decreed that ONLY English is an acceptable form of spoken word.
-Your action movies need to follow this formula:
Bad ass, tough guy hero + Big breasted, somewhat dim-witted damsel in distress + Two dimensional, “I know that guy is evil” bad guy + 2 or 3 very large, very unexplainable explosions + a nice, neat, tied up with a bow-on-top ending where America wins = One hell of a movie going experience.

The Weather Man 1/5 reviewed by Chris

Ok, I know this is an older film, but I just saw this movie on DVD and I wanted to review it because I think it is a good example of a recent phenomenon in film that I would like to discuss.

The Weather Man

-Now available on DVD-

Chris’s review:
My review of this film is somewhat dualistic. What I mean by that is I have an opinion to express about the actual film itself, but also, this film serves as a good example of a certain type of film making that I would also like to review.
First things first though, the imdb.com plot outline for anyone that has never heard of this film: “A Chicago weather man, separated from his wife and children, debates whether professional and personal success are mutually exclusive.”
That sums up the basic idea rather well. One of the main problems with this film is that it is EXACTLY that plot outline. It never feels much deeper than a one line blurb about what the movie is supposed to be about.

There is a rather star heavy cast to mention:
Nic Cage as the Weather Man himself. I will tell you openly that I hate Mr. Cage, seeing him as no more than a useless “actor” that is horrible in everything he has ever done and yet for some reason is still considered big time. He does nothing in this film to change that opinion.
Michael Caine as the Weather Man’s dying father. Putting the great Michael Caine on the same screen as Nic Cage was a titanic mistake! Think Pizza Hut’s “Big New Yorker” pizza on the same plate as an authentic NYC greasy pizza pie. You see the shit for the shit when it is put next to greatness. Michael Caine IS greatness. Sadly, he can not save this film when he is given meaningless and derivative drivel to work with.
Hope Davis is the Weather Man’s estranged wife. Hope Davis is very quickly becoming a very substantial actress. Not only is she appearing in more and more notable films (such as Proof, American Splendor, About Schmidt) but she is also incredibly talented.

Now, with that cast in your mind let me move to my second point. This film is a great example of a new film making technique in Hollywood. I like to call it a “Fake Indie Movie.” Major film studios realize the draw of a quality indie film. They KNOW that there are those of us left in America that actually hold film up as an art form and look for a little more from our movie going experience then an explosion or two and a pair of naked tits. These studios also have mastered the ability to make a film that will be in the “Oscar race.” The result is movies like The Weather Man. By all counts this movie COULD be a real indie film. It has all the right characteristics in the story, almost FORMULATED characteristics as if they now have a formula for pumping out quirky, indie feeling scripts in LaLa Land. But despite its attempts to seem REAL, and deep, you see right through the bullshit and realize that it is just trying TOO hard. You never get sucked in to this world and feel like it is a believable human experience…something TRUE indie films do so well. Instead it feels like someone FAKING it and trying to make you empathize with the main character when in reality he is so two dimensional and false that you begin to root for his demise. Other than the big name cast, another clue to the true nature of the powers behind this film is the director. Most of you will know the name Gore Verbinski in relation to Pirates of the Caribbean. Not exactly a struggling first time director that has a passion to tell a story that “needs to be told.” Not exactly your Wes Anderson, or Alexander Payne type of director right? Don’t get me wrong, he is a very able director. In fact I enjoyed POTC quite a bit. The point though is that everything about this movie reeks of big film studio “A” pushing an “Oscar worthy” indie film that in all actuality is just a wolf in lamb’s clothes. They are TRYING to be indie, but failing miserably with a movie that you NEVER believe from start to finish.

Keep trying Hollywood, we see right through your feeble attempts.

Chris’s Recommendation:
See this movie if…
-You want to pretend you’re seeing a “real” movie that deals with real issues and real people but in actuality you’ve not left your safety bubble of big budget, heartless, thoughtless crap.
-You think Nicholas Cage’s performance in Con Air or Adaptation or National Treasure was one of the best male performances in film EVER!
-You thought Da Vinci Code was a well written, exciting, and provocative novel.

Don’t see this movie if…
-You want to see something with heart, or meaning.
-You hate the fact that on his tax returns Nicholas Cage actually puts “actor” in the profession box.
-It pains you to sit through films that are nothing more than a calculated attempt at: A. Making money or B. Winning an award or C. Posing as something that it is not.

16 Blocks 3/5 reviewed by Mike

I love Richard Donner, mostly because he made the first Superman movie, and that holds a special place in my heart. But he's also made plenty of other movies that have a special place for me--things like The Goonies, and The Lethal Weapon series. This guy's been making cool movies since before I was in diapers.

16 Blocks is no exception. The plot is simple enough--A beaten down cop (who is less than honest about his work) played by Bruce Willis has to take a prisoner (Mos Def) down to the courthouse for a hearing. Normal-day stuff. Until the people this prisoner is going to incriminate show up to kill him. It gets interesting real fast.

I was worried that this movie would be Die Hard: With a Moustache. But it isn't--it's very well directed by Donner. And he doesn't even have to work hard to get great performances from his actors. This movie is all about the acting. Bruce Willis is perfect in this role--he's not an action hero, he's an alcoholic, depressed, leech of a cop who gets in a bad situation. And he acts like a depressed alcoholic throughout the movie--despite it's "action-ness," this story is more about character, which makes it much more interesting to watch. Even Mos Def does a good job.

The plot is a little predictable, and there's plenty of things that you see coming. The writing is good but not great--the dialouge is sometimes contrived, but the brilliant acting more than makes up for it. I would, however, loved to have seen what Willis could have done with this same character had the dialouge been better. But it's hardly noticeable once the movie kicks into gear. With a little more effort into the writing, this movie could have been a 4, but it's a pretty high 3 as it is. It's more than worth it to see Willis and Donner at the top of their respective games.

See this movie if:
-You like movies where cops are the bad guys
-You like action movies, but wish the characters were deeper
-You're tired of big-budget, Hollywood re-hashes

Don't see this movie if:
-You're expecting Die-Hard: With a Moustache
-You hate Cop movies with all of your body
-You need a love interest to keep you interested

Night Watch 4/5 reviewed by Mike

I feel the need to give you a little bit of background to explain this movie to you: In Russia, there is a novelist named Sergey Lukyanenko. He’s kindof like Russia’s Asimov, but he’s current. He wrote a series of books, the first of which is Night Watch. They caused a gigantic sensation in Russia, and are now being made into feature films (a trilogy) that are causing an equal sensation. Compare it to LOTR or Harry Potter. This stuff is huge over there. And now it’s made it here.

Before my opinions, let me first explain the plot: There exists in the world a group of people called "Others." All others have certain characteristics, like being able to become invisible by entering a state called "The Gloom." But each other has certain unique abilities—some can see the future, some can turn into animals, some can heal, some are witches, you get the idea. They’re kindof like mutants in X-Men universe. All the others are divided into "dark others," and "light others." The dark others are straight up vampires. There has been an eternal war going on between the groups, and there is a treaty. Basically, vampires can’t eat people without permission, etc. The Night Watch and the Day Watch are police groups which enforce the rules of the truce. They skirmish with each other in modern-day Moscow. It is prophesied that a child other will one day be powerful enough to sway the balance—will the child choose dark or light?

So that’s the basic premise. Keep in mind how much I’ve been waiting for a good vampire/dark fantasy movie. This movie does not disappoint. It’s just plain awesome. First of all, the cinematography is greatness. The angles, camera movements, its all really creative and interesting to watch. Special effects are sweet. They do some really innovative stuff—the way vampires die, the way the characters have visions of the future, the powers people have—it all looks great, and feels like part of the story, not an add on. The character development is good too—you really get into the main characters heads, and even the peripheral characters seem well thought out. It’s not necessarily a character-driven story, but they do feel like real people, which is way more than you can say for most action flicks. And that’s the other thing—this movie, for all its cool special effects (and there’s plenty—cars flipping, explosions, people turning into tigers etc.) it takes its time to develop the situations and the characters. It doesn’t feel like its rushing to get to the action. The story is cool and engaging—what they do with the genre is really cool, and really inventive. These aren’t normal vampires, and it blends many fantasy elements into one cohesive whole—with a consistent tone and feel. It doesn’t feel like a Hollywood produced, genre mash-up. It takes you into a surprisingly realistic, consistent world with realistic, consistent characters. That takes skill, and this movie delivers it in spades.

So, the plots great, the characters are cool and realistic, the effects are cool, and the tone is awesome (Matrixy without being over-the-top so). But it is all in Russian, with sub-titles. If you hate sub-titles… give this a try anyway. Because even the subtitles are creative. They become part of the visual storytelling. When a character shouts, words are thrown violently across the screen—when a vampire talks about thirsting for blood, the word "hunger" fades into blood. The subtitles interact with the storytelling in ways that actually help the feel of the movie—surprisingly its not distracting, its enhancing.

I loved this film, and I can’t wait to see what happens in the next one (which has already been released in Russia, so hopefully it’ll get here soon). The only reason I don’t give it a 5 right away is because I feel I should wait until the whole thing is out. It’s possible I may give the series a 5 overall—but I’m always worried that it’s going to pull a Matrix: Revolutions on me.

See this movie if:
-you like darker fantasy stuff, like vampires
-you like smart action films
-you think foreign films are for sissies and women

Don’t see this movie if:
-Vampires, tornadoes-made-of-crows, and chicks-turning-into-Tigers frighten you
-You are so opposed to the idea of subtitles that you can’t even stand watching Jeopardy cause of the words on the screen
-Your favorite movie is “The Notebook”

-Mike

The Squid and The Whale 3/5 review by Chris

This is an old review I did of this movie when it first came out. It was originally posted on the 1st Critic Crew website, but this one works much better, so now it is posted here. Enjoy:

The Squid and The Whale

-Now in Theaters-

Chris’s Review:
Today, on a whim, I saw this film. It is getting quite a bit of praise from the critic types and the writer/director Noah Baumbach pulled in both the Director’s Award and Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award at Sundance. The basic premise is as follows: “Based on the true childhood experiences of Noah Baumbach and his brother, The Squid and the Whale tells the touching story of two young boys dealing with their parents divorce in Brooklyn in the 1980's.”Thanks to imdb.com for the plot outline. I will add though that one of the main plot points is the fact that both parents are intellectuals. The father (played by Jeff Daniels) is a novelist and teacher whose career is struggling while the mother (played by Laura Linney) is a writer on the verge of her first novel being published and is enjoying success as a contributing writer to various magazines and literary journals. This proves to be an excellent back drop for the story of a family dealing with a rather sad separation that at times is so convincing you feel like a guilt laden voyeur being allowed too much access.
Despite the fact that the subject matter is the rather heavy topic of divorce and what it can do to both the parents involved as well as the children caught in the middle, there is a fair amount of humor to be found in this film. It has the feel of dancing dangerously on the line between drama and dark comedy. I felt that more time was spent on the drama side of that line, but there are unmistakable moments of a bizarre light heartedness. My only problem with the over-all feel was that those moments that would be very funny when taken alone are almost uncomfortable when taken in the context of a somewhat depressingly well acted and well written account of the destructive power of divorce.
I do highly recommend this movie though. The performances are all VERY good. The characters feel extremely real and human. The film itself seems to accomplish its goal of being, simply, a snap shot into this family’s life without offering a packaged happy ending or preaching a particular view on how divorce should be approached.

Chris’s Vote:
Worth my time to see. I liked it for what it was.

Chris’s recommendation:
See this movie if…
-You like art house movies.
-You enjoy very real and interesting character portrayals.
-You or someone you know went through their parent’s divorcing at a young age.

Don’t see this movie if…
-You can’t handle movies with no car chases, explosions, one liners, or action heroes.
-You need a tidy ending where everything is explained into a nice “…and they lived happily ever after.”
-A VERY realistic portrayal of a family struggling through a divorce sounds uncomfortable (which it very well may be to some people).

Mirrormask 3/5 reviewed by Mike

I have been a long time fan of Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean's work in the comic book field. They've produced some really great work. So when I saw that they had this movie, "Mirrormask," I got kindof excited.
Let me start by saying this is one of the wierdest movies I've ever seen. Basically, a young girl's mother becomes seriously ill. Of course the girl (Helena) feels responsible. Before she can deal with her feelings she is pulled into a wierd and magical fantasty world (courtesy of the Jim Henson company). We don't really know if this is a dream Helena is having, or if its somehow real, or if she's going insane, or what. In any case, she quickly discovers she must go on a quest to save the queen of this world. We don't really know why she must do this, but she seems confused as well, so we can go along with it.
What I expected from this movie was something similar to Gaiman's other work--something like "Death: the High Cost of Living," or something like that. Instead, this movie would feel more at home next to "The Neverending Story," "Alice in Wonderland," or "Labrinth." The story really isn't that compelling, and neither are the characters. I was hoping for deeper characterization, and a more compelling plot. Alas, I was disapointed. Thats not to say that the story is bad, it's just not well developed. Younger children (to which this movie seems to be aimed at) might get sucked into the world, without noticing some of the plot holes. The theme of masks and what they symbolize is interesting, but it isn't explored far enough to get you thinking.
Clearly, this is a visual movie. The story is almost an excuse for the visuals, which are very wierd, but very amazing, nonetheless. Everything you see looks like it might have come out the world of the "Myst" videogames. The sets and designs all come from Helena's drawings, which are very stylized, and kindof cool. Everything is computer animated--it seems that about 85% of the movie was just two or three actors and a greenscreen, with everything added afterwards. This definitely adds to the feeling of being in a completely different world, where the laws of physics no longer apply. It's pretty cool if you're looking to escape into a wholly "other" world. I'm just telling you--the images are wierd. And interesting.
Overall, this is worth seeing just for the interesting wierdness of it all. Younger people may find it more interesting. I think kids would enjoy this movie the way I enjoyed Labrinth and Neverending Story when I was a kid. I just wish the plot was stronger. I wanted to be drawn into the film emotionally rather than just visually. But its so strong visually, that it might just be worth watching a few times.

Ultraviolet 2/5 reviewed by Mike

If there’s one thing in life I love, it’s comic books—I’ve been an avid comic fan for as long as I can remember. One of the biggest travesties of American culture is—-to me, anyways-—the stereotype that comics are only about costumed freaks punching each other senseless, and that only kids would find them of value. Truth be told, the comic medium is a vast one, full of richly varied stories—many that are not about superheroes at all. The comic medium is no longer just for kids, and by that I mean that the medium is a mature one, capable of doing things no other medium can do, and many creators use this to tell great stories in exciting ways that no other medium can duplicate.
What does this have to do with Ultraviolet? Well, this movie lets you know right from the opening credits that it’s trying to be a "comic book movie," by showing images of comic book covers. Unfortunately, this movie stands for everything that is stereotypically bad about comics.
The plot itself is almost unintelligible. Apparently, there is a race of Superhumans called "hemophages," (of which there is only about a half dozen) who are at war with the humans. But nowhere in the movie do you get a sense of this war. No one seems to be at war. No one seems to be fighting. Even though everyone knows where the hemophages are, nothing is done about them. Doesn’t seem all that serious of a war if you ask me.
About a third of the way through the movie, they start calling the hemophages vampires. No one knows why—-they certainly don’t have any characteristics of vampires except for two sharp teeth. But they never bite anyone, they don’t crave blood, they have no problem with daylight... there is nothing at all vampiric about these people. I could go on explaining all the logical problems with this movie, but there isn’t the space. Suffice to say that this movie never makes sense. And not only is the story full of holes, but its scripted so badly, that I was cringing throughout most of the film. There is absolutely no characterization—-there is no motivation for any character to do anything—-the characters are continuously doing random things that don’t make sense with what we know about them--every line is a cliché—its just a big mess of a bad movie.
Even with all this said, its possible that it could still come out as a fun, cheesy action movie. But that’s not possible either. The effects are horrendous. It looks like the CGI was made by a kid using a crappy demo version of cheap rendering software. When your special effects look like an episode of “Aqua Teen Hunger Force,” its hard to keep any kind of believability going. Some of the fights are cool, though. And Milla Jovovitch does look nice. It's almost a good action flick--but allow me an example of what I mean: In some movies, sometimes it’s better to not show a fight, but to show the aftermath of one-—a door opens and the hero is surrounded by bodies—-that can be cool sometimes. But this movie does that exact thing for almost every fight. So many times I was like, "oh, finally, a cool fight," and then its cuts to something else and you just hear the sound of the fight. It’s like they couldn’t afford to actually film them.
I was hoping for so much more from this director-—who had previously done a favorite of mine, "Equilibrium"-—but it seems us comic fans will have to depend on word of mouth to get people to believe that comics are not all childish, pointless drivel.

-Mike

The Rating System

Well, I haven't officially discussed this with Mr. Punchface, but I think it'll be okay. I'm going to institute a rating system here, for you quick readers who just want a quick "yes or no" type description for movies. Here's how it works: the system will be based on 5.

3 Is the standard. Basically, 3/5 is like your basic, average, not bad but not great movie. A rental. Worth seeing, but nothing extraordinary.

Clearly then, 4/5 is a great movie--probably something to own. Something you definitely want to watch more than once. And the highest rating--5/5--is reserved for those movies that are the best movies of all time. The ones I'll still be watching when I'm old and grey. The ones I'll constantly be talking about and referencing. Timeless classics.

Obviously, below 3 is where it starts getting bad. 2/5 is for those movies that are well below average. You probably don't want to waste your time on these films. But then there is the 1/5 category. This is for those horrendous pieces of atrocity that fill your nightmares. Things like "Windtalkers" and "The Avengers."

We'll be putting our rating in the title of each review, so that when you look at the "recent posts" section of the sidebar, you can see our rating at a glance. Also, More than one of us might review a movie and give a different rating. Over time, you'll get a feel for our tastes.

Enjoy! Comment if you have any questions--see you at the movies

-Mike