Reviews

Review:

Say what you will about its similarities to 'Pocahontas' or 'Fern Gully' or 'The Smurfs,' James Cameron's 'Avatar' is a film experience like no other. If it does not win every category for special effects at this year's Oscars I will hang up my hat and sail for strange new lands with better awards for films because I will know the Academy has no bearings on reality.

'Avatar' is James Cameron's first film since his 1997 megahit 'Titanic.' In some respects, 'Avatar' is a return home for James Cameron. He is at home in the science fiction genre having delivered us such gems as "Terminator" (1984) "Aliens" (1986) "The Abyss" (1989) and "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991). But while those films depicted grizzly and bleak predictions for humanity, 'Avatar' invests itself in the concept of natural beauty and the necessity to save it.

We never go to earth in 'Avatar' but we meet many earthlings – all Americans – and we are informed that earth has been stripped barren of its natural resources. Subsequently, a giant military operation has been set up on Pandora, a distant planet lush with forests and seas and floating mountains. The military and earth's corporations seek to obtain a resource conveniently called unobtanium (want to guess if the humans succeed in getting it?). Pandora is rich in the element. Unfortunately, a great source of unobtanium is located right under a giant tree where the peaceful indigenous people of Pandora, the Na'vi, live.

The Na'vi are nine foot tall, blue humanoids with tails and yellow eyes. They commune with the nature of Pandora and generally live like composites of every indigenous people you could see in a movie. The invading humans have found that the best way to learn and communicate with the Na'vi is by using avatars - genetically engineered Na'vi clones that are controlled by the mind of American soldiers from a remote location. The hero of 'Avatar' is Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine who's asked to become an avatar after his twin brother, who initially was to be the avatar, dies.

The film begins with Jake Sully arriving on Pandora. He meets the lead scientists in the Avatar program, Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). She's a tough talking smoker scientist but she is one of the good guys, promoting the preservation of Pandora and the Na'vi culture. Jake also meets Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), a military man who has eyes only for his missions. As you can probably guess, he's the bad guy.

Jake Sully is put into his Avatar and immediately thrilled to be able to walk and have the prowess of a Na'vi. On his first mission though he becomes separated from the group and finds himself at the mercy of Pandora's not-too-hospitable woodland critters. He is saved by a beautiful Na'vi princess named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Soon Jake is integrated into Na'vi culture, practicing their many rituals and learning their language. He falls in love with Neytiri and after some love making decides the Na'vi way of life is not so bad.

Now, of course, the conflict is that Jake loves the Na'vi but he's in the service of a military that wants to destroy them and steal their unobtanium. Who will Jake side with - the war- like, profiteering humans or the peace loving blue people? Well, if you can't figure it out, I'll let it surprise you.

The special effects in 'Avatar' are why you should see this film. I have read that there are internet forums where people claim they feel depressed or even suicidal after seeing 'Avatar' because compared to Pandora, our world is a bit too dreary for them. At first I scoffed at this thought. I thought it was testament to how many people are living in a mindset a bit removed from reality. Now after seeing 'Avatar' I understand. The forests of Pandora are so wrought with detail you find yourself believing in it. The fantastical imagery are objectively absurd, but when rushed into the moments of their revelation, you become swept up in them. Particularly stunning are the floating mountain ranges, a geographical feature that's pure fantasy and yet might make sense in a region of reduced gravity.

"Avatar's" storyline is secondary to its effects. You can tell where James Cameron's interests were not primarily concerned with a new story. The narrative arc of an outsider becoming an insider and then fighting against the outsiders has been done many times before and it's been done better too. I found the characters to be underdeveloped and hard to sympathize with while the themes were overly developed to the point of hyperbole; anti-imperialism and preserving nature, while noble themes, are so in your face throughout the film, there is only one way to interpret 'Avatar.'

Usually a paragraph like the one preceding this would merit a bad review from me, but the visual effects of 'Avatar' are so stunning I can't help but give it a positive review. If you want pure escapism, and I mean pure, 'Avatar' is delicious and wonderful and that 160 minutes flies by,

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Un Chien Andalou" (1929)

Rationalization:

The vision will stick with me far longer than the story. In my mind, the story is secondary to the real story which is the fact that human innovation could produce such astonishing dreamscapes so comprehensively. James Cameron has always been a pioneer in the realm of special effects and this time he outdoes himself. Midway through 'Avatar' I believed in the Na'vi so thoroughly they were like real actors, occupying actual space. After Jar-Jar Binks and Golem, I was convinced that no CGI generated characters could never supplement actual actors or puppets…but James Cameron has now made me believe.

Aliens are not often benevolent creatures in the movies. They tend to want earth or earthlings for food or some other devious end. But sometimes you meet nice aliens at the movies, like E.T. or the guys from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and it's refreshing. "*Batteries Not Included" may have the most munificent extra-terrestrials since the alien that didn't blow us up in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951). They are robotic saucers from outer space, about the size of a hub cap. It is unclear whether they are biological or mechanical or both. They can be fixed by toaster parts but they can also give birth. Strange little fellows.

The story is set almost entirely in a condemned apartment building where various residents have resisted the buy-outs from an evil real estate developer. Though their homes are invaded and vandalized by hired street thugs, the long-time tenants of the building refuse to leave. These tenants include Frank Riley (Hume Cronyn), an old man whose whole life has been wrapped up in this building. He raised his family in this building and he owns a small diner on the first floor that has been his livelihood. His wife Faye (Jessica Tandy) is fading mentally, appearing to have a mish-mash of Alzheimer's and post traumatic stress disorder. Another tenant is Mason Baylor, a struggling artist who thinks the building has historical value. He brings a city examiner to assess whether the building is worth preserving and she promptly tells him it's in such a despicable condition she can't help him.

Enter the little guys. The saucers show up exactly when the tenant's situation looks to be most hopeless. They arrive at night and start lurking about the apartment building, plugging into electric sockets and fixing small things. Soon the tenants begin to notice that someone (or something) is doing renovation work on their building. They fix unfixable things like broken glass and tarnished wood. When it comes to pass that the tenants find out about these creatures, they understand that the saucers are here for their benefit and soon they become mutual allies.

What's so fun about "*Batteries Not Included" is seeing how these strange saucer robots actually become like real neighbors to the tenants. They help out at Frank's diner and aid in scaring away the neighborhood thugs. We get to see the saucers start a family and deal with tragedy and witness how their neighbors help them through. Essentially, the saucers become characters just as real as the tenants. And they're always fixing, fixing, fixing.

This is a good family film. At times it's a little scary and speaks to some dark truths (there is a robot miscarriage, which is weird, but touchingly sad). Ultimately though, it is a movie about the importance of community and about being a good neighbor, the sort of message that should be in a family film. Also, I should note, the last shot of the film is bittersweet and wonderful.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "The Secret of NIMH" (1982)

Rationalization:

When it comes to family entertainment I think its very important to have films that enlighten children not only to the wonders of existence, but also to the more fearful and sad side of things. Its also equally important to create stories that are complicated and engaging enough to keep the attention of adults. I suppose what I'm getting at is that a lot of family entertainments merely anesthetize everyone who watches them. It's good to seek out some good intentioned films like "*Batteries Not Included." Yes, its no masterpiece, but who cares?

Review:

If I had to make a thematic comparison, I would say Andrew Proyas' 'Knowing' is the action film equivalent of '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968). Though it is no masterpiece like '2001', 'Knowing' suggests the same thing '2001' did – that determinism and coincidence, intelligent design and natural selection - the great differing viewpoints on the nature of our existence - may not be at odds after all; they may be counterparts to a greater whole.

Nicholas Cage plays John Koestler, an MIT professor who has recently lost his wife. He lives in a beautiful but shabby home in Lexington, Massachusetts with his ten year old son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). At Caleb's school there is a ceremony where a time capsule is opened. Fifty years earlier a classroom of students was asked to draw pictures of how they pictured the future and to place their pictures in this time capsule. Lucinda, (Lara Robinson), a seemingly disturbed child in the class does not draw the future. Instead she lists a seemingly chaotic sequence of numbers. Now, fifty years later, John Koestler gets a hold of this list through his son and begins to see an alarming pattern emerge from the numbers.

In some respects, 'Knowing' is similar to popular contemporary mysteries like, say, 'The Da Vinci Code.' The main course of the film follows Koestler as he scampers throughout the east coast trying to find clues to what's going on and reassuring himself that the list of numbers means what he thinks it means. Along the way Koestler encounters Diane Wayland (Rose Byrne), the daughter of the numbers-writer Lucinda, and Diane's daughter Abby (Lara Robinson again). They embark on a mission to find the missing clues for discovering the secret of the numbers. All the while they are being pursued by mysterious, pale men called 'the whisper people' by Caleb and Abby.

Like in Andrew Proyas' previous films 'Dark City' (1998) and "I, Robot" (2004) there is both visual and philosophical food for thought at work here. The central question of 'Knowing' is clearly stated at the beginning of the film by Cage's character when he asks his students in a lecture whether they think the universe is inherently deterministic or a series of random events. As we know, determinism suggests a higher intelligence controls existence while randomness implicates a meaningless sequence of accidents led to our existence.

I've always thought determinism excluding randomness and vice versa is a limited way to think about the nature of things. We have such a frustrating inclination to seek out mutually exclusive answers. For me, 'Knowing' suggests that the universe is in fact deterministic on a grand scale but that determinism is fueled by smaller, random occurrences, if that makes any sense. The end is already written but it is only reached through the decisions of individuals trying to avoid that very end.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Big Fish" (2003).

Rationalization:

To express my honest opinion about this film, I'd say I thought the ideas it evokes are more intriguing than the film itself. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Most films do not attempt to evoke cosmic ideas at all. Most films only evoke the idea that love is good. 'Knowing' is a thought provoking film that banks on time honored sleuth plot devices. Some of the disaster sequences are exquisite though, especially the plane crash and the final disaster. I would even go so far as to say that the final ten minutes of the movie is what elevates 'Knowing' above most mystery-thrillers. The last ten minutes are visionary. They made me think back to "2001: A Space Odyssey." And yet, when I think about "2001: A Space Odyssey" I must admit that 'Knowing' pales in comparison.

Review:

I always had a sense that this movie existed, sort of in the same way I know there are other islands in the Pacific Ocean that aren't Hawaii. But with those islands, I still like to lump 'em with Hawaii. In my mind, "Joe Versus the Volcano" has been lumped with Turner and Hooch" (1989) and "Sleepless in Seattle" (1993);pretty much the Tom Hanks movies that bridge his mainly comedic work of the '80s to his more serious roles of the '90s.

And so, what do I think about a unique film like "Joe Versus the Volcano." Well, I'll start by saying it is a pretty unique film, a rare example of early '90s American expressionism. It looks like no other Tom Hanks film I have ever seen, including "Forest Gump" (1994) and "Cast Away" (2000) and its plot is also singularly odd in the Tom Hanks filmography, including "Splash" (1984) and "The Man with One Red Shoe" (1985).

Joe (Tom Hanks) is an Advertising Librarian for a medical supplies company in New York. His office is a hellish place that makes the bathroom setting in "Saw" (2004) look like a spa at club med. It is an office filled with flickering florescent lights and a man who endlessly repeats the same phrases again and again. One day Joe feels sickly and decides to go to the doctor who promptly informs him he has a brain cloud. As to what a brain cloud is exactly, we never find out, but we are informed it will kill Joe within six months.

The next morning a spastic businessman, Samuel Graynamore (played hilariously by Lloyd Bridges) comes knocking at Joe's door. He has a proposition for Joe. There's a little known volcanic island in the pacific that has a special element Graynamore needs to make superconductors. The tribe on the island will allow Graynamore to take as much of the element as he pleases if he can find them a willing participant to jump into the island's volcano to appease the volcano gods. Graynamore believes Joe is his man and Joe, seeing he has nothing to lose, agrees to do it.

The majority of the film follows Joe as he travels to the island. He buys a new wardrobe of clothes, hires limousines and travels luxuriously by air and by sea, all on Graynamore's dime. Along the way Joe meets Graynamore's daughters Angelica and Patricia (both played by Meg Ryan) and learns the value of truly living.

I appreciated some parts of this movie very much. For instance, a scene in which Joe beholds a giant moon at sea and begins to pray is very powerful. But on the whole, "Joe Versus the Volcano" is uneven. If writer-director John Patrick Shanley had presented a more consistent vision I would have liked this film a better. The surrealistic edge to "Joe" is great, but too often it flips over into scenes that look realistic and lack stylization. It makes for a choppy film going experience.

I also wasn't impressed by the romance between Joe and Patricia. It seems to me the sister Angelica was frivolous to the plot and Patricia, who becomes Joe's love interest, could have easily subsumed her role. When Patricia confesses her love to Joe it seems rushed and undeveloped. I didn't buy it.

"Joes Versus the Volcano" is ultimately an oddity and if you're a Tom Hanks fan its worth checking out. But when I consider what this film is versus what it could have been, I wish what it could have been had won.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Superman Returns" (2006)

Rationalization:

What it is versus what it could have been says it all. I really wanted "Superman Returns" to be awesome, but let's face it, "Superman Returns" is a disappointment. If you give Lois Lane a husband and a kid, you really can't root for Superman to get the girl in the end without also making him into a super-dick. And no hand to hand face-off with Lex Luthor? That's just a shame. There's one scene where Luthor's goons kick the crap out of Superman and that sets up tension that should have been released by Superman's vengeance. But no. No vengeance. Apparently it didn't get personal for Superman even though it was clearly personal. Some people would say superman is not a vengeful creature, but he is. Remember in the Max Fleischer cartoons how Superman could just pick up a villain and throw him in jail without due process? In my mind, that is real vengeance and real power. But no. In "Superman Returns" he just chose to be boring.

Review:

I think you can make the argument that Fellini's "Juliet of the Spirits" (1965) is the female counterpoint to his "8 ½" (1963). Both are films that analyze a central character whose life seems to be coming apart at the seams, in large part due to extra-marital affairs and existential concerns. In "8 ½" we have the Guido, who wants to tame all the women in his life to restore a semblance of continuity in his career and in his existence. With "Juliet of the Spirits," we follow Juliet, a woman who has been shattered by her cheating husband and who decides to leave him to restore that same sort of continuity of existence Guido sought.

But before "8 ½" and "Juliet of the Spirits" Fellini made two other films that serve as gender based counterpoints – "La Dolce Vita" (1960) and "Nights of Cabiria." (1959). Both films explore similar characters and similar themes. Fellini's heroes in these films are the bottom rung of society and we watch as they try to scrape their way out of their positions in search of greater meaning and purpose. While "La Dolce Vita" is the superior film, "Nights of Cabiria" still holds its own.

In recent years "Nights" has joined Fellini's "La Strada" in accruing a wider and wider audience. Slowly, these films are becoming as widely seen as "8 ½" and "La Dolce Vita." "Nights of Cabiria" tells the story of Cabiria, a tiny and cute prostitute whose innocence is her greatest charm and weakness. Fellini buffs will note that we have met Cabiria once before in Fellini's first feature "The White Sheik" (1952). Both times she is played by Fellini's wife, the great Giulietta Masina.

Masina always has such an expressive face. In some scenes she can exhibit the angelic demeanor of a child and in others she can look as morose as an old, dying woman. "Nights of Cabiria" begins with Cabiria's pimp stealing her purse and pushing her into a river. She nearly drowns. When she is saved she is discouraged to understand her pimp valued her life less than the 40,000 lira he stole with her purse. Cabiria leads a sad existence but she is indomitable. She does not give up, no matter how dire the circumstances.

Like with Marcello in "La Dolce Vita," we follow Cabiria through a series of episodic adventures that mostly take place at night. One night she gets picked up by a famous movie star who's had a falling out with his finacee. Another time, Cabiria follows a rhapsodic crowd that longs to have a vision of the Virgin Mary. Another night she meets a Good Samaritan handing out food to the homeless. With this Samaritan, Cabiria meets an older prostitute who used to be a beauty, now living destitute in a cave outside of Rome. For Cabiria, this woman is a forecast of things to come if she doesn't change her life.

Thus, when a nice man comes out of the night, expressing love and his intentions to marry Cabiria, she sees her way out. Are these man's intentions true and honest? I will not give it away - but I will say that Fellini has a tendency to bookend his films.

The final scene of "Nights of Cabiria" is beautiful and one of Fellini's best endings. It is a synthesis of a parade and a party with Cabiria at the center, staring with quiet determination into the camera. Of all Fellini's vivid images, this one may best encompass his vision of the human experience.

Rating:

On a scale of one to "Casablanca", this film is an "About Schmidt" (2003).

Rationalization:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person who wouldn't admit that sometimes life can be a series of low-blows and inequities. And yet, we struggle on, trying to make the best of our situations in an otherwise cruel and indifferent world. Movies like these make me grieve and hope for humanity, showing us what is best in our natures while never denying we are pathetic creatures with a loose grip on even our own lives.

http://iamdatabasefilmjournal.blogspot.com/

Review:

The Coen Brother's "Blood Simple" has all the trappings we've come to associate with a Coen brothers' film. It would appear this, their first film, has served as the prototype for the great films to come. In "Blood Simple" we have the wide open country ("No Country for Old Men"), portentous headlights emerging from the night ("Fargo") we have ominous ceiling fans ("Barton Fink") and terrible deaths ("Miller's Crossing") and of course, we have a simple crime that goes terribly wrong ("Raising Arizona," "Fargo," "The Big Lebowski," "No Country," "Burn After Reading").

I should now confess that the Coen Brothers always rub me the right way. Their quirkiness and defiance of expectations send tingles down my spine that put me in a good mood, no matter how peculiar the material. Just like with Kubrick, Woody Allen, Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, and Fellini I can always find something to like in their films.

"Blood Simple" starts off like so many other movies and then diverts and meanders into a plot that's hard to see coming but easy enough to follow. Marty (Dan Hedaya), a jealous bar owner, hires Loren Visser (M. Emmet Walsh), a private detective of questionable moral integrity, to spy on his wife Abby (Frances McDormand). Abby is having an affair with one of Marty's employees, Ray (John Getz). When Visser informs Marty of Abby's infidelity, Marty hires him to kill the lovers. He offers Visser ten thousand dollars and it is an offer Visser can't turn down. That is the set up and to elaborate any more on the plot would be a disservice to the film - except to say that Visser has a plan of his own.

In some ways, this film reminded me of Sam Raimi's "A Simple Plan" (1998) (coincidentally the Coen's got their start working for Raimi). Both films are about how a series of independently motivated actions can add to a complete and encompassing massacre. I suppose for that matter, "Fargo" and "No Country" are that way too.

But as with all Coen brothers what makes this movie so good is the particulars of the camera-work and the oddities of the characters. The camera glides all over, sometimes smoothly, sometimes rough, sometimes along the floor or a street, and other times at eye level. It takes on strange yet affecting angles, like underneath a sink looking up or above a ceiling fan looking down.

M. Emmet Walsh as Visser comes off as a striking villain. He sometimes seems a simpleton, which makes us like him, and sometimes a vicious killer, which makes us fear him. One of his greatest amusements in life seems to be a toy woman, dangling from his rear view mirror, who's breasts light up when turned on. Can such an easily amused man be a ruthless killer? You bet.

"Blood Simple," for a first film is impressive. It is beyond apprentice work. While the Coens would go on to make better, even stranger movies, "Blood Simple" has a memorable quality all its own.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974).

Rationalization:

Well, sometimes people just make bad decisions. I didn't mention much about the main character Ray in the review, but suffice it to say, he makes a very bad decision in "Blood Simple" – one that will change the rest of his life and the course of this movie. The scenes in which he makes this decision are the best scenes in the film, wrought with suspense, horror, and evocative pity. We understand why Ray does it, but still…

It makes you think that God just likes to mess with some people.

Review:

I like comedies like this. They don't rely on big budgets or snide, lowbrow humor. They get by on wit alone. "The Invention of Lying" (2009) is about just what the title says its about. It takes place in a universe where lying simply does not exist. Everybody says what is exactly on their minds all the time. For instance, when Mark Bellison (Ricky Gervais) picks up Anna (Jennifer Garner) for a first date, she promptly tells Mark that he's short, unattractive, and she's not looking forward to this date.

This is a universe peopled with trusting citizens. Skepticism does not exist. Nor does naïveté, because in a world where no one lies, there is nothing to be naïve about. If you are fat and dumb you are called fat and dumb by whoever is thinking about you.

And so we follow Mark Bellison throughout his sad daily routine. He is fired from his job as a screen writer for a movie company that produces feature length films of people reciting history, because fiction is a lie of course. His secretary (Tina Fey) admits she has loathed every day she works for him. He visits his mother at a nursing home, otherwise known as "A Sad Place Where Homeless Old People Come to Die." And finally his landlord evicts him.

When Mark goes to the bank to take out the last $300 in his account sparks fly in his brain. He lies to the bank teller saying he actually has $800 in his account. She gives him the money and Mark wakes up to the power of his new discovery. He has invented lying.

In one hilarious scene, Mark tests out his new powers on his barfly friend and a bartender, claiming he invented the bicycle and a slew of other outrageous assertions. The bartender and barfly believe his every word.

The most interesting aspect of this movie is its implications for religion. When Mark's mother is dying at the "Sad place…" she confides to her son that she fears the nothingness of death. Now, capable of lying Mark tells his mother that when she dies she will be in a good place with her own mansion and everyone she ever loved. In effect, Mark creates the notion of heaven. A doctor and nurse overhear this description and believing him, they spread the word of Mark's revelation and soon he becomes an international prophet. This whole premise is hysterical and actually somewhat subversive.

But eventually the film changes gears and becomes more of a rudimentary romantic comedy with Mark trying to win the heart of Anna without having to manipulate her with lies. She, of course, doesn't want Mark because he wouldn't be a good genetic fit for her children. Anna prefers the handsome and narcissistic Brad Kessler (Rob Lowe). While this story line is still funny, I preferred the religion plot more and wish they had followed it deeper.

"The Invention of Lying" is getting at something though it doesn't state it explicitly. Instead of an analysis of the negative or positive effects of lying, it is really a study of the various layers of truth embedded in all things. Admittedly, I didn't like the romantic story, but I did appreciate Anna's realization that truth cuts deeper than superficial, initial reactions. Anna never discovers what lying is, but she does find that truth is not immutable. The truth changes as we change.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Oh, God!" (1977).

Rationalization:

This film is more like a comedic episode of the Twilight Zone than a typical comedy. I always find it impressive when a film digs deeper than it has to, no matter how slight that extra digging may be. "The Invention of Lying" is well done, enjoyable, and funny. By the end of the film you know why there are so many notable cameo parts for so many big name actors. Everyone wants to help a comedy like this. Ricky Gervais has proved his staying power as actor, writer, director in England and now he seems to be working on America. To him, I say 'Godspeed.'

Review:

I feel like I have inhabited the world of "Office Space". I would like to say it was in large part an exaggeration of office life, but its not. It gave me chills as it made me laugh.

"Office Space" is Mike Judge's opus to the banality of life inside a cubicle. The sanitary, grey universe of office space in which Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingston) must work is driving him crazy. He confesses to a hypno-psychiatrist that each day he spends at work is worse than the last day and so every day he is living through the worst day of his life. Every day Peter is bombarded with mundane questions like whether he got the memo about using a new cover sheet. If he seems down trodden his co-workers ask if he has a case of 'the Mondays.' Life for him is a living hell. Actually, a living purgatory may be more like it.

When visiting a hypno-psychiatrist, Peter is put into a trance and told to act without inhibitions. The psychiatrist conveniently dies of a heart attack while Peter is in the trance and thus a new Peter is born – one without the submission reflex, a man driven to act out. When asked to work on a Saturday, Peter decides to skip work. When he's questioned by efficiency experts about what his job, he tells them he has no motivation and so only works fifteen minutes a week. When he goes fishing, he decides to gut the fish at his desk.

This onset of rebellious behavior leads Peter to ask out Joanna (Jennifer Aniston) the waitress he sees every day at a local restaurant. She agrees to a date and promptly becomes the romantic subplot of the movie.

Later, when Peter finds out two of his best friends at the company (David Herman as Michael and Ajay Naidu as Samir) are going to be laid off, they conspire to put a computer virus into the company's system that would steal a few pennies each day. As one character notes, this is a crime lifted from "Superman III" and some guys from the 70s who got arrested.

The funniest part of "Office Space" is the first act when we are introduced to Peter's prosaic existence and then his subsequent lashing out. Once the crime plot is revealed, I feel the movie loses some momentum. This could have been a comic tour de force if it hadn't felt the need to introduce a plot. I would have liked "Office Space" better if instead of the crime scheme, we simply watched a story where Peter's bad behavior in fact gave him promotion after promotion until he had some kind of inevitable fall.

But "Office Space" is funny enough. I liked it. I also really like Milton, the character who had his origins in Mike Judge's SNL cartoons and inspired this film. Milton is a down trodden employee who never gets cake and keeps getting his cubicle moved. Ultimately, all he really wants is to keep his stapler. Its nice that he triumphs in the end. We all have a right to our stapler.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Batman Returns"

Rationalization:

There is an inner rage in this film that is very compelling. When stripped away from its white-gray palette "Office Space" is as red as Milton's stapler and angry as Milton's disposition. I think "Office Space" has become such a hit because it speaks to two embedded (and opposing) desires in the American (if not the human) spirit: 1) to scream out to the universe that your existence matters 2) to be lazy. The inanity of office life does all it can to crush both those desires and it does it in the name of making more money. "Office Space," presents a dystopia that we can believe in because we have seen it or lived in it. Thank God at least that we can sometimes laugh at it.

http://iamdatabasefilmjournal.blogspot.com/

Review:

The best thing about 'Up' is perhaps its fantastical logic and its strict adherence to physics that while maybe not sound we can still believe in - of course a house can be carried by balloons and of course when a few balloons pop, the house will be less buoyant!

Pixar is a miracle. I'll just come out and say it. Not since the earliest pictures of Disney's Golden Age have we been thrown into animated worlds so visionary that they kindle in our imaginations the ruminations of what we must have felt in childhood when beholding something truly marvelous – the first time we went to the aquarium for instance.

Visionary is a word I do not use lightly, and yet, I must apply it to many Pixar films – "Finding Nemo" (2003) and "Wall-E" (2008) just to name two. While watching 'Up' I found myself cataloguing the strongest images of the film and how I would use those images to decorate a future Criterion Collection Edition of the film. There was an abundance of inspiration.

The story is simple and profound. Carl (voiced by Ed Asner) is a man who always dreamed of being a great explorer, but like so many would-be explorers, he chose to settle down with a wife and build a life with her. They lived in the house in which they first met as children and this home becomes the iconic symbol of Carl's whole life - all it was, all it is, and all it can be. When Ellie dies, Carl becomes a bitter recluse, hanging on to his home as his last connection to his wife.

With the encroachment of construction projects and soon the law, it becomes increasingly clear to Carl that he will be forced to vacate the home he treasures so dearly. But instead of submitting to the forces that be, Carl decides he will use his house as a means of escape. Using thousands of balloons, he transforms his home into a buoyant vessel and heads for Paradise Falls in South America, the place where he and his wife always dreamed of visiting.

There is one complication to his plan though. A little boy has inadvertently stowed away by crawling under Carl's porch immediately before take off. This is Russell (Jordan Nagai), a Wilderness Scout who's one wish is to get a merit badge for assisting the elderly. Inspired to help Carl in any way he can, Russell becomes an unlikely sidekick in the old man's quest to get to South America.

The rest of the story involves Russell and Carl coming into conflict with an aged explorer named Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) and his quest for an elusive South American bird. This plot is fun and involves talking dogs, but it is almost tangential to the real theme of the film which is the process of letting go the past while still treasuring it.

"Up" is a beautiful film. The colors combined with the minute detail allow for a divine viewing experience. After it's over you feel like you've eaten a rainbow. Pixar has done it again. Some people/companies are prone to masterpieces and Pixar is certainly amongst the ranks.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Rushmore" (1998)

Rationalization:

It's hard to imagine that there could be a theme other than 'growing up' in film. No matter who we are, at what age, or in what place, we are perpetually in a state of growing up (and hopefully growing wiser). The forward current of time makes it so. I think the title 'Up' is not only referring to the motion of Carl's house but to his and Russell's growth throughout the story. Inevitably, part of growing up is letting go of things and it's perhaps how we accept our losses that informs how we grow. "Up" is an incredibly wise movie and it is not afraid to explore scary topics like aging and death in terms that children can understand. On the whole, I think "Wall-E" (2008) will be better remembered for its ruthless social critique and beautiful love story, but my guess is that "Up" will hold its own for many years to come.

http://iamdatabasefilmjournal.blogspot.com/

On a sleepless night, I found myself drawn to the TV for company. On the table sat my brother's copy of 'Orphan' which he had just gotten for Christmas. I looked down at the DVD and knew it was about to be watched. I am a horror film lover and I will contend that there is no better time to watch a horror movie than at around 1am, alone, in the dark. And so I sat down with Jaume Collet-Serra's "Orphan."

The set up has been done before, many times – "The Omen" (1976), "Child's Play 2," (1990) "The Good Son" (1993), to name a few antecedents – a struggling family decides the best thing for it would be to adopt a child with a troubled past. Lo and behold, the child not only has a troubled past but turns out to be just plain trouble.

There can be no doubt: "Orphan" is a dark film. Thankfully, it is not overly clustered with action and horror like so many contemporary counterparts. Instead it lets the horror rise and rise until the final, genuinely creepy climax. Of course there are the typical fake outs to juice up the audience for the real scares - a woman opens a mirrored medicine cabinet. When she closes it, someone is standing behind her (gasp!). And then there's Esther, the creepy orphan of the title who holds the real horror of the film in the palm of her hand.

As you can likely infer from what I've already written, the plot doesn't need too much elaboration. Vera Farmiga plays Kate Coleman, a recovered alcoholic who has recently suffered a miscarriage. Kate and her husband John (Peter Sarsgaard) decide it would be best to adopt a child. Now, I'm pretty young and have no children, but it seems to me that adopting a child in the wake of a miscarriage might be predicated on faulty logic – a hasty cure for the mourning heart.

Well, despite my reservations, Kate and John adopt Esther, a young orphan from Russia. Esther is an instant hit with the family, befriending Kate's younger and partially deaf daughter Max and her older son Daniel. Esther even seems to have an Oedipal (or Electrapal…Electric?) love for her father. Cute enough.

But as can be imagined, things start to go awry. A girl has a conspicuous fall from a playground. A car's emergency break is mysteriously released. A nun is found bludgeoned to death…

Kate is the only one who can fit these pieces together. She is the only one who sees the common thread between all these tragic incidents is Esther. But no one believes her of course, because how could a child do such a thing?

Children in the movies are much like dogs. They can be cute and funny as easily as they can be vicious and creepy. Esther, played by newcomer Isabelle Fuhrman, is a powerhouse of a creeper. She delivers on scary material that would be tough for any child actor to make believable. At 3am when the film ended, I couldn't help but wonder how they made this film with such strict child-actor laws in place. This movie actually creeped me out.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "The Others" (2001)

Rationalization:

In these, the waning days of M. Night Shymalan, it is very hard to come across a twist ending where you don't feel used and didn't see it coming from eight miles away. Nowadays we often come into a horror movie expecting there will be a game changing twist tagged on at the very end. In a case like Shymalan's "The Village" (2004), which I loved for the first half, the twist made me want to puke and then write a heated letter to someone who would listen. But with a movie like "The Others," and now "Orphan," the twist is organic, makes sense, and adds a brand new dimension of scariness to the rest of the film. At the end of "The Village" I felt like I need to take a sponge bath to scrub off Shymalan's twist and egomania. Not so at the end of "Orphan."

(Also, if you're watching this on DVD and can check out the alternative ending, do so. The part of me that despises closure loved the alternative ending)

http://iamdatabasefilmjournal.blogspot.com/

Review:

Werner Herzog's "Aguirre: The Wrath of God" is what "Waiting for Godot" would be, if that play were an epic. And what a minimalist epic this film is. The story is simple and evokes a terrifying message: what we seek, we will not find and where we seek shall inevitably lead to our demise. It's a grim forecast but when seen through the eyes of Werner Herzog there is a certain awe that eventually transcends the dread.

In the late 16th century, an expedition of Spanish Conquistadors sets out into the wilderness of Peru and Brazil to discover the fabled city of gold, El Dorado. The doomed mission is led by Gonzalo Pizarro. When the army encounters innumerable complications from traversing the jungle, Pizarro decides to send 40 of his men down the Amazon River on raft to further explore for the golden city's whereabouts.

This rafting expedition is led by Don Pedro de Ursua (Ruy Guerra) with Don Lope de Aguirre (Klaus Kinski) as second in command. Though he does not say much at first, the malignant stare of Aguirre informs the audience that there is something not right with this man. Perhaps the jungle has pushed him too far or maybe he's purely a megalomaniac, but really, this speculation is irrelevant Part of the effect of "Aguirre: The Wrath of God" is the utter lack of explanation for everything. Herzog does not waste our time by trying to explain away the motivations of Aguirre or the terrors of the Amazon.

After some disastrous days on the river, Ursua decides he will turn the mission around and the remaining soldiers will march back to Pizarro. But Aguirre, unable to accept defeat when El Dorado may be at hand, quickly devises a haphazard mutiny and overthrows Ursua. Not sure he has the men's loyalty, Aguirre puts Don Fernando de Guzman in charge. He's a bumbling and gluttonous conquistador, not long for this movie.

From this point on the story begins a rapid descent into madness. Life on the raft becomes a mock-imitation of civilized life. As they proceed further down river, lurking natives shoot arrows from the banks, sickness envelopes the crew, and Aguirre keeps insisting on pressing forward.

"Aguirre: The Wrath of God" is maybe two steps away from becoming a farce. There is something utterly absurd about seeing hundreds of men trek through impenetrable wilderness with metal helmets and armor. One of the great symbols in the film is the conquistador cannon, which they bring on the raft. This cannon is heavy and predisposed to rust when exposed to water and yet the conquistadors never once think of abandoning it. When surrounded by the immensity of the jungle the cannon is a last consolation, an absurd reminder of the power of the Spanish army. It allows the doomed soldiers to believe they still wield some power, even in this hostile terrain. But no cannon or horse or slave or man would save this crew.

We know Aguirre's expedition is doomed from the start because we know there is no El Dorado. And yet, is this not a grand (albeit bleak) metaphor for human existence? The search for the unknowable and finding only nature's wrath? Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "The Birds" (1963).

Rationalization:

Nature needs no explanation for its crimes. In a Herzog film nature is as indifferent as God in a Bergman film; it is omnipresent and silent and consuming. The only ones who dare defy the jungle are the mad crusaders like Aguirre who attempt to rival nature with their brutality. Klaus Kinski deserves praise for his portrayal of Aguirre. There is not a moment of stereotypical Hollywood madness in his performance. He broods instead of rants and only his eyes become portals into the depths of his insanity. I'd go so far as to say his madness, while quite noticeable, is generally understated. And how could it not be when in the face of the Amazon? "Aguirre: The Wrath of God" is a beautiful film that will haunt you a hundred times over before it inspires you to explore the Amazon.

www.iamdatabasefilmjournal.blogspot.com

Review:

Jason Reitman's "Up in the Air" has been described as a story for today, a meditation on loneliness, and a dissertation on how globalization has at once made the world smaller and much larger. My dad thought the movie was about rejection. I thought the movie was about settling for less. Some see it as a film about careers; others see it as a film about opportunity. All these assessments are true and work in accord with one another, making a surprisingly potent film. Such is the wonder of Reitman's third feature picture.

George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a self described "Termination Facilitator." Companies hire him to come and lay off their employees in a time of downsizing. Bingham spends a vast majority of his year flying from city to city, staying in a new hotel each night. Along the way he meets the sexy Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), another professional traveler who also shares a love for life on the road. They hook up and soon after whip out their computers to find when they'll be in the same town again.

Matters are complicated when Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a recent college graduate, comes to Bingham's company and introduces the practice of firing people over the web. Feeling his road warrior lifestyle is threatened Bingham takes Keener on the road to show her the ropes of their field. Anna Kendrick, most notably having played Jessica in the "Twilight Saga" shines like a true star in this film. She has a meltdown in a hotel lobby that is comedic gold.

As can be expected, George Clooney plays Bingham with that confidence so customary to a George Clooney role - and yet, this time his confidence is severely challenged. He plays a man that must face times that are changing faster than he is willing to change himself.

"Up in the Air" is all inclusive concerning the facets of how we live today. It ranges in topic from our post 9/11 insecurities to the inner depths of unemployment and ultimately to the incontrovertible fact that we die alone. This film is not a comedy, though it has several laughs. It is a consideration of what we need to live happily and how hard those things are to obtain.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Fargo" (1996).

Rationalization:

I entered the movie theater expecting to have an uplifting comedy that would reassure me everything would be OK. As it turns out, "Up in the Air" is not that movie, and consequently, I left the theater feeling sucker punched in the jaw. Not a hard sucker punch, but one I wasn't expecting. In fact, I would go so far as to say I was feeling blue after seeing this movie for the first time. "Up in the Air" resonated with me. It made me feel something and made me feel deeply. What more can I ask from a movie?

http://iamdatabasefilmjournal.blogspot.com

Review

If you want to know what Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes" is like, imagine "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" or "Snatch" and then put them in the late 1800s and add Sherlock Holmes. If you are imagining the most kinetic cinematic rendition of "Sherlock Holmes" ever, you're probably not far off the mark.

Indeed, "Sherlock Holmes" doesn't relent too much. It keeps a rapid pace and doesn't quite care if you're not connecting the dots as quickly as Sherlock Holmes. Robert Downey Jr. plays Holmes with a sort of manic dishevelment. His own living quarters at 221B are a mess but his mind is forever organizing minute details and usually alienating a friend or two in the process.

Watson (Jude Law) is an intelligent sidekick, always feeling obliged to lend a hand or a prognosis. Instead of the typically daft Watson of cinema history, Law plays Watson with a certain cunning and wry humor that a hero like Holmes desperately needs.

The plot of the film seems half baked. It concerns an evil occult leader Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) who is hanged for murdering five women in a sacrificial ritual. When Blackwood mysteriously returns from the grave, Holmes is called in to investigate. As is typical in all mysteries, the villain gets away with a bunch of crimes is foiled before he can perpetrate the biggest crime he was intending to commit the whole time. Sorry if I gave away that this film ends with Holmes triumphant.

The real strength of "Sherlock Holmes" is its look and energy. The sets are marvelously macabre and Ritchie does a good job synthesizing them with a CGI rendition of 1800s London. The cinematography is energetic but never confuses the action – I particularly enjoyed when Sherlock Holmes anticipates his next eight moves in a fight and then executes them with flawless precision. I also liked a scene in a butchery that served as a throwback to the old silent film cliché of a damsel in distress tied up and being conveyed towards a buzz saw.

Rachel McAdams plays Ira Adler, the presumed love interest of Holmes but she seems more like an afterthought; her only real purpose in the film is to give precedent for a sequel. But in the end, if you can just sit back and relax, "Sherlock Holmes" is pure popcorn and you'll like it.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "Matrix Reloaded" (2003).

Rationalization:

Don't enter this movie thinking that by its end you'll come out wiser, or better, or more thoughtful, or with your thoughts provoked. "Sherlock Holmes" is an action movie with a slight mystery at its center. There are some excellent sequences and great one-liners, but it never instills you with the same terror or wonder that you find in other mysteries like "Rear Window" (1954) or "Se7en" (1995) but it is way better than most action movies coming out today (i.e. "G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra" (2009))

http://www.iamdatabasefilmjournal.blogspot.com/

Terrorism is the greatest threat mentioned and alluded to in the media today. We are constantly barr+aged by stories of conspiracies, orange alerts, and attempted threats. Perhaps these stories are to be heeded and we are right to be so concerned about the anonymous terrorists that may or may not endanger our lives. But if we may in this forum be honest, approximately 98% of us will never fall victim to terrorism, and neither will any of our friends and families. And yet, we still must pay the consequences, sacrificing our time in security lines, our money to fund programs that watch our every move, and we sacrifice the right to a common butter knife on an airplane. Isn't there more to fear out there than terrorism? Shouldn't we be thinking outside of the box? instead of restricting ourselves because of fear, shouldn't we become more self-adequate and confident? These are the questions Snakes on a Plane raises for every keen viewer.

This is not just the silly farce so many people want to make it out to be. Snakes on a Plane serves as an intelligent and subtle condemnation of the airline industry. The message is simple: we are prepared for anything except that which we are not prepared for. Snakes on a Plane is a movie that is designed to challenge us with its graphic violence and course language, but even more so with its implications and how those implications affect us as travellers. Snakes on a Plane is the ultimate acknowledgement that we are not ready for everything, and no matter how many precautions the airline industries take, there is nothing we can do to fully prepare ourselves. If we surrender this one simple fact: that we are helpless, then and only then can we turn to our brothers from different mothers, and say 'i've had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane.' Then America will be free. Snakes on a Plane, you are our vision, we give you highest praise.

I don't know about this movie, because I just saw it, and its left me confused and dissatisfied, and I don't feel as if it was a very funny movie. Not as to say it didn't have some moments of laughter, but in sum, I would say that Ghostbusters was a bit of a funnier movie. Its not so much that the wolves couldn't make me laugh, its just that the content of the film didn't seem to lend itself too much to comedy, along with its spirits and witchery and such. All in all, I'd say its a bit of a sad story. Ghostbusters is a much happier story, of course with its glad ending. But of course this movie does have some funny times, but I would say that it is not as funny as Ghostbusters. So if you like a movie where there are wolves and strange happenings but for the sake of sadness, then you may enjoy this movie, but really it is Ghostbusters that the rest of us want to see. Ghostbusters is just a really funny movie.

This is by no means the greatest film ever made, especially in such a fruitful year as 1939. But as you should do with any film, one must first review it in the context of its time and then apply it to the relevant issues of today. "Goodbye Mr. Chips" is a good film because it works in both categories. In a time when teacher themed sitcoms and films were sinking into a lull, "Mr. Chips" came forth with a ferocious animosity that had not been seen and as of yet has not been rivaled. It is an intense dive into the underbelly of school corruption, chronicling the rise, fall, and redemption of the title character and his students. Mr. Chips is a good man that constantly walks the line of rigid disciplinarian, role-model, and self-destructive masochist. His students on the other hand are the pseudo- innocents that suddenly get thrown into a whirlpool of gendered warfare while fighting the standards their school has set for them. Yes, the heroine sequences are rather grotesque, and the sex-photography sequence may at first seem unnecessary, but the elements of redemption rely on this harsh imagery to come across as potent. Indeed, "Goodbye Mr. Chips" is not for the faint of heart, but for those who can look beyond the brutality and see the beauty, it is a very powerful journey.

How does one follow up one of the most successful and revolutionary films of all time? Well its quite simple: with a sequel that not only possesses the spirit of the first, but also contains a brand new dynamic of plot and personality. This is the essence of 'Meet Me In St. Louis,' the Vincent Minnelli and Judy Garland engine that dares to be the sequel to the revered "Wizard of Oz." This film, released in 1944, follows the adventures of Dorothy, as, once more she goes 'over the rainbow' and into the land of Oz. This time though, she does not meet a witch or scarecrow, but instead a seemingly normal family living in the Land of Saint Louis - a previously unmentioned land. This land of course, is just as new and fantastical as Munchinland, possessing trolleys, Christmas and many other wonders! It is Dorothy's primary objective to assume the role of Esther Smith, the daughter of the family, and to convince them not to move from their lovely home! But the father has other plans for the family, as Dorothy soon finds out. But look out! This father might not be all that he seems. Lets just say there is something a little...wizardish...about him :) Anyways, I will let you discover for yourselves the wonderful journey of Dorothy through Oz under the guise of Esther Smith. You will be sure to love every heart warming moment of it. Based on L. Frank Baum's second and fourth books of Oz, "Meet Me In St. Louis" is a sequel not to be missed, comparable to such noteworthy sequels as Aliens, and The Godfather Part II. You and the whole family will love this American classic. Enjoy!

Beavis and Butt-Head is often times misconstrued as a terribly immature, offensive, and vulgar show. While those claims do have reason behind them, often times the people saying these things have not given this show a fair analysis, taking it simply for what it appears to be. But Beavis and Butt-Head goes much deeper than a lot of people give it credit for. On one level it is about two stupid teenagers who have nothing better to do than laugh, and so it serves as a critique to the general apathy of that early 90s generation. But at the same time, Beavis and Butt-Head can be seen as a positive spin on that indifferent generation. Although they wreak havoc and destroy all that is good, Beavis and Butt-Head endure as good people (in some sense) because they are completely confident in themselves, they do not really have bad feelings towards anyone, and even though we might consider their lives to be meager and pathetic, they are really happy with what they have, they do not think less of themselves, and they (in their own ways) try to improve themselves (like trying to pick up chicks). This might be a bit of a stretch, but I almost view them as the 90s version of Lenny and George from "Of Mice and Men." These are just two guys who are trying to figure out life and laughing the whole way through. Is there anything wrong with that? Methinks not. So, watch these fools, and watch them well, you will not regret it.

Home Alone, yes, in a sense, we all are Home Alone. Sometimes we walk down dead end allies, not a hope in the world, eyes dead to all that belong to justice and peace. We look up at the skies, but a cloud cover destroys all we can hope for in the stars. There is not much life around us any more, and indeed, all things seemed to have faded into blurry fog and remain loose forms, colored in black and white. Where is the happiness? Where the dreams? Where the love of days past and future? Through the years we all may be together if the fates allow - That is the one statement that holds true to all things. Our family may leave us Home Alone, we may have no real friends in this world, we may scream to let Munch know we are still alone, but through the years we all will be together, just so long as we can make friends with that which scares us most. Christmas is about setting traps to destroy our enemies. Have you discovered Christmas? Merry Christmas, whatever day it be!!!

Raging Bull, so like, alright, there are many ways, to like, OK, no. Now, Raging Bull is so far beyond, wait, no, its greater, like so, when I try and think of this movie in rational perspective, no, so I'm saying this wrong, but I can't get it off my beliefs. So, OK, now, this is probably, OK, no, it is the best film of nearly, maybe, wait, no, like the only good film of, no, no wait, platoon, OK, so it is really good, OK, so, so good that it nearly surpasses, wait, OK, no, now it is going to be a classic, wait, is it already a classic? OK, now so, OK, so Raging Bull, Robert DeNiro, in, oh my god, OK, so he gains some, wait, OK, now, like say there were a way, no, no, there isn't, so I better not try. OK, so Scorsese, is now, wait, so like Fellini, and its black and white, so is it a boxing movie? no, its more than, wait, no, yes! yes! its more than a boxing movie. Like, OK, cinematography invented this no, OK, alright, there are so many ways, OK, now say blood, no, no, no, so OK.

Tora! Tora! Tora! is by all means a true human drama, capturing the intense realism of a Dada painting to the rasping voice of Ella Fitzgerald caressing our souls into the flavors of sweet jazz. It is in fact, the experience of America combined into one film. Inspired by Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises," Tora! Tora! Tora! is an exploration of what drives our desires and what encourages our fears. Most passionate love falls victim to the scrutinies of mediocrite, poverty is the flavor of all loss, meaning is evaporated in the waves of bodies, and in the end only one glimmer of hope shines in the eyes of a single child. The symbolism is so ripe with thought that one can only compare it to the symbols of 'On the Waterfront' or '8 1/2.' Particularly strong symbols include the devastating motif of the ceiling fans, and the overbearing recurrence of clocks. It is a magnificent combination of all that should be film. The climactic bull fight scene can only be compared to the climactic scenes of 'The Big Country' or 'Bridge on the River Kwai.' And not even Emily Bronte in the height of her career could have written with such poignant tragedy as we see in the last scene of the star crossed lovers of Tora! Tora! Tora! It is truly a film to be rivaled, and not many should step up to challenge this film of an even greater grandeur scale. No film should look to Tora! Tora! Tora! without reverence and a genuine thankfulness that we are alive enough to see a film such as this. Thank you.

I am a relatively young person who is film by film, watching the greatest movies this world has to offer. In my travels, I have met many wonderful films, but in recent days, no film has struck me as much as MASH did. I, of course, have heard many rave reviews of MASH, most of them referring to the television show, but some to the movie. Anyways, with that knowledge in mind, I had very high expectations for the movie, and initially the movie didn't live up to what I expected, but about half way through it overwhelmed me. This movie is hilarious! It is simply that. Its just a very funny, very believable movie, that talks and walks like real life. And ultimately, it doesn't carry the overtly cliché message of many a war film: 'War Is Bad'. MASH seems to be saying 'War is a reality', and ultimately we all must learn to cope with it. I know that sounds negative, and I am as anti-war as the next person, but in truth, war is going to happen, and we should be thankful for the doctors. See MASH, its a good see.

This film is simply put, perfect. But in this reviewer's opinion, a little too perfect. Orson Welles, at only 24 years old, obtains complete artistic control and all the financial aid he would for creating this film. On the set, no one but cast and crew was allowed. The progress of filming was kept entirely secret from producers and studio executives. The movie is released and William Randolph Hearst leads a vicious crusade to have the movie boycotted. And in the end, everyone recognized that it is a landmark in film making history and perhaps one of the greatest movies, if not 'the' greatest movie of all time; in short, perfection. All of these are pretty odd circumstances for just one film, don't you think? I think so, For perfection is beyond the grasp of human minds and hearts. Then one must ask, how then was this film created if a perfect film can not be created by man? Well, frankly, Martians. Yes, it may come as a shock, but martians were the ones who created Citizen Kane.

Martians have been observing humans for a millennium, studying our trades, our relationships, and ultimately our art forms. Film being the synthesis of most visual and auditory arts, the Martians decided in 1938 to give film a try. Through mind control and virtual hypnosis they manipulated a young, influential radio personality and actor to be their human front man. That man was Orson Welles. Welles, using Martian mind control received permission, finance, and freedom to go ahead with 'his' project. The reality of it was the Martians were in complete control of the production, using their influence over all the mercury players and cast members to do their will. The set was a closed set all the time, simply because the Martians were out in the open giving direction. When a producer would come by, the Martians would go into hiding, and upon Martian instruction the humans would start tossing around a baseball. Only a martian could think of a ploy so devious.

Though no evidence for this exists, it is my opinion that William Randolph Heart caught wind that it was Martians heading up this project, and being objected to the mind control and manipulation, he lead his notorious crusade against this picture. He felt that human rights were being violated, and who can blame him? But really, in the end, no harm was done. The actors had created a marvelous performance under Martian instruction, and the Martians had proved to themselves that they understood human relationships, especially our need for love. Thus being satisfied with their artistic endeavors, the Martians headed off, only to return as consultants on the film 'Seven Samurai.' But, even though Citizen Kane is not a product of human artistry, it still is a wonder to know that someone out there understands us humans, even a little more than we do.

See this movie.

Star Trek V is perhaps the greatest science fiction film to ever grace the silver screen, indeed, to ever grace the earth. It is a film of unparalleled stature in its unceasing nature to ask the toughest questions of our time: can brother betray brother? does friendship ever outweigh the bonds of family? is there a god? if so, why does he need a starship(LOL!!!!!11)? This movie made me take a step back and reflect on my own search for God and for meaning in this sometimes difficult life. I admit with no shame that Kirk's closing lines on man's search for God brings a tear to my eye, each time I see it. On another level though, this movie not only delves into 'the final frontier' (LOL) but delves into the true echoes of exestentialism in our modern society and seems to ponder if 'echoes' are truly enough for our hustle and bustle society. I think Spock clearly answers this question in his flawless line: "no." Anyways, Star Trek V does what any good Star Trek film should do, and indeed what any film should do, helps us to understand what it means to be human and boldly goes where no man has gone before.

I give this film a 10, but wish I could give it a 12.

This is perhaps the greatest animation event to ever bestow its head upon our weak mortal minds. What it says of American Society fills the gap between post-modernism and standard traditional story telling. Indeed, the mouse represents the ascent of the common man, the cats are the tyranny of injustices in American society. Tiger though, represents how that sometimes in such dire consequences, an injustice can some how turn in favor of the people, inciting, might one say, revolution? Indeed, An American Tail is a call to arms that we all must heed one day or another, whether we like it or not. Not since Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal has this world seen such an avid display of avant garde film making. Bravo Fieval, bravo.