Australia

*** Stars

When I first saw Australia three days ago, I left the theater feeling disappointed. I kept wondering how Baz Luhrmann was unable deliver a coherent narrative inside an almost three hour runtime. It jumps from a love story, to a sweeping epic, to a telling of mystical lands, to melodrama, and finally lands with a forty minute Pearl Harbor like action-extravaganza.

Whew.

With an A-list cast and such a fabulous production design, I expected Luhrmann, one of my favorite directors (mainly because of Romeo and Juliet) to give us the best movie of the year. On that line, he has failed. Miserably. But I don't think he's the one to blame. Australia, the version I saw, is not complete. After bad test screenings with its ending, Luhrmann went back and changed it. He has worked on this project for years, and although I understand that a release date is important, Luhrmann seemed to have been forced into releasing a movie he wasn't ready to release.

Three days after seeing Australia, I sit here at my computer writing my review. Those three days have given me time to reflect on the positive and negative aspects of the film. Even though the word disappointment lingered in my mind, I found that I was remembering more positive moments than negative.

What sticks out has to be the visuals. In Aristotle's elements of drama, visual spectacle ranks as the least important. While I tend to agree with this hierarchical order, Australia has to be one of the most beautifully shot films of the decade. Luhrmann is a natural when it comes to experimental camera movements. The auteur inside of him is begging to be heard.

The movie is set in 1939 after Hitler invades Poland. Nicole Kidman stars as Lady Sarah Ashley, a proper English woman from society's higher class who heads to Australia to protect her husband's property. After his death, she learns of a possible takeover plot towards her land. That's when she meets Drover (Hugh Jackman), the rugged frontiersman she falls for. For the rest of the film, the two are involved in the hysteria of World War II (The attack of Darwin, Australia right after Pearl Harbor), chases from bad guys who want Ashley's land, and a love story that hits melodrama on several occasions.

The best scene of the movie is one of the best scenes I have seen all year. There is a stampede sequence involving a 2,000 head of cattle that is almost worth the price of admission alone. This scene (close to ten minutes long) is blended by CGI and outer landscapes that distinguishes Baz Luhrmann as an old-fashioned visionary with a hint of technological genius.

However, from an overall standpoint, unless you're a fan of Baz or Hugh Jackman, many moviegoers will feel cheated and exhausted after an almost full three hours. To name an Eclectic Collective song I love, Australia is a "Beautiful Mess".

Milk

**** Stars

Erupting in passion, Milk is a masterful work of political art, showcasing a brilliant performance by Sean Penn. This is one of the most important films of the year.

Director Gus Van Sant is a true artist, writing poetry inside a history lesson. The story of Harvey Milk's upcoming as a Gay Rights activist followed by being the first openly gay man elected to public office (year was 1977) is extremely relevant in today's American society. After Proposition 8 was passed in California (banning same-sex marriages), Milk is going to go down in history as being a film released one month later then it should have been. Yes, this film has the historical documentation to prove its effectiveness. 

And that's what makes the film so special. Dustin Lance Black's screenplay simply shows Harvey Milk's several attempts (and one victory) at becoming a member on San Francisco's Board of Supervisors. We know he is a homosexual, and Van Sant never focuses on why or when he became one. The film shows his closest love relationships, but only through the events of his activism. Scott Smith (James Franco) and Jack Lira (Diego Luna) were the two loves in the final decade of his life. 

Milk's assassin Dan White is an oddly interesting figure. A conservative who blamed Milk and Mayor George Moscone for his departure from the Board of Supervisors, White (played by Josh Brolin) is displayed in this film as a confused and delusional individual suffering from his own insecurities. He stands for family traditions and values, yet he can't seem to discover his true self. Josh Brolin brings urgent life to the character and avoids playing him as a stereotypical killer. In fact, if you were unaware that White was Milk's assassin, you wouldn't suspect a thing until the film's conclusion. 

Although the film is a tragedy, Milk is filled with humor, love, and most of all, hope. It's a message indicating the importance of change (no, this is not a Pro-Obama statement) and understanding. I was raised Catholic and was taught that marriage is between a man and woman. And while I do still believe that the term "Marriage" is a bond between a man and woman, that does not give anyone the right to destroy the sanctity of love and someone's personal decision. That is why Milk can be considered a masterpiece. It doesn't preach, it avoids sloganeering, and it allows its viewers to think for themselves. With an outstanding cast (including Emile Hirsch, who is seriously growing on me) Milk is a timely and righteous biopic about a very important chapter in our nation's history.

Twilight

*** Stars

Another franchise is upon us.

And it's not like we didn't see it coming. The four-book series by Stephanie Meyer is the biggest craze since Harry Potter, and its film future will take-off as Harry fades out. Does Twilight outshine its source material? No, it doesn't. But it is worthy of its fame.

So are the stars. Kristen Stewart and Scott Pattinson carry the torch of young love in this romantic-thriller about a teenager who falls for a vampire. Bella (Stewart) is returning to her old town of Forks, Washington from Phoenix, Arizona to see her Dad. Her first days as a new high school student in her old town consist of nostalgic reminiscing with people she knew from childhood. As she sits at lunch with a few friends, she looks over and stares at a young man. His name is Edward Cullen.

In the book, the first act consists of Edward and Bella learning about each other. I found this to be the most interesting part. Sadly, the film rushes through it to get to, I guessed you can call it, the part with, "more bite". For those who don't know what the plot is really about, I suggest you pick up the book. For you men out there, swallow your pride and read it. I'll give you two reasons why you should: 1.) It's actually a really good read and 2.) If you ever go on a date, you'll have something to talk about, because every girl in the world has read the damn thing.

As for the movie? Well, it grossed $67 million on its opening weekend and has the potential to cross the $200 million mark over its theatrical run. Sequels are certainly a guarantee. The movie works. Director Catherine Hardwicke (Thirteen, Lords of Dogtown) can't raise the material to brilliance, but she stays faithful enough to the book to satisfy fans. After all, that's the first priority when adapting such popular material. Right? The movie does have a tendency to leave out small yet significant personality traits to the characters. Especially Bella. In the book, she cooks. A lot. And it's important to have that in the character because it shows her as a woman of freedom of independence. In the movie, they go out to a diner and eat burgers.

When the sequels start to dish out, I am excited to see what kind of direction the franchise will take. Will Hardwicke be replaced? Will Stewart and Pattinson keep the same caliber in their performances? Will non-fans of the series care to keep up? For now, the fans of Twilight can breathe a sigh of relief. You won't be unconditionally and irrevocably in love with the movie version, but it will keep you thirsty enough for more blood.

Slumdog Millionaire

**** Stars

Stop reading for a second.

Go see Slumdog Millionaire.

Now continue.

I haven't seen a truly great movie in a while (and I really didn't see that coming in the middle of November). This is the time of year where I should be celebrating cinema. After Bond failed on almost every level, I was entering Slumdog Millionaire as a desperate man wanting to be reminded why I still go to the movies. Slumdog Millionaire: You answered my prayers as the best film I have seen so far this year, and I am so glad that a possible Best Picture Nomination is in its future. Director Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Trainspotting) has made his best film yet. It unfolds as a sublimely told love story wrapped inside a poetic tale of human existence. 

Jamal Malik is an 18 year-old orphan from the streets of Mumbai who wins $20 million on India's "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" How did he do it the film asks?

A.) He cheated

B.) He's lucky.

C.) He's a genius 

D.) It is written.

Don't worry, I'm not giving anything away. We discover this in the introduction. The real secret is how Jamal has come to learn the answers of the each question. The plot shifts from the game show to his past, where we learn about his desperate journey to reunite with the love of his life, Latika. 

Latika is all Jamal cares about. When he is suspected of cheating on the show, he is arrested for questioning. Jamal explains his innocence, as he tells the officers he still looks for Latika around every corner. Question by question, the maturity of both the characters and the story is an enthralling piece of cinema, one that will erupt the passions out of your heart and explode them into an emotional existence.

Every line of dialogue poetic, every camera shot a stunner, and every action monumental, Slumdog Millionaire jumps out of the ordinary and into a stage that will stand the test of time. When Jamal is one question away from winning the $20 million, the entire world is watching. In this rare case, television unites people to believe in the unbelievable. Is Latika watching the show? Will Jamal ever find his destiny? How can moviegoers experience such magic?

D.) It is written.

And it's called Slumdog Millionaire.

Let The Right One In

** Stars

Even if you are a fan of vampire movies, Let The Right One In is not a pleasant movie to watch. Pointless and instantly forgettable, the film lacks any sort of dramatic punch. The audience is always at a distance and never allowed to be apart of the story. The film is about a 12 year old vampire who lives next to a creepy boy and they form a friendship.

I'm so sorry, but I just gave away the entire film.

Quantum of Solace

** Stars

Quantum of Solace has suffered from the Spiderman 3 effect. What's the Spiderman 3 effect? Here's the definition:

The Spiderman 3 effect: a sequel/continuation of a film series whose budget saturates the original story, ultimately destroying its predecessor's hard work and becoming an unnecessary failure.

Examples:

Quantum of Solace budget: $230 million (** Stars) Casino Royale Budget: $150 million (**** Stars)

Spiderman 3 budget: $258 million (*1/2 Stars) Spiderman 2 budget: $200 million (**** Stars)

When I first heard that the follow-up to the greatest Bond film of all time was going to be a direct sequel, I was ecstatic. Casino Royale was a re-boot of the franchise, so why not continue to spice things up after such a wonderful success? Unfortunately, that dream became a nightmare in what I believe is one of the worst Bond films of all time.

And believe me, I'm a huge Bond fan. I grew up watching every single film in the franchise. When Pierce Brosnan ended with Die Another Day, I along with most of the world thought it was time for a change. When Daniel Craig came into the series using a film with barely any gadgets and no Moneypenny, I was feeling a bit skeptical. Thankfully, Casino Royale gave us a new Bond for the 21st century. And the right one.

So why does Quantum of Solace fail? First and foremost, the script is terrible. Paul Haggis, who I have loved for so long, gives us an abysmal approach to a promising theme. Bond is pissed about the loss of his love Vesper from Casino Royale and he is thirsty for revenge. In the opening sequence, we get this car chase that is so quickly cut that I had absolutely no idea what was going on. After that seizure, Bond goes to a building, opens up the trunk, pulls out his prisoner (Mr. White from the previous film) and starts to ask questions. He discovers that Mr. White has his people everywhere. Ok, good to know?

Then Bond goes on several more fast-paced chase sequences, from running on hill tops to jumping on boats with motorcycles. It all sounds really cool right? Absolutely! But like I said before, we don't know what's happening in these key moments because of such painfully quick camera movements. The average cut has to be no more than two seconds. A note to director Marc Foster: Dude, relax. You don't need to tell a Bond film in only 106 minutes. And if you're going to, we don't need to see the development of a villain who really has no purpose but to give Bond something to chase. The villain is named Dominic Greene (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly's Mathieu Amalric, who is sadly miscast) a ruthless businessman behind the Quantum organization. He is forging a deal with baaaaaaad people to try and take control of a very powerful natural resource.

Now get ready for this. The reason why Vesper was killed and why Bond lost his mind was because of this organization wanting control of, wait for it, water!

Um, what?

Yea, you heard it right. After Bond and the new Bond girl Camille (the incredibly sexy but dull Olga Kurylenko) have an aerial dogfight, they crash land to find a secret stash of water. At that point in Quantum of Solace, I pretty much lost all interest.

The film does have great stunt and technical work. I enjoyed the on-foot chase that Bond endures and wouldn't have minded the others (the opening car chase and aerial dogfight) had they been shot differently. And I will admit that the film ends on a note where the series can get right back on track, but in this installment, Marc Foster went all Jason Bourne on us and turned one of my favorite on-screen heroes into a tantrum-induced basket case. Daniel Craig, you deserve better.

Role Models

*** Stars

Role Models is a movie that feels like a movie concept worked into something completely improvised. In this case, it works. This is another worthy selection from the familiar cast of the Judd Apatow gang (Apatow surprisingly did not produce this one) along with Sean William's Scott funniest performance since his departure from the American Pie series.

Scott plays Wheeler, a mascot for the energy drink Minotaur. Wheeler loves life and doesn't mind coasting along with barely any responsibility. His co-worker and best friend Danny (the always hilarious Paul Rudd) is the exact opposite, hates everything and is miserable 24/7. After a bad morning at work and his girlfriend Beth (the very busy Elizabeth Banks) dumps him, Danny loses it. He crashes his work truck into a statue trying to escape from his truck being towed. Both Danny and Wheeler are forced into 150 hours of community service to avoid 30 days of prison time. It will be painful, annoying, and of course, from an outside perspective, hilarious.

When Role Models explores Danny and Wheeler with their two kids, things get really funny. Danny is stuck with a fantasy world obsessed geek named Auggie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) where Wheeler has to babysit a out-of-control little punk named Ronnie (Bobb'e Thompson). Like I said, almost everything here feels improvised, so for the middle hour of the film there are little scenes that achieve very funny moments. The two kids are shown with substance and heart, aside from what the trailer shows. The climax of the film is a long battle scene surrounding all the dorks in the fantasy world Auggie belongs to. What makes the action work is how appropriately choreographed the fights during the scene actually are. Rudd and Scott are a winning combination. They riff off each other in a classical buddy comedy way that makes us feel sympathy for their awfully painful punishment, even when they act like total jerks.

Because this is a one-liner kind of film, I must say my favorite. In the conclusion when Danny is trying to win back his girlfriend by singing her a song, Danny sings a line "Like Susan Surrandon and Tim Robbins". For absolutely no reason or adding support to the plot, there's a close-up on Wheeler who grins and says "They're good actors". It doesn't need to be there, but hell, I laughed pretty damn hard. Role Models is a funny, funny movie.

Zach and Miri Make a Porno

***1/2 Stars

I'm starting to get a crush on Elizabeth Banks.

Banks is in three new movies currently playing right now. Oliver Stone's W, the newest one Role Models, and this, Zach and Miri Make a Porno, a movie in which the Weinstein Company chose to distribute solely based on its title. Banks is the charm, sass, and beauty of all of three of these films.

Zach and Miri Make a Porno does involve porn scenes, but that's not really what the film is about. It is actually a sweet and lovable story about two lifelong friends who are forced to make an adult movie due to insufficient funds. Through this dilemma, they discover that there is something deeper to their relationship.

Who would have thought that a love story could be successfully made through the medium of porn? Kevin Smith writes the raunchiest material this side of Two Girls One Cup and still manages to find his respectable muse. The film begins with Zach and Miri (Seth Rogen and Banks) on the day of their high school reunion. Miri is forcing Zach to go and he accepts because he'll pretty much do anything she asks (he never says it, but its obvious). This tells us that their trust factor is incredibly high, and that is proven when Miri agrees to Zach's lucid idea that making a porno will bail them out of their financial problems.

Zach works at a coffee shop with his buddy Delaney (Craig Robinson) with the same enthusiasm as a teenaged part-time employee who couldn't possibly care less about proper work etiquette. Smith's dialogue during the introduction of the store is really funny stuff. When a customer interrupts Zach and Delaney and says "Can I get a cup of coffee, black?" Delaney fires back "Can't you see we talkin', white?" The little comical touches Smith creates makes the scene explosively funny.

When the cameras start rolling on the actual porno, Zach and Miri agree to have sex with each other for the sake of saving their apartment. With this decision comes the truth. After they have sex for the movie, (very tastefully done by Smith, who makes the scene romantic) the two realize that they may be in love.

The film works best when focusing on the intimate relationship between Zach and Miri. The rest of the movie is filled with gross-out moments, that even I found to be borderline NC-17. However, I would have been extremely pissed had this been NC-17, when a torture porn show like Saw V gets an R-rating with no argument whatsoever. Ratings aside, the actual story of these characters show that Smith is still a great writer. He may be raunchier than ever, but strangely enough, Smith is still growing up. And as for Banks, with no argument whatsoever, the woman is a star to the ultimate degree.

Opposing Demographics

Three films, Three different themes.

If you're in the mood for some Government bashing, see:

** Stars

The Plot: Shia Lebeouf and Michelle Monaghan are on the run after being targeted through their cell phones by a mysterious woman. Lebeouf's character (Jerry Shaw) discovers weapons and a small fortune in his name at his apartment just seconds before being taken into custody by the FBI, where Rachel Holloman (Monaghan) is forced by the voice to follow her orders otherwise her child will be killed. The two attempt to learn what is actually going on through car chases, interrogations, and assassination attempts.

Why the film doesn't work: Director D.J Caruso is given an $80 million budget, a hot topic in today’s culture, and Steven Spielberg as a producer. What could possibly go wrong? Well, the problem with Eagle Eye is that it tries to be too much at once. In order to nab young moviegoers, the film relies heavily on ludicrous action scenes, ultimately creating moments filled with implausible scenarios. Example: When Shaw is escaping custody, the film cuts to signs and electronic billboards telling what Jerry has to do. There is no possible way that Shaw could see all of these orders to follow as he is jumping off buildings and trains.

I usually never have problems suspending disbelief, but when an entire film relies on stunts like this, it gets a little frustrating. Especially when the material is trying to tackle a very important and very real problem in our country. I give props for its guts, but in the end, Eagle Eye goes for the entertainment factor. I didn't hate it by any means, but its potential versus the film itself is an absolute waste.

Review in a nutshell: An incoherent disappointment.

If your heart needs melting, try:

*** Stars

The Plot: A one-night trip through Manhattan surrounding two characters named Nick (Michael Cera) and Norah (Kat Dennings). Nick is coming off being dumped by his girlfriend Tris. He goes to a club to perform with his band "The Jerkoffs" where he meets Norah, who is forced into babysitting her drunken friend Caroline (Ari Graynor). The two connect, and spend a night arguing, gossiping, listening to music, discovering life, and learning the truth about love.

Why the film works: Did that sound corny for you? Sure does. Sounded corny when I wrote it. But when watching Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, I felt touched by its sincere portrait of young love. The way it unfolds does feel familiar, but that's only a disguise of what the film is really about. It's a story about finding yourself through someone else. We all need someone to bring our best side, and Nick and Norah show us that. The chemistry between the two leads is unavoidable.

Review in a nutshell: Even for you cold-hearted guys out there, this is the epitome of date movies. Best of luck.

If you want something brutal, witness:

*** Stars

The Plot: Pride and Glory raises the question of morality surrounding a family of cops. Edward Norton, Colin Farrell, Noah Emmerich, and Jon Voight lead this ensemble in a tale of corruption versus loyalty. Ray Tierney (Norton) investigates a case that involves his brother-in-law Jimmy Egan (Farrell). Ray is stuck between protecting the family legacy and protecting the law. The story follows his choices and the outcomes of his actions.

Why the film works: Directed with gritty style by Gavin O'Connor (Miracle), Pride and Glory is a powerful film that has moments of brilliance sadly trapped by Hollywood conventions. To enjoy the film, you'll have to ignore them. (What are they? Pretty much every scene that doesn't include a principle actor). On that note, the lead cast is wonderful, especially Colin Farrell, who has a juicy role as the questionable brother-in-law. With this and In Bruges, it looks like Farrell is steadily becoming the actor we all knew he could be.

Review in a nutshell: We Own the Night's slightly stronger half.

W. (Dub-Ya)

***1/2 Stars

Oliver Stone tackles George W. Bush.

Not much of a surprise.

Stone’s biopic of the 43^rd President is very well done, with an electric performance from Josh Brolin in the title role. It is however, much different than expected. Instead of purposely tackling the controversy on Bush’s tactics, it stays pretty close to an old-fashioned profile story, of how this man went from a booze-crazed Yale playboy to the most powerful man in the world. I found it refreshing that Stone has the ability to second-guess all those who have the man figured for a liberal who just loves to bash people.

Now don’t panic just yet. There are several moments of Bush-bashing here, but there's rarely any cheap laughs. Everything that comes out of Bush’s mouth is proof enough that the man is pretty incoherent to the English language.

The popular example: Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning? (My computer’s spell check won’t stop bugging me about that sentence’s phrasing. Maybe it doesn’t understand normalcy.)

W. is a showcase for Josh Brolin. The man doesn’t just reference Bush’s mannerisms. He literally transforms himself completely to become him. The way Brolin moves, talks, squints, laughs, drinks, and stares while playing Bush are all so effortlessly created that he actually plays Bush better than, well, Bush. How? He actually makes us care about the man. How the hell did he manage to do that?

The rest of the cast includes several heavyweights. Elizabeth Banks (who seems to be in every film this fall, no complaints here) plays the first lady, James Cromwell as Bush Sr., Ellen Burstyn as Barbara, Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney, Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, Thandie Newton as Condi, Toby Jones as Carl Grove, and Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair. It’s hard to explore every character subjectively, and Stone stays away from that because this is in fact the sole-story of Bush. Smart move.

The film won’t make much at the box-office and won’t change the way we look at Bush, but it’s nice to know that filmmakers are still able to question those in power through the medium of artistry. I look forward in seeing how this film will be placed in years to come when we know for sure just how bad Bush did at his job he got paid $400,000 a year to do.

-Spell Check: is our children learning (Order of words: Consider revising)

Suggestions: Are our children or Is our child

Ignore all.

The spelling and grammar check is complete.

Pride and Glory

If you want something brutal, witness:

*** Stars

The Plot: Pride and Glory raises the question of morality surrounding a family of cops. Edward Norton, Colin Farrell, Noah Emmerich, and Jon Voight lead this ensemble in a tale of corruption versus loyalty. Ray Tierney (Norton) investigates a case that involves his brother-in-law Jimmy Egan (Farrell). Ray is stuck between protecting the family legacy and protecting the law. The story follows his choices and the outcomes of his actions.

Why the film works: Directed with gritty style by Gavin O'Connor (Miracle), Pride and Glory is a powerful film that has moments of brilliance sadly trapped by Hollywood conventions. To enjoy the film, you'll have to ignore them. (What are they? Pretty much every scene that doesn't include a principle actor). On that note, the lead cast is wonderful, especially Colin Farrell, who has a juicy role as the questionable brother-in-law. With this and In Bruges, it looks like Farrell is steadily becoming the actor we all knew he could be.

Review in a nutshell: We Own the Night's slightly stronger half.

Body of Lies

*** Stars

Compared to almost all the names currently in the top ten at the box office, Body of Lies is easily the superior film. It's directed with expected maturity and grit by Ridley Scott, has a top-notch performance from my man Leonardo Dicaprio, includes a minor yet solid supporting role by Russell Crowe, and it explores a very important theme about today's world. But, in the end, Body of Lies is a little disappointing from a commercial standpoint for two reasons. 1.) It’s not the film that could have turned around the Box-office poison surrounding the Iraq War and 2.) It lost to Beverley Hills Chihuahua. Can you seriously imagine how depressed Scott, Dicaprio, and Crowe must feel when their very important film lost to talking dogs? Maybe it’s true, the world is actually coming to an end.

Dicaprio plays Roger Ferris, a covert CIA operative working throughout the middle-east searching for freelance terrorists who have been bombing civilian targets. After surviving several close calls through car-bombings and on-foot chases, Ferris discovers information on an Islamic terrorist leader named Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul). With the help from his boss Ed Hoffman (Crowe), who somehow coordinates these missions during his routine errands (breakfast, dropping kids off at school, etc.), Ferris goes undercover to find the truth behind what this chaos is all about.

Body of Lies is a difficult process to render. Maybe because it feels completely untouched with reality. Maybe it relies too much on Dicaprio's and Crowe's performances. Then again, maybe the whole point is that there are no answers to its incoherency.

The character of Roger Ferris seems like a really interesting person to profile. This man is so good at what he does that he sometimes forgets to look at things objectively. However, there are several subplots about Ferris's life that are completely out of focus with the film’s narrative. We hear that he is getting divorce through two or three lines of dialogue. Then he falls for a middle-eastern doctor who treats him for rabbi bites. And then, without crucial development in their relationship, Roger decides to sacrifice everything for her safety. The film starts with CIA connections in the middle-east, then trails off into that land’s uncharted territory, and then it ends with a character study about one man figuring out if what he is doing is truly and morally right.

It is hectic yes, but inside this chaotic story is a smart and exciting film that sometimes hits brilliance. I want to talk a little bit more about Dicaprio. Here is an experienced, mature, and still young actor who is giving his all in every film he touches. He is one of the finest actors working today who deserves to be challenged in films like this, and in this case involving the Iraq War. It was unlikely that Body of Lies was going to be a box-office hit because of its nature, but I think that films like these will be very respected in the years to come. Let's just hope that's soon because I am seriously getting sick and tired of talking dogs that are ruling the movie world.

Religulous

**** Stars

I am not a huge Bill Maher fan. I occasionally watch his HBO show when I need that occasional (and lately, frequently) uncensored Bush bashing rant, but I think he can be a complete smartass. The way he asks question is purposely slanted towards the answer he wants, which usually consists of making the other person look like a moron. He also seems to be very self-absorbed and absolutely in love with himself. However, I have to give Bill Maher some serious credit. His documentary Religulous is something you've never seen before. This guy has the balls to go to some of the most sacred places on earth and ask monumentally controversial questions to some of the most religious people on earth. This film hits you hard from the start, and ends with a finale that is the scariest ten minutes of footage I have scene since Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

For all contingent purposes, I was raised a Catholic Christian. I spent years in CCD and was confirmed over four years ago. I never really liked the church that I attended. It was run like a business and was forcing young minds to believe in such awful ideals. I am so glad I have great parents who are realistic to the issues of a teenager. They laid to me straight when I asked for truth. When I asked my church for advice, they gave me some random biblical reference to live by. I will never forget one of my confirmation classes that occurred during my sophomore year of High School. It was a dangerously touchy subject. It was the subject of premarital sex. Oh no, run for the hills! Teenagers learning about sex? That's devil talk! But don't worry, the church set it straight. NOT. (I felt it was appropriate to ad that Borat reference considering the director of this film is also that of Borat.) In fact, my church gave such demeaning advice that day, that it actually made me question the faith I grew up with, at that point, for almost sixteen years. Our teacher told us that every time you had sex with someone before marriage, regardless of age, emotional intimacy or length of relationship, that you were losing a piece of your soul, and it would be impossible to get back. It was a sad moment in my life. Sad for those around me who had to hear such words, and sad for the teacher herself, who actually thought this was the right way to approach a generation who is already in such confusion about the world.

I eventually got confirmed later that year and was no longer forced to go to church. As that force decreased, my faith actually increased. I still attend church twice a year (Easter and Christmas) not because I want to, but because it's a nice reason for my family to be together. I certainly still believe in God, but I'm afraid that people are so hypocritical and radical when it comes to religion, that Bill Maher's bashing seems to make unusual sense.

On that note, back to the film. Bill Maher begins by saying that he is not in the know when it comes to religion. He never actually says so, but we assume he is an atheist. He wants to understand what people are thinking. How can someone believe that Jonah lived inside a whale for three days? Is judgment day truly coming? Does anyone really know what Scientology is about? I really don't. I know Tom Cruise and John Travolta are apart of it. And it was created by the author L. Ron Hubbard, who wrote Battlefield Earth. I think I actually blame him more for creating the source material for that morbid film adaptation than that religion. Bill Maher actually disguised himself as a Scientologist and started preaching it on the streets of a city. Dozens of people started to listen. I mean they were really listening. Are people just looking for answers to all of the world's proposed questions? In this case, Maher makes a point. Maybe people really don't know what the hell they are talking about.

In fact, he actually applauds one Christian for coming up with such "brilliant bullshit". In Orlando, Florida, Maher travels to a place called The Holy Land Experience. It's a reenactment through songs, interpretive dance, and really bad acting, of Jesus's crucifixion (if you do go, don't worry, Jesus is connected to a microphone, so you can hear him from the back row). The actor playing Jesus tells Maher that God works in higher levels than humans. We may not always understand what he's doing but we know it’s him. Like water, it works in three different forms. A gas, a solid (ice cube), and liquid. Bill Maher is so impressed with this "bullshit" that he is at a complete loss of words.

As the film continues to bash religion silly, it does tend to get a little redundant. I wish Maher would let some of his interviews be more focused on what others had to say. It's undeniably appropriate that the man wants to play hardball, but he's flirting dangerously close towards spite's gimbal lock. Then again, you kind of expect this behavior considering it is what made him famous in the first place.

Spite aside, Bill Maher knows what he is doing. In the final ten minutes of Religulous, putting all "bullshit" aside, he abandons humor and says his final peace on this crazy little thing called religion. I think he understands that God can give us comfort when we have no one to turn to. He even admits that he has turned to him at a younger age. That's not the problem he is referring to. The problem that emerges are those who are willing to sacrifice the decency of human morality, that referring to religious wars, for something that no one can really understand but God himself. Even though it always has been so, religion is becoming more and more abused; as an excuse for creating empires and establishing dominance. We may just be seeing things clear now because we are using such apocalyptic weapons on each other. Maybe that confusion I felt in my confirmation class that day now seems more comprehensible. If abused, religion can tear people apart and create a pointless, endless war. We Americans should know. We’re smack-dab in the middle of one.

Miracle at St. Anna

** Stars

I am glad to see that the whole pointless debacle between Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood has subsided (Lee criticized Eastwood for failing to have one African-American in his Iwo Jima films). Even though Spike Lee does have a point, Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima is the much superior film. Miracle at St. Anna is a huge disappointment. There is so much talent in this picture that to see such potential fail, is an eyesore to any film fan, especially Spike Lee's.

There are several positive things to say about St. Anna. Both the scope and cinematography are visually exceptional and there are moments of brilliance. However, I found myself trying so hard to focus on those moments, as they were quickly cut from existence and lost in a shuffle of other pointless historical reflections, that I finally gave up on its entire purpose. It's another classic example of a wonderful concept for a film gone wrong with its execution.

This is the story of the African American 92nd Infantry Division, who during World War II, is trapped near a small Tuscan village (Sant'Anna di Stazzema) after Private Sam Train (Omar Benson Miller) risks his life to save an Italian child. It's also the story of that town's heartbreaking massacre caused by Neo-Nazi Germans (these scenes are actually some of the strongest shots I have seen all year). It's also the story of a modern day murder case surrounding one of those soldiers who killed a man responsible for evil-doings during his time at St. Anna. It is ALSO a story about that Italian boy and whether or not he is an angel descended from heaven.

Now does that all sound like one movie? Sure, I guess. And it seems that Spike Lee would be the perfect filmmaker to bring that story to life. Wait, which one am I talking about? I'm not sure either. There are so many things going on here that we are frantically trying to understand Spike Lee's vision. I really wish he expanded more on the massacre itself rather than having the primary focus on the African American soldiers dealing with racial issues of its time. Then again, it is Spike Lee. This is a passion project, sure, and I absolutely respect that, but Spike Lee made one mistake. I will explain it in the next paragraph.

As I was leaving the theater, my roommates and I spent our twenty minute walk home discussing the film. One liked it. The other didn't. I began to hear their arguments and the one who liked it had a very interesting point. The film runs at 166 minutes. He said he wanted it to be longer. It didn't hit me right away, but he was absolutely right. Spike Lee has such conviction and passion for every project that he touches and his ability to explore important historical moments is truly the work of a gifted filmmaker. In 1992, he gave us Malcolm X. It was 202 minutes long. It was also an absolute masterpiece. What stopped him from adding on to this one? Did the studio force him to cut it down? Was their financial issues? If there is ever a film that needs a director's cut, this is the one.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

If your heart needs melting, try:

*** Stars

The Plot: A one-night trip through Manhattan surrounding two characters named Nick (Michael Cera) and Norah (Kat Dennings). Nick is coming off being dumped by his girlfriend Tris. He goes to a club to perform with his band "The Jerkoffs" where he meets Norah, who is forced into babysitting her drunken friend Caroline (Ari Graynor). The two connect, and spend a night arguing, gossiping, listening to music, discovering life, and learning the truth about love.

Why the film works: Did that sound corny for you? Sure does. Sounded corny when I wrote it. But when watching Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, I felt touched by its sincere portrait of young love. The way it unfolds does feel familiar, but that's only a disguise of what the film is really about. It's a story about finding yourself through someone else. We all need someone to bring our best side, and Nick and Norah show us that. The chemistry between the two leads is unavoidable.

Review in a nutshell: Even for you cold-hearted guys out there, this is the epitome of date movies. Best of luck.

Choke

**1/2 Stars

Choke is an easily watchable film that unfortunately tries to please everyone. Leading man Sam Rockwell scores, while the film itself is another story. From the author of Fight Club, Choke revolves around the life of Victor Mancini, a somewhat repulsive sex-addict who spends more time in relapse than actual recovery. He sleeps with what feels like over a hundred women and fantasizes what sex would be like with every woman he sees. Regardless of looks. Regardless of age. Regardless of mental stability. He is a medical school drop-out who spends his days as a Colonial-Time tour guide, or what he calls it, a historical interpretor. The only thing he interprets is how on earth he is going to have sex that day. It's rather unpleasant because the man is hard to root for. He's a mild jerk who rarely cares about others. Rockwell has a special charm that elevates the material, but Choke chokes on its own self-absorbed style. It's Californication, if Hank Moody was a tumultuous, pompous, and disturbing sex-stalker.

Righteous Kill

0 Stars

The first time Robert De Niro and Al Pacino pair together (with the exception of Heat) is this? Seriously? Really? Honestly?!?

There is an enormous stench reaking of this morbid piece of moviemaking. It's combination consists of stale, flat, and overused scenes created for no significant purpose. Righteous Kill combines replays of recycled De Niro & Pacino lines from other films, and then are filtered into a script that had its place locked in a drawer under someone's basement floor.

There's one crucial thing left out of this film. A STORY. There is no coherent plot or any reason for the characters to do what they do. De Niro plays Turk. Pacino plays Rooster. Partners for thirty years. We must assume they're best friends too. De Niro is a cranky old S.O.B while Pacino is smooth and easy-going. As the story progresses, we ignore and abandon all reasoning for the story and its ending and wonder if De Niro and Pacino can stop living off of their legacies. Especially De Niro. Pacino actually looks like he's trying, but De Niro looks utterly bored. We feel you Bobbie. We are too.

And also, not to give to much away, but do we really need to see the beautiful and talented Carla Gugino having rough sex with De Niro. Or the idea of Pacino raping her? Um, gross. And the fact that its really the only thing you take away from Righteous Kill, unwillingly, should be proof enough for this much deserved 0 star rating.

Eagle Eye

Three films, Three different themes.
If you're in the mood for some Government bashing, see:

** Stars

The Plot: Shia Lebeouf and Michelle Monaghan are on the run after being targeted through their cell phones by a mysterious woman. Lebeouf's character (Jerry Shaw) discovers weapons and a small fortune in his name at his apartment just seconds before being taken into custody by the FBI, where Rachel Holloman (Monaghan) is forced by the voice to follow her orders otherwise her child will be killed. The two attempt to learn what is actually going on through car chases, interrogations, and assassination attempts.

Why the film doesn't work: Director D.J Caruso is given an $80 million budget, a hot topic in today’s culture, and Steven Spielberg as a producer. What could possibly go wrong? Well, the problem with Eagle Eye is that it tries to be too much at once. In order to nab young moviegoers, the film relies heavily on ludicrous action scenes, ultimately creating moments filled with implausible scenarios. Example: When Shaw is escaping custody, the film cuts to signs and electronic billboards telling what Jerry has to do. There is no possible way that Shaw could see all of these orders to follow as he is jumping off buildings and trains.

I usually never have problems suspending disbelief, but when an entire film relies on stunts like this, it gets a little frustrating. Especially when the material is trying to tackle a very important and very real problem in our country. I give props for its guts, but in the end, Eagle Eye goes for the entertainment factor. I didn't hate it by any means, but its potential versus the film itself is an absolute waste.

Review in a nutshell: An incoherent disappointment.

My Best Friend's Girl

My movie has arrived. It's hard for me to review this films because I got to be on set with the cast and crew (not to mention you can see me located in the prom scene for a couple shots). Instead, if you want, you can read my article about my two-day shoot that I went through last year. Click Here.

For those looking for my opinion on the film, I'll admit it's not that great. It had its chances, but the actors are forced into raising material to a level not worth raising. It does however have its moments. Dane Cook does avoid disaster here compared to Good Luck Chuck and Kate Hudson is still tolerable (although a break from a romantic-comedy could be refreshing) but with both mediocre direction (Howard Deutch) and writing (Jordan Cahan) My Best Friend's Girl won't really appeal to anyone, except maybe if you were in it.
** Stars

Burn After Reading

***1/2 Stars

The Coen Brothers are extremely smart people. After following up with their Oscar winning No Country For Old Men, they have crafted another original and stylistic film, one that is fun and brilliantly stupid. It's also the #1 film in the country ($19 million opening), coming in as a career high for the dynamic duo.

There are times where Burn After Reading reaches heights of something very special. It can also be extremely unsettling. But I guess that's what the film is all about. You're suppose to laugh you're ass off while looking at the person next to you going "Are people really like this?" Realism isn't the films strong point, but it certainly gets its point across in a weirdly seductive way.

The film has an ensemble of some of the best actors in the world. And everyone has a moment of genius. George Clooney plays Harry Pfarrer, a happily married man who also likes to fool around with dates on the Internet. He'll date anyone. He hooks up with Linda Litzke (the always impressive Frances McDormand) a gym specialist who is willing to go to the ends of the earth for some seriously ridiculous plastic surgeries because she believes she's "gotten about as far as this body can take her." Haha, um, good for you?

Her gym co-worker, Chad (Brad Pitt) decides to help her get those surgeries when they find a CD with apparent CIA documents left at the gym. They think this stuff is worth millions. It does in fact belong to ex-CIA member Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), but it is nowhere near what they think it is. Osbourne is married to Katie (recent Oscar-winner Tilda Swinton) who is sleeping with Harry Pfarrer.

So you see? It's all one huge circle of lies, sex, hebetudinous behavior, and a whole lot of burning after reading. The title of the film makes sense when the report of this so-called "CIA file" gets to the actual CIA. They read the story, and look to each other with a puzzled, puzzled face. When it gets to a CIA boss (J.K Simmons), he looks at it and literally has no idea what the hell is going on. "Report back to me when it makes sense," he says. It never does.

The cast rocks. Pitt, Clooney, Swinton, McDormand are all solid, but I have to ad, personally, that watching John Malkovich scream What the F*** every other line is worth the price of admission.

Burn After Reading clocks in at a brisk 96-minutes, so don't expect much. It's like going to a hypnotist and watching everyone acting completely moronic. Do you laugh? Sure. Do you shake your head after its over in full embarrassment for every character involved? Of course. Do we eventually report back saying it finally makes sense? Like I said, proudly, it never does.