User Profile Friends Calendar

Below are the 25 most recent journal entries.

	2006.05.03  01.24 Match Point This may come as a bit of a surprise, but "Match Point" was actually the first Woody Allen movie I've ever seen. I've never had much interest in seeing Woody Allen movies, though I've been repeatedly told that, as a film fan, I should have that interest in the same way that I should have desire to draw breath. Either way, it's never been much of a priority for me. I chose to watch "Match Point" because of the cast: sensual Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (looking far more like a man and far less like the gaudy, if pretty, strutting boy he was in "Velvet Goldmine"), stunning Scarlett Johansson, and Brian Cox, who I'll watch anything to see. The rest was all just details. I'll keep this short, as my feelings about the picture weren't particularly strong one way or another. It was a lovely-looking film, mainly due to its cast but also due to the fact that it was shot entirely in Britain. The sex scenes were pretty hot, the dialogue was good, the characters and story were compelling and, I thought, realistic, and everyone played their parts very, very well. My only real qualm with the picture is the fake-you-out climax, which I assume Allen thought was "taut", but which in reality just seemed annoyingly contrived. I didn't love the picture, but I enjoyed it, and if nothing else, it's worth it for the pretty. Rhys-Meyers and Johansson are very pretty, especially together, especially making out in stairwells and in the pouring rain. Yum. Rating: 2 Moofs

	2006.04.24  20.11 Silent Hill Let me begin by saying that this will not be your ordinary, run-o-the-mill Silent Hill movie review. I have been an enthusiastic fan of the games on which the film was based for years, and so I'm not just biased, I'm hardcore crazy knowledgeable. So this review will be chock-full of references to the games which the casual movie-goer who has never experienced the world of Silent Hill on anything but the big screen will not understand. To those of you who fit that description, let me just quietly suggest that you stop reading this review now, run out to your local game store and buy a used copy of the first Silent Hill game. Play it. Love it. It will be but the beginning of a long and beautiful, if creepy, relationship. All right, I hope those of you still reading are ready for this. This will be drenched in spoilers both for those who've not seen the movie and those who've not played the games, so consider yourselves warned. Just to add an extra layer of plausible deniability to myself, I'll put the review safely behind a cut. ( Namely, this one. ) Rating: 2.5 Moofs

	2005.08.28  21.23 The Brothers Grimm I just left the theatre after walking out of the second movie I've ever walked out on in my entire life. I don't even remember what the first one was, but this one was "The Brothers Grimm". How bad was it, you might ask? Well, instead of just out-and-out saying OMFG IT SUCKED SO BAD, perhaps going a route paved with examples would be more illustrative. Let me put it this way: I sat through "Starship Troopers". I sat through "The Hulk". I sat through "Ichi the Killer", for Christ's sake - and that wasn't even in a theatre! But I couldn't sit through "The Brothers Grimm". Look, okay, when Terry Gilliam directs a movie and puts actors I really dig in it and I can't sit through it, it's fucking BAD, mmkay? Want a less vulgar description? "Soulless" comes to mind, as does "pointedly un-funny for a film trying so hard to be a horror-laced comedy". It tries to be "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", it tries to be "Sleepy Hollow", it tries to be "Ghostbusters", it tries to be silly and buddy-movie and whimsical and stylish. It succeeds in alternately confusing the audience and boring them out of their skulls...and in lowering the CG bar several hundred notches. The writing is atrociously bad, and good actors can't save it because the script never succeeds in making you care about the characters. The film features more poorly-faked accents than Oliver Stone's belly-flop "Alexander". It's not funny. It's not scary. It does manage to be pretty gross in places, but those are just in severely bad taste. About the best I could say about it on the way back to my car was, "Well, the color was good". The only laugh I got out of it was thinking of the Matt Damon puppet in "Team America: World Police" getting punched in the head while yelling, "MATT DAMON! MATT DAMON!" If you were looking forward to seeing "The Brothers Grimm" and now, thanks to my review, find yourselves at a loss for what to watch this weekend, allow me to offer some alternatives. If you want to see a Gilliam picture, try "12 Monkeys". If you want to see a movie written by Ehren Kruger, try the American remake of "The Ring" - the first one, not the second one. The second one is ass. If you want to see a movie with Matt Damon, watch "Dogma". If you want to see a movie with Heath Ledger, watch "10 Things I Hate About You". If you want to see a movie with Monica Bellucci, watch "The Matrix Reloaded". If you want to see a movie about a small town plagued by supernatural things, which also includes French people (not badly faking accents, as in the case of poor Jonathan Pryce) and Monica Bellucci, watch "The Brotherhood of the Wolf". If you want to see a movie about fairy tales, fucking watch "Shrek". Seriously. Their bit with the Gingerbread Man is funnnier. And that about wraps it up for "The Brothers Grimm". Review: Do you really have to asks how many Moofs this trash got?

	2005.05.14  16.53 Unleashed, or Danny the Dog Ohhh boy I liked this movie a lot. Which is awesome because I was also looking forward to it a lot - since I first heard the concept, in fact - and it is so rare that my excitement about a movie matches up with what the movie delivers blow-by-blow. I'm not a fan of Jet Li. Like, at all. I've hated nine-tenths of everything I've ever seen him in, and I don't really care about him at all, so you have to understand the novelty and sheer awesomeness behind my getting excited about seeing a Jet Li movie and actually liking a Jet Li movie a whole hell of a lot. I think I can list the variables that had to come together in perfect harmony in order for both of these things to occur. First and foremost, Luc Besson wrote it. Oh, I don't like everything he's written, let me assure you. "The Transporter" and "La Femme Nikita" in particular can kiss my ass. But I adore "Wasabi" and "The Fifth Element", admire "The Professional", and thought "Taxi" was really cute. I like Luc Besson. So he's on first. On second is Morgan Freeman, who I will love forever and ever and ever, amen. On third is Yuen Wo Ping, who may do the fight choreography for every other action movie now that he's achieved such renown thanks to the Matrix trilogy, but - hey, you have to admit, he wouldn't be doing said fight choreography on said every other action movie if he weren't damned good at his job. And, most importantly, standing squarely on home base is the fact that "Unleashed" may have Jet Li in it, but it's not what I would really call a typical action movie - and by that, I mean an over-glossed, under-plotted clusterfuck of fighting that just bores me silly. There is action in "Unleashed", of course, but surprisingly enough most of the fights Jet Li has are done off-screen, in a montage that basically sets up the rigors of his daily life as the pet ass-kicker of a British loan shark. The fighting never outweighs the plot, or gets boring - each brawl is more ingenuitive than the next, all building up to a breathless, cringing fist ballet in the confines of a bathroom so small I haven't seen its equal since Japan. It must be seen to be believed. It's just a great movie. It's got the wonderful Besson balance of "aww" and asswhip, so it manages to touch the heart and get that same muscle pumping wildly in the span of a scene-change. Jet Li is perfect. Morgan Freeman is perfect. Bob Hoskins is...you guessed it. The only character I didn't like was Kelly Condon's, and, well...if you've seen a Luc Besson movie, you know there has to be the annoying female character. She may be more annoying or less annoying than the last Besson femme, but she's always at least a little cringe-worthy, at least one time in the movie. And Kelly Condon was reeeally annoying. But Jet Li. Being that I'm not a fan in the least, I really do have to reiterate what an awesome job he did. His jerky, head-bowed shuffle of a walk, his pitifully staring eyes, the animal mannerisms he affects...brilliant. The only critique I would have is a nit-picky one: if he was taught to speak by a man whose language is only slightly better than Cockney Rhyming Slang, then by all linguistic logic, he should talk pretty much the same way. But like I said, nit-picky. The rest is solid, glittering gold. I'd make a cute remark involving the phrase "doggy-style", but I fear my readers will muzzle me. Har. Review: 0 Moofs.

	2005.05.14  16.28 Darkness ...did anybody see "Darkness" when it was in the theatres? Was it even in theatres? If it was, it couldn't have been there for more than a week, and, renting it, it's easy to see why. This poor movie. It was absolutely awful, but not in the way of most absolutely awful movies, which are so ostentatiously bad that you hate them unapologetically, without compunction. No, "Darkness" was awful in such a quiet, awkward way that you feel sorry for it, like it's a shy kid in the corner who you feel you really ought to try to make friends with, but they're just so dull and shy, you just can't muster up the necessary energy to commit to the effort. The only actor of merit in the movie is the little boy who plays Anna Paquin's younger brother. With a drawn, haunted appearance on his adorable face, he blows away the other performers by having the fewest lines, and therefore, the fewest opportunities to show the tremendous glaring flaws in the movie's screenplay. To be fair, the writer is Spanish and probably not fluent enough in English to avoid sounding stilted in his writing. But you'd think somebody in production assistance would've tried to help the guy out. The screenplay is so bad that even veteran actor Lena Olin comes off bipolar at best and downright wooden at worst. And Iain Glen is shudderingly bad. Anna Paquin doesn't hurt to watch, and neither does the actor playing her boyfriend, but the kid's the best of them all - again, mainly because he has the fewest lines. The cinematography isn't bad, and in fact, the sets are pretty damned great, especially at the very end of the movie. Fans of the Silent Hill games will writhe in delight, but also gnash their teeth in agony at the fact that they had to sit through so much ass to see a few fleeting flashlight-glimpses of truly disturbing sets. The plot itself was pretty predictable (except for one thing that really surprised me), but I can't help feeling that if it had just been handled with a better script and fewer "OMG something-shadowy-just-walked-across-that-doorway-where-the-actor-sits-unsuspecting" shots, the movie could have been really good. Which is sad because it's too late now: "Darkness" is poo, and they so rarely make remakes of poo. Sequels, yes. Remakes, no. Review: 4 Moofs. I'll give the shy kid a piece of candy for the sets at the end, but I just can't be friends with him.

	2005.04.02  15.20 Sin City I was asked by someone who has never read a single issue of the Sin City comics how the Sin City movie was, just as a movie, apart from the whole comic-adaptation thing. The answer? Impossible to give. And here's why: the Sin City movie is the Sin City comics. You can't separate the one from the other. Oh, sure, there's a few monologues missing here, the occasional nude shot missing there...but let me put it another way. I actually pity people who are going to see the Sin City movie having never read the graphic novels, because they will probably never know the joy of going into a theatre to see an adaptation of a comic or a novel and coming out 99.9% over-the-top wowed at the justice done to the source material. The Sin City movie is not an adaptation of the comics, folks - it's a translation. A wonderful, visually stunning, powerful knock-out of a translation done by people deliciously fluent in the language of the source. This movie has restored my faith in Robert Rodriguez, and in the talent of actors to play strictly-defined character roles. With the exception of Mike Madsen and Jessica Alba, who I'll come to in a moment, every single actor hit their mark and hit it hard. Bruce Willis, Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke - oh, Mickey Rourke! - Rosario Dawson, Elijah Wood, Rick Gomez, and on and on - they're all peeled straight from the pages of the comics, if not completely in look, then in style and substance. And oh the style. Oh the substance. A remarkably brutal and unfair review by Reuters says that after 10 minutes, you've seen all the movie has to show by way of cinematographics. I refute them thus: yes, the green-screening never changes, but every scene looks so rich, from the alley shot whose simplistic set belies some brilliant perspective work in the background to the occasional flashes of color - blue eyes, shimmering red dress - that are sprinkled throughout the stark black-and-white contrast which is the movie main. It is a film that knows its roots are in a stylish pulp-noir comic, and it is enhanced rather than cheapened by the exaggerated rain, the Dick Tracy prosthetics. The only - and I stress only problem I had with the movie was Jessica Alba. As Nancy-the-girl, she was great, but as Nancy-the-stripper, she fell pathetically short. Even forgetting for the moment that Nancy never appears on stage wearing anything from the waist up, and Jessica remains fully-clothed - let us try to let Jessica retain her clamoring for integrity, even though she just did a cover of GQ in nothing but frilly panties - all of Nancy's power comes from her ability to stagger the audience with the beauty, the energy, of her performances. Nancy is somehow more lively in the still frames of a comic book's pages than she is onscreen. Instead of Nancy's token grin or seductively pursed lips, Jessica Alba manages only to look supremely bored while swiveling her hips in a sad parody of an exotic dancer, half-heartedly pulling and tossing her limp lasso rather than whipping it around in an extension of her own frenetic movements. She was, to say the least, a disappointment in that regard. Fortunately, they didn't let her dance too much. Also fortunately, everything else in the movie is more than enough to make you forget about poor misrepresented Nancy. The violence is over-the-top and very flinch-worthy, and I know some viewers will be turned off by that, but...everything is so wonderful, even the weak of stomach should stick the whole of the movie out, just for the experience. I cannot gush enough about the actors, the scenes. The greatness of the car ride scene with Benicio Del Toro and Clive Owen was an unexpected pleasure. Mickey Rourke is unstoppably watchable and entertaining. Elijah Wood - well, I could go on, but I wouldn't want to spoil the slightest thing. I make only this reccomendation: read the three graphic novels portrayed in the film - That Yellow Bastard, The Big Fat Kill, and the first book, simply titled Sin City - before you see the movie. Trust me, you knowing the stories beforehand will spoil nothing, and you too will get to experience that occasion most wonderful and most rare: seeing a book-to-film adaptation that soars and sparkles and unnerves, a brilliant love letter to a heretofore severely underrated series of comics. Review: 0 Moofs. Absolutely perfect, in spite of Jessica Alba.

	2005.03.23  22.31 The Ring Two To be fair, the sequel to the American version of the "Ring" movie isn't the worst film I've ever seen. That said, it's still really fucking awful. I've said it before, I'll say it again: they should've just remade the Japanese movies verbatim. Add some colorful special effects, some neat tricks, sure - but they should've kept the plots intact. As it is, the first American movie was excellent, but there was one crucial element they ignored...and that element happens to form the backbone of the second Japanese movie. As they left said element out of the first remake, there was no way they could include it in the second, and that, in my opinion, is where they fucked up. Of course, they could've done just fine had they come up with a plot for the second movie that was worth a damn. But no, the plot they came up with was not only bad, it was fucking bad, and weak, and silly, and need I go on? I mean, it wasn't even fucking scary. Just rent the Japanese version. Reading subtitles is much easier than keeping yourself from clawing your eyes out during this tripe. Rating: 5 Moofs.

	2005.02.26  11.59 Cube Zero Oh, for fuck's sake. I repeat: OH, FOR FUCK'S SAKE. Okay. Okay. The first "Cube" - the only "Cube" movie, to my mind - is brilliant. It's smart and gorgeous and I have always, and will always, adore it. And I know that these days, everyone in the world is looking to cash in on brilliant movie ideas by making sequels and prequels galore. BUT FOR FUCK'S SAKE. Admittedly, "Cube Zero" is far and away a better movie than "Hypercube", the piece-of-festering-shit "sequel" - not that being a better movie than unapologetic garbage is a particularly difficult task, but it bears mentioning. It calls itself a "prequel", though there's nothing in the movie that really indicates it takes place prior to the original. In fact, I saw a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that it's actually impossible for this movie to have taken place before "Cube". But I digress. It's a better movie than the last attempt. It had an element of originality to it in that instead of focusing on the people trapped within the Cube, the movie revolves around a technician who works outside the monstrous jungle gym, monitoring the grisly goings-on, who comes to question the ethics of putting people in a giant torture device with only the slimmest possible chance of survival. The characters are more interesting, the writing is better - hell, there's even a line-by-line and motion-by-motion homage to Vincenzo Natali's splendid original in the ending scene. Be all that as it may, I still find this movie to be unbearably offensive; not as offensive as "Hypercube", but offensive nonetheless. Why? I went back through Vincenzo Natali and David Hewlett's commentary on the first "Cube" DVD specifically to find the quotes which I've always said are the biggest reasons why I absolutely cannot tolerate sequels to the original. And these are they: "One thing we decided right from the beginning was that this film would have no context. And that kind of made it, I think, more exciting, because you're dropped into the middle of this story - and it seems like there's this temptation in movies to explain everything and to have a lot of backstory, but in this case, we are given no prologue or epilogue. And I think it makes it more interesting." "There was a lot of controversy about ending the movie [the way we did]...[people] wanted to see what's outside the Cube...but whatever you show is going to be a disappointment. It's more interesting to end it without knowing what's on the other side." So. Given that, right from the original director's mouth, if you make a sequel or prequel that shows what's going on outside, who runs the Cube, what it's used for, why and how the people who are put in are chosen to be put in - anything aside from the conjecture of the prisoners themselves - it's a let-down, because it gives you a neat (and in this case, paltry and silly) explanation for the film instead of allowing you to come up with your own ideas. What Natali said is true - it is so much more intriguing to be left wondering about What's Really Going On™ than it is to be handed the answer on a direct-to-DVD platter. And of course, if you make a sequel in which you don't reveal anything, you've just re-made the first movie - maybe with some new traps and gruesome deaths and interesting characters, but still nothing original. Nothing worth making somebody shell out any money. So why. Why, you unoriginal fucks, do you keep making movies? Review: 4.5 Moofs. The original spin saved it from getting 5, but only just.

	2005.02.19  22.51 Constantine I gotta say, this movie has had me on a roller coaster from the day I first heard about it. At the start, I was ecstatic. A movie based on Hellblazer? OMFG, how cool is that?! Wait...wait, they got Keanu Reeves to play the part of a wise-cracking, whiskey-pounding, chain-smoking, blonde Englishman? Don't get me wrong, I love Keanu Reeves, and will stand up for him to anyone who dares call him a no-talent hack or a moron - but Alan Moore based John Constantine off of Sting, mmkay? And last time I looked, Keanu Reeves was, like, Sting's photo negative. So that kinda killed my excitement a little - until I heard that not only was the movie going to be based on Garth Ennis' "Dangerous Habits" graphic novel, but that the movie was going to get an R rating. Anyone who's ever read any Hellblazer can tell you, some pretty nasty shit goes down wherever John Constantine decides to drape his trenchcoat; nasty in such a way that I just couldn't see the movie being in the least a tribute to the comics with anything but an R rating. So that was exciting. And then I saw trailers...etc. etc. So, after all those ups and downs, what did I actually think of the movie itself? I liked it. Didn't love it, didn't loathe it - I just...liked it. Keanu did not let me down. The boy is smart, despite what you may have heard, and he's a genuine actor - he may not be the most talented one in the world, but I'm often hard-pressed to find one who approaches his craft with more seriousness. I'm pretty sure he read up on Constantine, realized that he himself is not in the least like Sting, shrugged, and made the necessary adjustments. And they work; but for a total lack of a nod in the direction of his illusionist's trade and far less smirking than I was expecting, yes, Virginia, I bought Keanu Reeves as a dyed-and-transplanted John Constantine. I thought he performed remarkably. Everyone in the film does, really. The only character I absolutely couldn't stand was Constantine's fledgling sidekick, Chaz. Fortunately, he vanishes for the entire middle act of the movie, and nobody misses him. Rachel Weisz is cute, and she and Keanu have interesting, if not sparkling, chemistry. Tilda Swinton deftly confuses the audience as to her sex. Gavin Rossdale steps away from heading Bush for long enough to don a sleazy pinstriped suit. They couldn't have gotten a better Papa Midnite than Djimon Honsou if he's stepped out of the comic pages themeselves. But my favorite? Peter Stormare, hands-down. In the interests of not spoiling anything, I won't reveal what part he plays to such engaging perfection - let me just say that he, if nothing else in the movie pleases you, makes the entire movie-going experience worthwhile. The plot was a good mix of "Dangerous Habits" and an original story. The special effects and CG add to rather than hinder the movie. The cinematography doesn't play any fancy tricks, just gives plenty of eye-candy and good pacing. There's even - as I saw it, anyway - a rather grisly nod-of-the-head to one of the first old Hellblazer comics about halfway through the movie. It's not the most phenomenal film you'll ever see. It's not the best adaptation of Hellblazer one could hope for. But all that said, it's fucking good for being not only a director's premiere film, but a book-to-screen translation of a comic whose main character isn't even allowed his native accent or hair color for the movie. I'd see it again. Hell, I'll probably own it. And, naysayers? Shut up about Keanu Reeves already. The jokes are hackneyed, and he's getting better with age. Long live the One. Rating: 1.5 Moofs.

	2004.12.02  00.54 Alexander Dear Oliver Stone, Hi. You don't know me, but I think it might be wise for you to maybe step down off your self-erected pedestal and look around you, at things from down where we pitiful mere mortals stand. Because, um...you may have been lauded in the past for your filmic epics, but...have you actually seen "Alexander"?? Okay, the history, I'll kinda give you. From what I know of old Alex, you were pretty much spot-on...except for that whole conspiracy-theory thing, but then, it just wouldn't be one of your movies without a conspiracy, now, would it? What I won't give you are your characters. I understand that not everyone can be Mel Gibson and make their actors learn other tongues, so I don't mind that the film was in English in the least. But...of all the accents to give the Macedonians, Irish?? I know that you were probably just trying to mask Colin Farrell's brogue, but - and you'll pardon me - if he were a real actor, he would sit down with a voice coach and learn how to mask it better. Because in a film released to American audiences, we're all right with hearing everyone speak with American accents. Hell, we're okay with British accents too. It's not like we're gonna say, "Oooh, that guy sounds like he's from Liverpool, and that, correct me if I'm wrong, was not one of the places Alexander conquered". We're silly Americans, and if all foreigners sound British, that's all right by us. But an Irish brogue will get more than a few raised eyebrows, Mr. Stone, especially if used inconsistently. I might not have minded them so badly had all the Greeks and Macedonians used them, but some of them did indeed sound British, some Scottish, and some of them chosen entirely at random. Also, are you a big Rocky & Bullwinkle fan? Because Angelina Jolie sounds suspiciously like Natasha Fatale. But let's not beleaguer the point of accents any longer, shall we? Your film has far greater blunders than those. The bisexuality. Don't worry, I'm not criticizing you for making Alexander straddle the fence (among other things), since it was commonplace back in Mr. The Great's day to have both male and female lovers. What I am criticizing is how you portrayed his love for men and women so very, very differently. With Hephaistion, with whom history tells us Alexander had a very long and passionate affair, we see little more than two men making goo-goo eyes at each other and pontificating. What little I could hear of the dialogue over the shouts of "FAGGOT!" that kept echoing around my theatre during the scenes with Hephaistion sounded sweet enough, but let's compare those to Alexander's scene with Rosario Dawson, shall we? Oh, how those ribald, nasty shouts in my theatre did cease and turn to drooling when you, Mr. Stone, introduced the most tired way of making an audience pay attention to a film into yours: tits and bush. Yes, Rosario's nudity was most impressive. Yes, her sex with old Alex was very feral and animals-mating-in-the-jungle-like. Big. Whoop. Now, I'm not asking for a sex scene of equal measure with Hephaistion. Honestly, I don't need to see dick and balls any more than I need to see the aforementioned Rosario's naughty bits. But sex between Alex and Heph isn't even hinted at, and for a good deal of the movie, I was wondering if you were indeed going to go any further into detail about Alexander's relationship with his first and most beloved lover than just painting them up to be especially gooey, emotional best friends. I mean, hell, even the eunuch got more action than Heph. And Heph wore his eyeliner better. If old Alex was really as bisexual as history implies, why does he approach Rosario's character with the gusto of a drooling teenager, and keep Hephaistion waiting in the wings? After awhile, his "I love you"s start to sound more like, "Yeah, man, we're cool and all, and we can talk about feelings, but no way do you get the dick, because that would just be gay. Now, um...you stand there, and I'm gonna go have sex with a man with no ween and a woman with great hanging breasts. There's a good doe-eyed best friend." Moving right along to the writing...I do think you've given George Lucas a run for his money where truly rancid scripting is concerned. The battle scenes were ho-hum and badly directed, but good God, at least they took us away from Anthony Hopkins' droning narration and the grandiloquent, superfluous, painful dialogue. Please, next time, close your thesaurus and write your scenes with realistic speech - and while you're at it, write some realistic things for the actors to do as well. Please. For a majority of the film, I felt as though I were watching a Kabuki drama, in which the characters moan and whine and pose at great length, and pull exaggerated facial expressions, and take eight hours to die from self-inflicted wounds. Only, y'know, in this case, it was three hours in which we, the audience, could only sit and wish we could end it all, either via seppuku or by storming the projection booth with torch and axe in hand. To sum up, Mr. Stone, you've succeeded in creating a film that is not only bad, but supremely bad, with faulty storytelling devices, piss-poor acting you wouldn't expect from such a star-studded cast, and pretention in an amount that makes even this elitist bitch balk and cringe. To go for the obvious pun, you've taken Alexander the Great and turned him into Alexander the Mind-Numbingly Boring. Or, if you ask the Mensa-types who surrounded me in the theatre, "Alexander the FAGGY FAG QUEERASS HOMO". Thanks for your time, Mr. Stone. Of course, you may dismiss all of this letter if you like - I am, after all, only mortal, and in no position whatsoever to criticize Your Filmic Highness, even when he makes such a spectacular train-wreck of a movie. Ignore me, by all means, and return to counting your billions and preparing to have audiences in thrall when your next big idea makes a mockery of all that is good about film. Sincerely, Leslie, the Moof Reviewer P.S. Your movie earned 4.5 Moofs, by the way. Angelina Jolie was hot enough to save you from a full 5.

	2004.07.24  22.49 Catwoman Okay, let's be honest right up front here: we all knew this one was gonna suck. Right? I mean, did anyone seriously believe that this movie was going to be good? Did anyone watch that joke of a trailer and say, "Hot damn! This looks like one fantastic movie!" No. No one did. Bad buzz was hovering around this movie like flies around roadkill from the very start. And trust me, the movie deserves its bad rep. Completely. Here's plot (I use the term loosely) for you: Halle Berry plays Patience, a mousy marketing artist for Hedare Cosmetics, a glossy corporation run by the pompous George Hidare (the delicious, delectible, desireable, need I go on with the de-adjectives Lambert Wilson) and his cold, angry wife (Sharon Stone, being romanced by soft light). When poor abused Patience stumbles upon an evil secret ingredient in Hedare’s new skin cream line, she's killed, and her body is reanimated by a cat (but no ordinary cat, oh no!). Back and better than ever with feline reflexes and a brand-new surge of confidence, Patience becomes Catwoman and uses her new powers to get to the bottom of what happened to her. Supplying the necessary dose of romance is Benjamin Bratt. Yeah, this movie's appalling. That said, I must give it points for originality. A megalomaniacal cosmetics corporation certainly is a new one in the villain corner. Okay, first of all, nobody does it like Michelle Pfeiffer did it. Halle Berry's hot and all, but come on, guys. She may be cute doing certain kittenish things, and black leather may look very good clinging to her curves, but she has a lot of growing to do before she can fill the catsuit of the originator. Michelle Pfeiffer could actually weild a whip, for one, as opposed to Berry, who weilds nothing more than carefully crafted CG (the stuff which almost 97% of the film was made of). Pfeiffer's campy lines were delivered at the - ahem - purrfect times, whereas Berry's interjections are so contrived they actually made me cringe. Then there's also the problem of circumstance. I, personally, am a hell of a lot more willing to suspend disbelief when a movie tells me that a woman takes a bad fall, loses her mind, and gets a little schizo for cats than for when a movie tells me that a woman has drowned, magically washed-up in the center of an island of waste, and is then brought back to life by the feline emissaries of the ancient Egyptian goddess Bast. Hell, I'm more willing to believe that a super spider bit Peter Parker on the hand than I am to believe that. Secondly, this is a comic adaptation movie. These movies, by their very natures, are - or should be, anyway - tailored to appeal to the fans of the comic book they are adapting. But I'll be very surprised if any Batman fan actually goes to see this movie - unless, of course, said Batman fan is an unwashed fanboy type who is willing to forget about his fandom loyalties for an hour and a half in return for seeing a leather-clad dominatrix strut across the screen. Which, you know, I don't suppose I could really blame him for: Halle Berry's ass certainly looks no worse in carefully-ripped leather pants than it does otherwise. I'm just not sure it's enough to make the movie worth the pain of sitting through horrible dialogue, silly CG, and downright offensive editing. All that said, I'm a total and complete whore for Lambert Wilson, and will continue to see every movie he's even minorly in, no matter how much of a typecast asshole he plays, in the hopes that someday he'll be cast in the role of the irresistable middle-aged seductor of a winsome young lady. ::clears throat:: Erm - long as they keep me in mind for the role of the girl, that is. Rating: 4.5 Moofs. I think Lambert's visage impressed me enough to save this movie from 5 whole Moofs.

	2004.07.21  01.20 Wendigo Rating: 5 Moofs

	2004.07.05  01.49 Fahrenheit 9/11 I'm going to have to ask you all to bear with me on this one. I may not be able to get through this coherantly. When, in the car on the way home from seeing Michael Moore's latest film, my boyfriend asked if I was going to write a review of it, I told him that I wasn't sure that I could...because I just couldn't find the words. I'm a very opinionated person where most topics are concerned, and I don't tend to be too quiet about my thoughts on a particular subject if I feel strongly enough about it, but I can tell you that I felt very strongly about this movie...and yet, as I was walking out of the theatre surrounded by the group of people I'd gone to see it with, I was the one who wasn't talking, who wasn't sharing my opinion. No, I was hanging back, staring at nothing, lost in my own head, unable to stir up more than a few quiet murmurings while my friends and boyfriend were loudly proclaiming their thoughts on the movie we'd all just seen. So I ask you to be patient with me, and to understand if all I can manage to say with any real conviction is that this movie should be seen. No matter what side of the fence you're on - if any at all, in this very confusing day and age - no matter what your opinions of our President, this fight, terrorism, our country and its relations with the world, and Michael Moore himself...you should see this movie. Because even though Moore has a history of more-than-radical biases, of blowing things out of proportion, exaggerating and even fabricating some of the things he puts in his movies, I believe that in any arguement, every opinion deserves the chance to be heard. Otherwise, the uninformed people of society will cling to one belief staunchly and frighteningly, never to learn or to grow because they refuse to allow themselves to listen to somebody else's way of telling things. Another thing I can say about "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that it is different from any of Michael Moore's other movies. Previous to it, Moore's movies seemed to be more about Michael Moore and lookit-what-a-fine-thing-he's-up-to than about any of the so-called "subjects" of his documentaries. He seemed to me to be nothing more than an attention whore - albeit a funny and informed one - who thrived on being as obnoxious as he could and who had the gall to consider himself important enough that instead of letting somebody else see all the good he was up to, and then letting that somebody make a movie about it, he had to just go on ahead and do it for himself. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not like that in the least. Michael Moore is hardly in the picture. Instead of making himself a key player, he sits back and lets the footage he has speak for itself. And oh, does the footage ever have a lot to say. Of course, there's bias. And there's editing. And there's a few very specific messages Moore is trying to get across. Make no mistake, this is not a film that is trying to be fair to all sides. But in a country where supernationalist sentiment or confused babble is about the best you can get from the masses, isn't it time we heard from an informed source on the other side of the board? If for no other reason than the education in the unpleasant reality of war the film offers, "Fahrenheit 9/11" should be seen, and as soon as possible, by everyone possible. Even if you come away from it thinking the whole thing was a hoax, or just overblown trash, you owe it to yourselves to experience that movie. Because there are few things in this age of mindless entertainment and bigger, better things with which to divert people's attention away from what matters that are as relevant as this film. It will move you to passionate anger and tears no matter what side you're on. Love it or hate it. Just see it. Review: 0 Moofs

	2004.06.05  18.15 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Lord knows I'm probably the wrong person to review a Harry Potter movie. After all, I've only ever read the second book all the way through. I read the beginning and the end of The Prisoner of Azkaban and felt no compulsion to go through the entire thing. I'm not a fan of the stories nor especially one of the characters. However, I liked the first two movies, and, as what I do here is review film, I feel as though I can do a passable job of reviewing "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" as what it is: a movie. As a movie, "The Prisoner of Azkaban" does its job entertaining the audience in spades. Director Alfonso Cuarón has created a movie that thrills visually. The cinematography was wonderfully artistic, implementing darker hues, variegated lighting tricks, and some really amazing film tones. The sets and the natural surroundings were lush and gorgeous, and the CG...well, they managed some very impressive stuff, especially where the rendering of Buckbeak were concerned. I found only a very few minor flaws with the CG rendering and how the actual film blended with it, and found it very easy to suspend disbelief throughout the film. The acting I found to be on the whole very adequate. Emma Thompson was delightful as Trelawney, David Thewlis surprised me by how very well he performed as Lupin, and I fall more in love with Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape by the movie. And the children! God, they've all gotten so big, and their skills are improving as they do so. Daniel Radcliffe had a few dodgy moments, but I believed most of his emotional scenes. Rupert Grint is improving his comic timing. Emma Watson...wow. Not only is her performance the most believable of all the children, she is growing up to be quite a looker. Daniel's nothing to sneer at, but Emma needs to watch herself. Jailbait should never look so good. Gary Oldman - needed to be in more of the movie. As it was, he just sort of showed up on posters and screamed a lot, and then when he showed up for real, there wasn't nearly enough of him. The scenes that he did have, he was magnificent in. The man can play anything. Doll him up in a pleated skirt and robes and have him stand in for Hermione sometime, and I bet he'll fool everyone. The pacing seemed good - as good as it could be, anyway, for having to cram one rather long book into a two hour movie. However, just as in "The Chamber of Secrets", the filmmakers seemed to presume that their audience came into the film already having read the book. I know I'm in the minority, being not only not a fan of Harry Potter, but having also never read the books all the way through, but one should never just assume that they can gloss over important information because the audience already knows it. Even knowing the end of the book, I had a few unanswered questions. That, however, is my only gripe about the movie. The rest of it I enjoyed thoroughly. I'm sure the hardcore Potter fans out there have some louder complaints than my little one - favorite characters and scenes left out, important dialogue cut for time and the like - but as for me, I thought it was about as top-notch as it could get. Rating: 1 Moof.

	2004.05.15  10.21 Troy Hoo, boy. Well, boys and girls, all I can say is, don't go in expecting to see The Illiad transposed to screen, and maybe you won't be disappointed. Bored, perhaps, but not disappointed. Too badly, that is. I'm disappointed because not only did I go in expecting to see The Illiad, I went in all types of bouncy-excited to see this movie starring so many good actors...and then the movie bored me. I can't count the number of times I yawned, lost track of a string of dialogue, or just plain got fed up with how slow the story was going. What saved the film for me was the presence of Eric Bana and that of Sean Bean. My only previous experience with Eric Bana was "The Hulk", so imagine my surprise and delight when Hector turned out to be my favorite character. Eric was fabulous. He was the source of my entire emotional involvement with the film. I sorta sat back and spectated on all the other fight scenes, but I was freaking out during Hector's fight with Achilles. The reason for this, I think, was that my favorite character was in jeopardy, and should he die, my interest in the film would plummet. Of course, there was Sean Bean's scrumpable Odysseus there as a safety net, but Hector! I won't give away the outcome of said fight. The other actors? Brian Cox was an asshole, on par with Edward Norton in "The Italian Job". I still love him forever. Brian, Brian, Brian. Brendan Gleeson was practically an extra, which was pretty sad - I think he got more screentime in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves". Fuck Orlando Bloom. Inability to convey emotion...much?! Jesus Christ, if I have to see one more goddamn movie in which that boy does nothing but sit and look "soulful", I'm going to retch. At least they picked the perfect pansy to play Paris (ooh, aliteration!). His portrayal kinda brought home to me all the more how completely unnecessary the Trojan War was. Had I been Hector, I woulda beheaded both Paris and that useless whore Helen, put both their heads on pikes, and delivered them straight to Menelaus' doorstep the minute he found out what his baby brother was up to. No harm, no foul. Everybody goes home happy and two sacks of bullshit lighter. As it was, at least I got to laugh myself delirious at Paris during his "fight" with Menelaus. Brad Pitt? Couldn't act his way out of a paper bag in this movie. I'm not sure exactly why; maybe it's because they gave him crappy lines and made his emotions waffle more than IHOP. His naked body sure was pretty, but, um...yeah. Eric Bana was pretty and substantial! Ha HA! ( One itty-bitty spoiler, for those who've seen the movie and like LoTR. ) It wasn't a bad movie, it just wasn't a great one. In-between the scenes that bored me, I had a good time. The ensemble cast was cool, and the acting, save Brad's and Bloom's, was pretty good. The scenery was pretty, the men were pretty. HECTOR. ODYSSEUS. Rock over London, rock on Troy. Just follow my advice at the start of this review, and you should like it at least as well as I did. Rating: 2.5 Moofs

	2004.05.01  17.01 Man on Fire This is gonna be a short one, because if the trailers aren't enough to make you want to go see "Man on Fire", then all I can offer you are two reasons to see this fantastic movie: 1. Denzel Washington. Who is not a fan of this man's work? Anybody? Bueller? Washington comes packing the power to make any movie he's in better - except perhaps "Training Day", but that one was hardly his fault except for the whole saying yes to the role thing. I adore Denzel Washington. And he seems to be going the route of a black Sean Connery - no matter how old he gets, he still packs the punch to light women's panties on fire. 2. The camera work. I've never seen so many interesting tricks employed to make a movie so visceral. The first half of the movie, the redeption half, is pretty normal-looking, but the second half explodes in style, so if it weren't enough that the movie is good all on its own, it's also some unusually sweet eye-candy. Tony Scott employed the use of different film stocks, slash edits, and a slew of other things I don't know the proper names of. The film had the best (and least gory) maiming scene I've seen since "Reservoir Dogs". Also, the film included what is unequivocally the most interesting use of subtitles I've ever seen. To make the subtitles worth keeping an eye on for more than just translation is a truly awesome, not to mention ingenuitive feat. You should see "Man on Fire" because, while for the first half of the movie you're admittedly just watching, waiting for the film to get on with the revenge plot, it's still a fabulous story from start to finish. Once again: Denzel Washington is the man. And Dakota Fanning was surprisingly good. I've always kind of sneered at her, because I notoriously hate child actors - but Dakota is worth keeping an eye on. Rating: 0 Moofs.

	2004.04.17  19.08 The Punisher To everybody who said this film was gonna suck, I hope you feel right shitty now. After a series of comic adaptation films which I "ehh"d and "hmm"d, it's so refreshing to find another akin to "X-Men 2"; one which is just totally entertaining and which has massive replay value. "The Punisher" was so much fun, I'm ready to go see it again right now, and hoot and hollar through the lot of it like I did the first time around. I feel like I can't really say anything about it, because that'd spoil the fun for those of you who haven't yet seen it. All I can say is: go. See it. Get nachos and a soda and sit back and thrall to it. A note on Thomas Jane: I've thought he was a cool guy since I saw him in "Original Sin", but never before have I seen him as a righteous badass...and an extremely hot badass at that. I've never been one for muscle and beefcake, but old Tommy boy had my ovaries percolating in a way that comes near what Viggo Mortensen does to me. That and he's just one hell of an actor. One last thing: "The Punisher" was rated R in part for, and I quote, "Pervasive brutal violence". To which I say, +10 AWESOME.

	2004.04.17  18.35 Kill Bill, Volume 2 There's a lot I could say about this film that would be a repeat of my review of Volume 1, so before you read this, you might wanna go read that. I was a bad girl on this one. I read the script for the film long before the film itself was ever released, so I knew what was going to happen. I think, however, that I'm never going to do what I did ever again, and the reason is this: Tarantino changed a lot of things from script to screen, and some scenes I was looking forward to were either removed or tampered with to the point of unrecognizability. I think I would've enjoyed the movie more had I seen it first and read the script after the fact. As it stands, though, I have mixed feelings about Volume 2. The characters, I think, are good ones. I still love the concept of the Bride, the dichotomy between the killer and the woman. Pai Mei, while practically unnecessary, was a breath of fresh air. Budd was almost a sympathetic character. Elle Driver was probably my favorite: I had the same liking for her that I had for O-Ren Ishii in Volume 1. I've liked Daryl Hannah since I was a kid in love with the movie "Splash!"...and what's most interesting about her is that at the height of her popularity in the 80's, she was never so much beautiful as just cute and sweet-looking. In "Kill Bill", though, she's is off the scale into hotness. I could not believe that a woman her age could look so damn good...but then, Tarantino is a boy good at finding these gals who've aged remarkably well: see how gorgeous Pam Greer at a ripe middle age looks in "Jackie Brown". Anyway, Elle was beguiling and cool. I want her suit. The character I have true beef with is Bill. In the wedding chapel flashback, I liked him - and actually thought he was weirdly, but undeniably, attractive. In the Pai Mei storytelling sequence, I liked him. When the Bride catches up to him at the end, I thought he was a loquatious, self-absorbed prick. I mean, seriously, the man babbled. A lot. I got the impression that he just loved to hear himself yak. In fact, come to think of it, Bill sounded a lot like Quentin Tarantino himself tends to sound at times: like he's in love with his own legend, fully aware of how charming and cool others find him to be, and is just revelling in it. Cool a character as he was, I wish Bill had spent less time running his yap; maybe then Tarantino would've found the time to incorporate the one scene I most regret him having cut from the original script: The final fight, the Bride vs. Bill. I can't give anything away openly, but for those of you who've seen the movie, ( click here. ) Gripes aside, I liked the movie. I still love how the whole thing is geared toward movie buffs, I love the soundtrack (especially that remix of "She's Not There" near the end), the characters and story are still some of the most interesting in the history of film, it's fun, and it's most definitely a worthwhile movie to watch. I still think "Reservoir Dogs" is Tarantino's best and least pretentious movie, but I respect "Kill Bill", and do most definitely reccomend it. Rating: 1.5 Moofs.

	2004.04.15  21.15 Cure Okay, everybody, grab a seat and batten down ye olde hatches, 'cause I got a doozy of a rarity for you: "Cure" is a Japanese movie. And I liked it. Yes, you heard right, ladies and gents; "Cure" has joined "Versus", "Battle Royale", the new "Zatoichi", and "Water Boys" in the hallowed halls of Japanese film which I not only tolerate, but actually enjoy. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: any Japanese film that earns even a modicum of praise from me is worth taking a look at. This is because when a Japanese film earns my praise, that usually means it's managed to do a very rare thing; that is, break away from the majority of its brethren - which, on the whole, look and feel exactly like one another - and do something interesting and original. "Cure" is sort of like a Japanese "Se7en" or "Silence of the Lambs", and what's really wonderful about it is the fact that it doesn't bore like most Japanese "psychological thrillers", but rather engages and actually does a bang-up job of keeping the viewer on the edge of their seats, waiting for what comes next; the next slice of the mystery to be revealed. Koji Yakusho (of "Shall We Dance?" and "Tampopo" fame, who I believe is one of the few really noteworthy Japanese actors out there) plays Detective Takabe, a weary man who splits his time between taking care of his mentally ill wife and trying to solve a series of bizarre murders. All around Tokyo, perfectly ordinary people are comitting murders which look random and strange, all of which are connected by one thread: each corpse bears an "X" mark carved into the flesh of their throat. Each of the killers freely admit to their crime, but claim to be unable to recall having had any motive. Takabe is at a loss to explain the connected murders...until he discovers that all of the killers have had brief contact with a strange young man named Mamiya who knows nothing of himself and seems to suffer from extreme anterograde short-term memory loss. It seems as though Mamiya is using hypnosis to incite normal people to commit murder...but a psychologist who is a friend of Takabe tells the detective that hypnosis cannot force people to go against their own morals, and thus a person who believes murder to be evil cannot be made to kill... This movie is surprisingly gripping. Kiyoshi Kurosawa has managed to write a movie that is not only valid psychologically, but thought-provoking and intriguing. Making a movie that captures the attention is not a typical Japanese movie-maker's forté, so Kurosawa deserves even more kudos than a writer/director of any other nationality for coming up with a plot and making a movie that comes packing the power to engross. My hat is most assuredly off to him, and I will be keeping an eye on him to see what he comes up with next. Rating: 0 Moofs.

	2004.04.15  02.32 Jersey Girl You know, if I didn't know that Kevin Smith has a compulsory thing with putting Ben Affleck in starring roles, didn't catch all the reccuring actors that show up in just about every Smith movie, and didn't pick up on some of the words and turns of phrase he tends to use in his scripts, I couldn't tell this was a Kevin Smith film. And for someone who's been a fan of Kevin Smith films since "Clerks", that's a really weird feeling, to not be able to recognize one of his flicks just because. Let me lay it out there for those Smith fans out there who may be up in the air as to whether or not to see "Jersey Girl": it's nothing at all like the Jersey Saga. It almost feels like old Kevin's trying to "grow up"...which, considering the typical critical reaction to most of his prior films, may or may not be a bad thing for his career. All I can say is, some people are going to love it, and some are going to absolutely despise it. I can't with utter certainty tell the masses which category they are going to fall into...which, as many of you probably know, is a very strange thing for me. ::smiles:: But then, "Jersey Girl" is such a very strange experience for your typical Kevin Smith fan. I know some fans are gonna be turned off by "Jersey Girl", but I'm a big Smith fan, and for my part, I thought it was really adoreable. I don't care much for Ben Affleck outside of "Boiler Room", but he played his part well, the little girl was one of the best child actors I've ever seen, and Liv Tyler is the CUTEST THING EVARR. All I gotta say is, if you're up in the air - dude, just go for Liv. She's worth it, all by her sweet little self. George Carlin is also not to be missed in his role as Ben's dad. I never thought I'd say that Carlin had a place in entertainment outside of stand-up comedy, but he really impressed me in this movie. The super-condensed review is: go expecting to miss out on a lot of time-honored Smith trademarks, and you won't get disappointed. You might even like it. I did. Rating: 1.5 Moofs. .5 for Jennifer Lopez daring to show her face, .5 for Ben Affleck in yet another Kevin Smith starring role, and .5 because I really kinda miss the whole "snoochy bootchies" thingum.

	2004.03.22  00.28 Something's Gotta Give So, here's the question of the year: WHAT WOMAN IN HER RIGHT MIND CHOOSES VIAGRA-PUMPED OLD MAN BALLS OVER KEANU FUCKING REEVES?? I don't care if you're one of those who think Keanu's dumb as a tetherball pole - he's gorgeous, and the gorgeousness cannot be denied. I also don't care that "Something's Gotta Give" was supposed to be a sweet, old-people-in-love movie. BOSH. Keanu is teh_win. Jack Nicholson and his scary ass is not. Diane Keaton must be senile to not get this fact. And another thing: that sex scene was the nastiest thing I have ever sat through. Diane looks damn good for her age, but...really. Must we witness old people scrumpage? I mean, I'm sure the middle-agers in the audience didn't get off on that shit either, I don't care how "sweet" it was supposed to be. Movie was too damn long, anyway. Romantic comedies should never beflesh 90 minutes of running time. "Something's Gotta Give" breached two hours. Unacceptable. Here's how I would have made the movie: Jack has a heart attack, Diane meets Keanu, Keanu charmes the pants (literally) off of Diane, Jack ends up in a retirement home where he's looked after by nubile young nurses for the rest of his life, and Diane and Keanu live happily ever after. YAY. The end. The actual story? BULLSHIT. Because, seriously - you guys decide: old man balls or Keanu Reeves? Mmhm. Ain't no choice at all, is it? Review: 3.5 Moofs.

	2004.03.21  03.38 Dawn of the Dead - the remake Oh my golly wow. Okay, short and sweet, this is one bloody hell of a fantastic fucking remake. The original was great, and Lord knows I love it, but this new one...wow. Okay, take the basic framework of the original, throw a spitshine and polish on it where special effects and makeup are concerned, toss in a few more characters for good measure, remove all traces of camp and replace them with some great moments of hilarity, add some truly gut-wrenching scenarios, and sprinkle on the fact that the George A. Romero lumbering zombies have gone to lunch, and for the duration of this movie the zombies will be played by the Infected from "28 Days Later" (and thus will tear ass at ludicrous speeds), and you've pretty much got yourself the remake. It's not so much horror as it is action, and it's amazing amounts of fun with a dark flipside that keeps your emotions on a rollercoaster throughout the duration of the piece. Never once is there an opportunity for your interest to be lost or your attentions to waver. It's just a great work of cinema. The writer made some excellent choices, the direction was stellar, the actors were all on point, and it's got just enough of the original to make those who've seen the original hearken back, while containing surprises galore to keep everyone on their toes. It's not the same movie as the original...just a tribute that George A. Romero should be very proud of. Review: 0.001 Moofs for the fact that my favorite character didn't live through the movie.

	2004.03.20  12.41 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Historically, I don't much care for Charlie Kaufman. I recognize that he can write a movie, but not one that I can completely enjoy. I almost hated "Being John Malkovich", and while I liked "Adaptation", the climax still bothered me. Well...congratulations, Chucky-mah-lad, you've succeded in making a film which I not only loved but loved from start to finish, no qualms. "Eternal Sunshine" is quite possibly the most romantic movie I've ever seen in my life (and who knew Charlie had any real recipe for romance up his sleeve?). I say this, however, with emphasis on the fact that while it is romantic, and wonderfully so, it totally avoids chick-flick stereotypes, any and all schmoopyness, and - most importantly - the typical bizarre Kaufman twists we've come to expect from his earlier movies. This film presents the relationship between Jim Carrey's Joel and Kate Winslet's Clementine in a very simple, very natural light that rings endlessly true and proves that Charlie Kaufman really is an excellent professor of the humanities. I kept waiting for the aforementioned Kaufman twists to crop up in the movie, but they never did. Sure, the whole memory-erasing thing is far-fetched, but it is a completely necessary plot device to the film, and requires only the most cursory suspension of disbelief to accept and enjoy. This is a film, at its heart, about impermenance, and that's what makes it so incredible. So many "love" stories are about "the one" and "forever", and so few recognize that we as people often find many loves throughout our lives; that those loves can be tulmultuous as they can be exhilerating, that they're sometimes boring and sometimes horrible. The point of "Eternal Sunshine" seems to be that while our little happinesses are fleeting, they should be reveled in regardless of whether or not they will last. In the end, Kaufman seems to have some difficulty wrapping things up, but at that point, you just don't care anymore. If you're anything like me, you'll have been swept away by the emotion and the relevance. If you're seeing it with a significant other, if by the end of the movie you haven't fallen in love with them all over again, then perhaps you should seek out a new lover. This is the sort of film that makes you appreciate love, which renews in your mind as it does in Joel's throughout the course of the movie the worthwhile things about relationships; that the good most often really does outweigh the bad. And that's why I say it's the most romantic movie I've ever seen; because it feels real and poignant in a way so many other love stories can never hope to accomplish because they're just too polished and based in fantasy. "Eternal Sunshine", while it contains elements of the fantastic, never ceases to be utterly grounded in the way things are. The acting is good all around. Jim Carrey - I've said it before and I'll say it again: this man was made for drama and wasted on crap comedies. As Joel, he's melancholic and shy in a way that isn't painful to deal with, as was Charlie Kaufman's rendition of himself in "Adaptation". Kate Winslet fairly shines as Clementine, the impulsive, indignant heroine of the piece. She's hard to handle at points, but then, this is a very true movie, and I know of no person who doesn't have their moments where they're bordering on intolerable. Elijah Wood was perfectly cast in his role as the duplicitous Patrick, who steals the mementos of Joel's love for Clementine in an effort to win the girl to his side now that she's forgotten Joel. I don't care for Kirsten Dunst, but her character tugged on my heartstrings toward the end of the movie, and I came away thinking she did a really good job. If you're in a relationship, you must go see this movie. If you ever have been in a relationship, especially one that ended badly, you must go see this movie. Everyone else - you should see it, because it's just a worthwhile piece of cinema, and in this day and age, Lord knows that's a thing as rare as finding true love. Review: 0 Moofs. Ain't love grand?

	2004.03.19  18.43 Bubba Ho-tep I know not many of you have heard of "Bubba Ho-tep", so before I give my thoughts on the film, let me give you the low-down on the plot. Really oversimplified, it's an Elvis impersonator-who-isn't (Bruce Campbell) and an elderly black man (Ossie Davis) who believes himself to be JFK fighting an undead Egyptian mummy in cowboy boots who's terrorizing a retirement home in Texas. Now, I know that sounds downright idiotic. I know it sounds like your typical laughable Bruce Campbell, B-movie fare. But beyond the veneer lies a movie that is not only hilarious, but adorable and surprisingly touching, sad, and reflective. Bruce Campbell really is a hell of an actor. As Elvis, he gives an iconic portrayal, but as an old man coming to terms with the fact that his life is nearing its end, he's spot-on - creating a character that is equal parts cartoonish and pensively dramatic. I seriously believed he was Elvis, despite the doubts of his nursing home staff. Ossie Davis is a little more difficult to believe. It's not just that he's got the wrong skin color (he claims to have been "dyed"), he doesn't use any Kennedy mannerisms or speech patterns. There's some evidence that, as he claims, a portion of his brain has been lesioned, but there's nothing that really points to him actually being JFK. Not that there needs to be. These two elder gentlemen working together creates a team that is full of subtle mirth and a fair amount of real dignity, surprisingly enough for a film that looks so ridiculous. I loved this movie to bits and tiny little pieces, and I will own it once it comes out. It's amazingly good - but I can't really do it justice describing it here. It just has to be seen. Review: 0 Moofs. This is my favorite Bruce Campbell role.

	2004.03.09  00.47 Monster It has been a long time since I've gone into a theatre expecting mediocrity and walked out feeling like I'd just spent the most worthwhile 8 bucks all year. It's difficult, now, for me to say anything regarding "Monster", the film which is for Charlize Theron what "Being John Malkovich" is for Cameron Diaz: hard proof that a pretty face can act her gorgeous ass off. I'd heard much about it - mostly clamor from the Academy Awards - but hadn't felt any desire to go see it. I'd heard it was the true story of "America's first female serial killer", that the lovely Charlize had put on 30 pounds and was unrecognizable as Aileen Wuornos...but why, I asked myself, would I want to see the woman I'd pay a fair amount of money to see portray Lucette Veen in an adaptation of Ada in an unattractive role? Well, the answer, boys and girls, is that it's a fucking stellar movie. By far the finest piece of celluloid I've seen so far this year, and certainly one of the best in recent years; perhaps one of the best in the history of film. None of this means, however, that it's an easy thing to watch. No, this movie is extremely uncomfortable to sit through; at times painful and at one extreme point outright devastating. There were several times during the film where I felt the desire to avert my eyes, or to get up and leave the theatre, but none of that was due to the film being bad...it's just that it's a very, very bitter pill to swallow. But it represents all that filmmaking has the potential to be: something stirring on multiple levels, something that engages you mentally and spiritually, something that makes you feel like you've witnessed a part of humanity you might never get to see at any other time. So many movies these days have forgotten the magic they should wield inherantly, sacrificing their power over the audience on the altar of budget, special effects, big names, crazy action - mindless, boorish entertainment. "Monster", however, works its subtle spell over the viewer and causes you to ache in a way that a million blockbusters never could. If any of you have doubted Charlize Theron's ability to act - really act - you must see this movie forthwith. Her performance is stunning, disturbing, and so, so vital and real, you are left feeling certain that this could not be the adorable girl from "Sweet November", or the charming love interest of "The Cider House Rules". It just can't be; the transformation is too complete, the personality too unsettlingly believable. Christina Ricci is perfect for her role as a naive young lesbian, and I was surprised to catch Lee Tergesen (of "OZ" fame) in a bit-part that will make every woman in the audience cringe. No role in the movie is badly-acted, but Charlize's is by far the finest performance. See the movie, and I'm certain you'll agree, because...holy shit. I may never see this movie again, just because it hurt too badly to sit through...but I am endlessly glad that I saw it at least this one time, because it is so close to flawless, I cannot believe that modern-day Hollywood is responsible for it. Review: 0 Moofs.