Review: Lions for Lambs (2007)

When Lions for Lambs (2007) was theatrically released I was hesitant to go and watch it, because of the recent erratic and unique behavior of one of the film's major stars: Tom Cruise. In this film he's not the solo heavyweight actor who carries the entire production upon his shoulders. Cruise is joined by fellow renowned actors Robert Redford and Meryl Streep who have built their own separate reputations in the heavyweight category of dramatic acting. However, Redford and Streep are clearly separated from the likes of Cruise, because they don't go around the talk show circuit jumping up and down on couches and claiming that postpartum depression is nothing but a mythical excuse for drug fiends (or something to that affect).

I point this issue out, because I have a hunch that Cruise's behavior in recent years may have influenced the interest of a lot of people who may otherwise have been sitting in a movie theater watching this film. It doesn't seem like Lions for Lambs had lasted for very long in the movie theaters., and I cannot remember how long it was running at the local cinema. During it's opening weekend, the film placed fourth in the top ten weekend earnings, and this was a cause of concern for Tom Cruise. Despite all the press that Cruise had been receiving for his strange behavior, he has a professional ally on his side. Redford vouches for him by publicly announcing positive compliments of Cruise's professionalism on the set during the film's production. Bonus points go to Cruise for his work ethics, and an A+ goes to Redford for sucking up to his lead actor.

Despite the awkward reviews from some of the public critics that described it as a film that begins with a promise, but drums on with the same vitality as an Off Broadway theater production that lacks anything of value to say. Personally, I found the film to be an engaging and interesting story. I really could not find anything that I thought would be a tremendous hindrance from the film's full value and potential as a wonderful fictional story. However, it is a large bite to swallow if the audience is expected to believe that a baby face Tom Cruise would be holding a political chair as a United States Senator, but that would be a statement of belief that is neither here nor there. The character he plays is a politician with a career on its way up the governmental ladder, and he maintains a personality filled with zeal and determination to accomplish lofty goals while he is in office.

The story is one of many new tales that would be spun from the offices of Hollywood moguls and scriptwriters who have found a new source of material in which they could produce their films without pulling another plot device from their pantry filled with stale ideas. The presence of American troops in the Middle East has become old news ever since the declaration of war has been announced in March of 2003. However, it will be used as a source of material for fictional films and documentaries for years to come. Lions for Lambs is another fictional venture into the domain of war stories about the Americans in the Middle East, and it serves as a reminder of how all the previous wars of the last century has spawned several war related films. The decision to create a film based upon a current or previous war is neither bad nor good, but the methodological approach in telling the story could be damaging or a way to improve upon a dire situation.

Speaking only for my own personal interpretation of Lions for Lambs, I believe the film was an entertaining parable of war and differences. It is a film with delusions of grandeur by attempting to include an argument of persuasion that fails to change my own opinion of the war. Remember that I could only relay my own interpretation of the material that is presented in the film, but there were a few times when I felt like I was watching a game of checkers when the characters were pretending to battle in a game of chess. There are two primary arguments that is being debated in the film. Argument A is presented by Senator Jasper Irving (played by Tom Cruise) who wants to initiate a new plan of long term sustainability in the Middle East with the highly visible American troops lingering around. The experienced television journalist Janine Roth (played by Meryl Streep) compares his plan to that of the Roman Empire, but he disagrees with her assessment.

Argument B is presented by collegiate professor Dr. Stephen Malley who is trying to convince an underachieving student that the future of the country rests in the hands of the next generation. In his argument he presents the true fact that a large portion of the volunteers that join the ranks of the American military are recruits from the lower economic classes and the American ghettos. Within the same breath he points out the fact of complacency from the privileged youth, such as the underachieving student, who feels comfortable with his current status in life and doesn't feel obliged to take a strong stand for his personal beliefs. In both arguments there are two players who are either arguing for his or her side or trying to disprove the argument of their opponent. As each person takes a turn with a rebuttal argument there are big words and ideas that are thrown around, but nothing really seems to make a strong impression on me.

Hopefully, my review is not misunderstood to be a disapproval of the film's quality as an enthralling and entertaining story. My experience within the field of professional debating is practically non-existent. But just like the rhythm of a written song, any argument could be felt and heard by the untrained ear. It is with practice and experience that a person could be able to nitpick the fine talking points of an argument to find its weaknesses. There is something that is missing in the two arguments that are presented in the film that would fulfill the primary purpose that every argument should accomplish if it is created and performed correctly. The main purpose of an argument is to persuade the listener over to the side of the speaker and reinforce the beliefs of its existing supporters. I was neither won over by the strengths of the given arguments in the film, nor was I deterred to swing in the direction of the opposing side. At certain points in the film I would agree with some of the talking points, while I disagreed with other valuable counterpoints. However, there was nothing about either argument that stood out with a strong arm and dragged me into taking action for either side.

Setting aside the weakness of the arguments I would like to point out that the film's story was placed together well and I was highly entertained when I watched it. It may seem rather unusual to be describing my experience with this film as sheer moment of entertainment, but that is the only way I could describe the experience. The editing was smooth enough to keep the viewer up to speed during the transitions between the three main stories that occur in the film without loosing the pace between the growing intensity of the arguments between the characters. It's a talkie film with a couple of scenes of war action, so it may have several dull moments in it for those viewers who are adjusted to watching action films. With everything summarized into a nicely wrapped conclusion I would like to give this film a comfortable eight points out of ten possible. It deserves the rating for its skills of presentation, but it needs a little more help in the realm of persuasion.

Review: Les Misérables (1934)

Director Raymond Bernard has adapted Victor Hugo's lengthy French novel Les Misérables into a three part film adaptation. The unabridged transcript for the book itself is about 1,400 pages in length, depending upon which publication copy you happen to consulting. It is my favorite classic novel of all time that completely blows the other classics right out of the water. Who cares about the other classic novels such as Mitchell's Gone With The Wind, Dickens's David Copperfield, or Tolstoy's Anna Karenina? It's all about Hugo's Misérables, baby! However, because of the book's hefty length there aren't very many high quality film adaptations of its story. Well, I thought the lack of a quality adaptation was something that I would have to live with until the moment that I discovered an old 1934 French film that appears to have hit the adaptive nail right on the head. Before you continue reading through the remainder of this article I should point out that the majority of it contains spoilers; so, reader take caution.

Part One: Une tempête sous un crâne (Tempest in a skull).
In the first third of the series is called "Tempest in a skull" and sets up the story of convicted thief Jean Valjean who is released on parole. He served nineteen years as a member of a chain gang for stealing a loaf of bread; the first fives years were a part of his original sentence, but the remaining fourteen years was an extended sentence for his four attempts at escaping from the chain gang. It is a story of redemption for a thief who changes his own life after a priest shows him mercy. With the gift of silver candlesticks and silver tableware Valjean disposes of his government pink slip, changes his name, and moves as far away as he could to create a new life for himself.

Nearly a decade later he has established a successful career as a business owner and the mayor of a small French town. However, there is one minuscule hitch to his almost perfect new life. He stumbles across an accident that leaves a town citizen trapped underneath a heavy wagon. Everyone fears saving the trapped citizen with the high risk of being killed in the process. Valjean jumps right in to save the guy by lifting the heavy wagon up long enough for the other people to pull the injured man out to safety. One of the onlookers in the crowd is Inspector Javert who is attempting to wipe the cobwebs away from his distant memory. He remembers the physical strength of the convict from the time he spent patrolling the chain gang. Javert rules his life by a personal sense of moral duty and obligation to keep a convicted felon in jail, regardless of Jean Valjean's attempt at keeping his new lifestyle as clean and innocent as possible.

In the final act of Part One an innocent man is placed on trial and has been named as the missing felon Jean Valjean. The true Valjean has been living under an alternate name for several years, and he wonders if it is worth revealing his true identity to save the life of the innocent man. He is faced with a tremendous amount of stress when faced with the decision of attending the trial of the misidentified, innocent man or to fulfill a promise he made to a dying mother who doesn't want to have her daughter live forever as a house slave to a pair of innkeepers known as the Thénardier family.

Part Two: Les Thénardier.
The married couple have spent several years of their lives conniving every last cent out of their customers. Thénardier and his wife are innkeepers who had taken in Cosette, the daughter of Fantine, with a high regard of kind generosity they claim they have for the mother and daughter. The thin veil of moral high ground is clearly transparent as they repeatedly attempt to bleed out every last bit of earnings they could pull from Fantine's wages. With the letters that Thénardier writes to Fantine he is able to convince her that Cosette is in need of extra clothing and medicine. Fantine's debt grows rapidly with the accumulating list of care items that Cosette never receives.

Fulfilling his promise to Fantine as she was lying upon her deathbed, Jean Valjean arrives at Thénardier's inn to pay off the debt and to become Cosette's new caretaker. For the next eight years of her life she views Valjean to be her saviour and adopted father offering her protection and guidance as she matures into a young and beautiful woman. Thénardier and his wife believe they received the short end of the deal when Valjean had paid off Fantine's debt. They conspired for years on new methods in swindling money from the pockets of other people. After nearly ten years Thénardier jumps at the opportunity he is faced when he discovers that Valjean and Cosette are living nearby. However, to his disadvantage his next door neighbor, Marius, is in love with Cosette and he comes to Valjean's rescue when he is attacked by Thénardier's gang of thugs.

As Thénardier is seeking his sweet revenge the other economically poor citizens of France are politically evolving. They want to see France evolve into a pure Republic. Marius, the young and handsome neighbor, is a member of the ABC Society, which is a local Republican political group consisting of idealistic young men from the lower economic class. Marius is approached a few times by his friends who have noticed his apparent distraction of love for Cosette. Will he be there for them when they enact what they believe would be a political revolution against the French throne? Or will he be enthralled by the wonders of love?

Part Three: Liberté, liberté chérie (Freedom, dear Freedom).
In the final act of the film their political upheaval is in full swing as the ABC Society is joined by other like minded poor people who mourn the loss of General Lamarque. They begin their revolution for political freedom during General Lamarque's funeral procession by staging an uprising against the military and police force. The battle is harsh and unforgiving for the poor activists who are wanting to see their dreams of political revolution come true. Ever since his release from the chain gang, Valjean has continuously fought for personal freedom and independence from the guilt that he's borne for decades. Javert has been an external reminder of his past, and Valjean has attempted everything he could to keep Javert at a safe distance away.

During the street side battle Javert covertly enters the barricades where the ABC students are fighting for their cause. He convinces the group that he shares their desire for political revolution, but his true identity as a government spy is quickly uncovered. Javert is taken as a prisoner of war and tied down until the group can decide what his fate should be. Not long after his arrest Valjean arrives on the scene to track down Marius. His intention is to offer Marius his permission to propose marriage to Cosette. Much to his surprise Valjean wasn't expecting to find Javert tied down as a prisoner of war. The revolutionaries offer Valjean the opportunity to kill Javert for his sin as a battle spy. Despite the high amount of temptation he has for wanting to remove Javert from his life forever Valjean reminisces of the generosity the Priest showed him several years ago.

I will end my lengthy synopsis at this point here, since I have already given away too much information about the movie's story. Raymond Bernard not only directed this film, he is also the co-author of the screenplay adaptation. It is a rare occurence for any novel to be adapted so loyaly to the big screen, especially for a book that is so long in written length. However, it was a very smart move to split the film into three sections. Among contemporary filmmakers the business of creating sequel films is a popular business venture. Quentin Tarantino was called an innovative filmmaker for splitting his Kill Bill movie into a two part series. He surely isn't the first director to attempt such a maneuver since Bernard had beaten him to the much by nearly seventy years.

Raymond Bernard's adaptation of Les Misérables is the most impressive film that I have ever watched so far based upon Hugo's classic novel. I highly approve of the film and have found it very entertaining to watch. My final rating for the film has received the highest rating I could ever give a film -- a perfect ten out of ten possible review points.

COTD: June 25, 2008

For your action film enjoyment I bring to you a short film that brings together some of the popular action figures in the last few decades. This is the first installment of a few different clips that I will be posting in the next few days.

Batman versus Alien versus Predator

Review: Symbiopsychotaxiplasm

A co-worker had recommended these two films to me one day by lending me his DVD copies. After sitting down to watch them on a nice cool spring day I was rather surprised that I enjoyed them as much as I did. Usually, I do not jump at every chance I could get to watch a documentary film unless the subject matter is of personal interest. The first film is called Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One (1968) and it was filmed on location in New York City's famous Central Park. It's was created as a documentary film, but the entire thing has the emotional stability of a reality television show. The entire premise for Symbio was designed by it's director Bill Greaves who thought he could fool his film crew into believing they are shooting a collection of audition reels for several acting students for a fictional movie, but he encourages his cameramen to pick up footage of the filming process as well.

All hell breaks loose as the temperament of the film crew grows unstable. They lose confidence in his ability as a director when he can't keep a tight reign on the direction of the film's production. Bill Greaves is intentionally causing misdirection so that the crew would respond with conflict. In one particular scene, the film crew has gathered without Greaves's knowledge and they proceed to film their conversation about his lack of direction. Some of the members of the group were hoping he would develop the footage and discover they were not thrilled with his lack of skill for production planning. What they did not realize was that they had helped him create the conflict within the production that he was looking to find. The documentary was designed as an experiment to see if a conflict could arise and be resolved within the film's production. The final cut for the documentary is what was caught on film during the four or five days of the production shoot in Central Park.

The entire documentary is entertaining for me to watch, because I usually enjoy watching the behind-the-scenes featurettes that are attached to a lot distributed DVDs these days. This entire documentary was filmed and edited to show raw material of the business of film production. It was not censored or sugar coated as a promotional piece like some of the DVD bonus features are created to be. The script that the student actors are memorizing contains harsh and vulgar material that the film crew complains about being unrealistic or low-grade material. The irony that appears in the film is the language and form of conversation that the film crew uses resembles some of the harsh language that appears in the fictitious script. The crew members cuss up a storm just as often as the student actors do when they are performing the words that are written in the script and yet one particular crew member complains about the semantics of the scripted words.

At the end of the original film there is a slate that promises a sequel film. I am left to believe that the second installment would include more footage of the original experiment. Was the crew able to resolve their issue with the director? However, it took thirty-seven years before Bill Greaves was finally able to create Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take 2 1/2 (2005). The first third of the sequel is a continuation of the original footage that was shot in the 1960s. The student actors are different from what the viewer may remember from the original. The original production shoot utilized several pairs of student actors, but only one particular pair served as a focal point in the final cut.

In Take 2 1/2, the focus has been shifted to another pair of actors who are playing the same character roles that appeared in the first film. To help the viewer adjust to the change in actors Greaves uses the 1960s footage for the first third of the sequel film. After a reasonable amount of time has passed, he jumps ahead to the present day when he attempts at recreating the same scenario in Central Park. He adds a slight twist to the scripted material by having the characters reunite in Central Park after a thirty-plus year absence of communication with each other. The actors are older and the characters they portray are attempting to catch up on the events of their lives from the last three decades.

What makes the sequel inherently different from the experiment in the original film would be the shift in conflict. The original film contained a conflict of interest among the crew, but for the sequel there is a conflict between the actors and the director. Greaves had hired an acting coach to arrive on the set to push the emotional buttons of the actors as far as she could take it until they were about to explode with anger. As I am watching the yelling occur between the actors I wonder if they are honestly portraying the anger of the character that is being portrayed or if a personal amount of frustration is being vented through the acting. Is the actor conveying the emotions of the character or screaming out of frustration at the acting coach or the director? The material absolutely enthralled me.

In addition to production footage, several taped discussions appear in the second installment that covers the topic of dynamics of the original production. The material adds to the production value of Take 2 1/2, which was I thing is an added bonus. The sequel documentaries were originally created as a social experiment to study the way a production crew would respond to the stimulus. The reactions of the crew and the actors created a perfect conflict that the director was hoping to discover. With the culminated effort of the first film and my surprising interest in its final cut I would have to rate Take One with definitive nine points out of ten possible review points. Moving on to Take 2 1/2, I would like to emphasize that it was also an interesting documentary film, but I was not pulled into its story of conflict as I was for the first film. My rating for the sequel would be locked down with a rating value of eight points out of ten possible.

Nominated For 2008 Blogger Choice Awards

If Dwight Schrute was the Assistant to the Regional Manager of Blog Promotions then I could guarantee he would vote for Matte Havoc. That's right, folks, you read that statement correctly! My site has been nominated for the 2008 Blogger's Choice Awards in the category of Best Entertainment Blog and in the category of Best Pop Culture Blog. I've posted the official buttons under the Associations column to the right hand side and they are in dire need of your immediate attention. You may be asking yourself how could it be possible that I get recognized for such an honor. It's a simple answer, but it might be a greater challenge for the blog readers to vote for my site. I would be highly grateful if you helped me out by clicking on either of the two nominations graphics in the side column. Don't be afraid to tell all your friends about my nomination by sending them an e-mail or what not. That would be friggin' awesome! Schrute would be proud of your hard work, determined dedication, intense voting style, and terrific taste in blog sites. At this point I need about 160 votes to take the lead for Best Entertainment Blog, so gather up your friends and knock yourselves out! It's a shameless plug, I know, but I'm worth it.

COTD: June 23, 2008

If you were to remix a classic 1980s John Hughes comedy film with a druggie film by Darren Aronofsky would you be able to create a decent mix? One particular YouTube member thought he would give it a try. The editor thought it would be interesting to edit down several film clips from Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) and add the famous theme song from Requiem for a Dream (2000) to create the following video.

"Requiem for a Day Off"
YouTube.com clip, 2007.

Review: The Man Who Copied (2003)

I can't remember how I stumbled across this film, but I'm glad I was able to sit down and watch it. The Man Who Copied (2003) is an interesting dramatic film from Brazil about a young guy who works at a small copier shop. He appears to be a decent young guy with a good head on his shoulders, but he's rather quiet and lonely. His name is André and he is in love with his neighbor Sílvia. On a particularly random day a color copier machine is delivered to his work and he has to learn how to operate the machine. Despite having the appearance of decent moral stature he is compelled to grab a 50 real bill (the Brazilian dollar is called a real bill) and begins practicing his skills with the new color copier. In his mind he wonders if it is possible to create an exact duplicate of the real bill with the new color copier. This new found opportunity of creating fake money is seized as an opportunity that will land him an excuse to visit the women's clothing store where Sílvia works. André is always low on income, but the stock pile of fake money will help pay for a dress that he "intends" to give to his mother as a birthday gift. The money and the purchase of a gift is all a front, because he suffers from a lack of alternative ideas that would help him get noticed by his crush. Of course, the task of laundering and counterfeiting money is considered illegal and immoral, but André is willing to over look the moral imperative in order to gain Sílvia's attention.

The film is a romantic drama and I found it an interesting story to watch. I usually do not run to the theaters to spend money on seeing a foreign romantic drama film, but this film was worth while to see. Drawing upon the human desire for romance and love would suffice for a reasonable motivation for the lead character. This tactic serves as the plot's driving force to keep the main character motivated to continue the illegal act of money counterfeiting. I could personally relate André's plight for the love of a woman and dealing with a low-income job. However, I am rather concerned with the drastic change of character based upon a minor bit of motivation. In all honesty I doubt I would turn to a life of financial crime in order to gain the attention of a woman that I have a crush. Once I have caught her attention would I really continue the life of crime in order to maintain our relationship? In the film André and Sílvia join together as partners in crime. His motivation is to keep the girl and to maintain a decent flow of cash at his disposable; she would like to have an escape from her sexually abusive father. Both of them seem to be the shy and quiet type, but it's rather difficult to believe they would welcome a drastic life change to a world of crime.

Despite the flaws in character development I found the story to be highly entertaining and enjoyable to watch; from start to finish the film was entertaining for me. My final rating for the film would safely land around and eight out of ten review points. It's a DVD rental for sure if you're in the mood to watch a foreign film or a romantic drama.

Insulting Your Readers

There are thousands, if not millions, of media reviews that are floating around the world in the form of paper publications, websites, and Internet blogs. Every author would be thrilled of the opportunity of gaining a new dedicated reader who would gander through the author's review before considering seeing a movie or reading a book. Roger Ebert is a fine example how one particular film reviewer could enhance or deter the box office numbers with one written review that is published in a newspaper and on the paper’s website edition. Ebert is a renowned film critic because he knows a lot about cinematic history and he has written thousands of film reviews during his career for the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper.

Back in the day before the existence of the Internet the only way the average movie theater patron was able to hear about a film before watching it would be through word of mouth from friends or by reading the film reviews in the newspaper. Not many people would enjoy being insulted by a friend if there is a disagreement in favorite films. If a friend of mine says I am a moron because I hated watching Die Hard (1988) and he loved it, then I wouldn’t find his insult reassuring. It is a two-way road, because he wouldn’t be too happy if I called him a retard if he didn’t think Shaun of the Dead (2004) was the most hilarious Zed comedy film he has ever seen.

What I find insulting is the film reviews that are posted on blog sites with insulting texts that are a slap to the face for the reader. The author of the article may not even realize that he or she is insulting the reader, based upon a presumption that the majority of the readers will agree with what is written in the review. I am not immune to the plausibility of presumption, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I had already published an article or two on my blog site that has insulted a few readers out there. However, the issue was brought to my attention after I had read a review for a film that I found to be an entertaining comedy film. At one point in the review the author has stated that anyone who found the film’s dull jokes to be hilarious must be stupid or something similar. Wow, I am sure as hell hoping that I have interpreted the statement correctly.

Beyond the one sideswiping insult, regardless of its intentions, the author has made an interesting argument on why the film wasn’t very entertaining to watch. I offer my regards to anyone who makes an attempt at designing a logical argument that would explain their Anti or Pro stance on any given topic. Personally considering my own written material, I should take precaution on how I word my own articles. Taking cheap shots at the audience is not a way to win them over to the author's side. Should I continue writing my film reviews as if my reading audience will be sharing the same tastes and interests as myself? Or should I write for a very broad audience that could include some members of the theater audience who could possibly hate every single movie that I would love to watch? The newspaper reviews are written as informative articles that offer a synopsis of the film's storyline and a quick Yea or Nay approval about the worthiness of paying $12 a ticket to watch the film at the multiplex.

As a personal rule for writing I will attempt to be more aware of the wording in my reviews by avoiding terms or phrases that could possibly deter anyone from listening to my point of view. For a long time I have always thought that I would just be giving into the realm of being politically correct, which I considered to be a risk of losing my sense of individualism. However, I am considering a new perspective of speaking to a wider audience who will read the articles that I post on the Internet and I may never know they background of each individual reader. The personal prejudices that I have will still exist and I don’t know if they may ever change or disappear over time; but that does not mean I should air them as dirty laundry to the wide world of the Internet.

Public authors should speak with the words the audience can understand, and write in terms the audience could relate with. Famous news anchor and reporter Edward R. Murrow once said, “Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.” Well, everyone between the end of the bar and myself will be able to hear the words that I would like to say. Hopefully, I will be able to avoid a few bar fights a long the way.

ETA: There is another article that you might want to check out that talks about going against the current of popular belief. Visit the blog The Long Take to read the article.

Review: Reservation Road (2007)

When I had first seen the previews for Reservation Road (2007) I was pumped up to go and see a movie that I had perceived to be a wonderfully produced story about a suburban tragedy. The film's screenplay is based upon the book of the same name that was written by John Burnham Schwartz. The film stars several talented actors including Jennifer Connelly, Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Ruffalo, and Mira Sorvino; most of them have been accredited with acting awards or have appeared in critically acclaimed independent films, so I thought there would be high hopes for this film's success. Boy, I was suckered in with my high expectations.

Most of the film adaptations don't hold up very well in comparison to the books they are based upon. Sometimes there are exceptions to this rule, but the rest of the time the book-to-film adaptations can be complete failures as a translation between media. Even if the book's author is a contributor during the adaptation process, as the case would be for this film, the final script may not always receive a comparable and successful translation. Take note that at the time that I am writing this review I have not yet read the book, so I cannot base my opinion about the quality of the book's writing.

The film is about a pair of fathers who have to deal with the loss of a child. Ethan Learner (played by Joaquin Phoenix) wants to track down the driver who had killed his son in a hit and run accident. Ethan has a difficult time coping with the loss of his son and he is unsure if he should forgive or kill the mysterious driver. He is completely oblivious to the fact that his lawyer is the driver responsible for the death of his son. For the majority of the film the viewer is tossed back and forth between the two fathers as they are scrambling with their emotions. Neither of the two men are making any progress by coming to terms with the issue.

The premise of the film is interesting, because it's not something we see played at the movie theaters very often. However, it is a story that I would expect to see as a movie-of-the-week special on television. Given the material they were expected to work with I thought the actors performed their job wonderfully. It was the lack of emotional progress in the plot line that had made me suffer through the duration of the movie. It's interesting that the two fathers, Ethan and Dwight, cross paths with each other so many times that I was hoping there would be some kind of blow up between the two of them. They never really clash with each other, but merely coexist throughout the story. Then there is the support group that Ethan attends on a regular basis, but it just pushes him further down the road of self-pity.

The movie is in need of more work to flesh the characters and the plot line out a little bit more. The lack of a hard line conflict and satisfactory resolve is clearly missing from the film's story. It feels like it's forever stuck in the first act and the movie's engine of conflict putters out once the second act is expected to drive the conflict even further. My final rating for the film resides at a mere six points out of ten possible. The score is generously deserved as extra credit for the skills of the actors to keep the film floating above the water. I don't know how I would respond to the film if it was filled with unknown names in the lead roles; I guess I will never know.

The Art of the Title Sequence

This morning I was sent an e-mail that brought an interesting website to my attention. The site was founded by Ian Albinson, a Vermont-based designer, and Alexander Ulloa, a writer from Boston, Massachusetts. I would like to think that this site has been built as a labor of love for the cinema. The website is called The Art of the Title Sequence and it is filled with Quicktime clips of the title credits and end credits from several different films.

There were two particular opening credits that I wanted to add to this article that I thought would be worth noting for their unique presentation. The first opening sequence that I have posted here is from Jason Reitman's Oscar winning film Juno (2007). A large portion of the sequence has been animated (by hand it looks like) to add a little bit of fun to a rather mundane event. The main character is walking through the town that she lives in while occasionally drinking out of a bottle of Sunny Delight.



The other opening sequence that I thought would be interesting to add to the list would from Reitman's previous hit film Thank You For Smoking (2005). It's opening sequence could be viewed as an interesting class project for a group of graphic artist students at a local two-year college. I don't mean that to be an insult to those who actually worked on it for the film. After all I was completely blown away by how smooth and clean the opening sequence appeared in its final cut. Take a look at the sequence for yourself.



It is apparent that a lot of time and effort was placed in to creating the opening sequences for those two films. There are plenty more films that exist with the same amount of creative efforts that have appeared in the two sequences that I've just shared with you. If you head on over to The Art of the Title Sequence website you would be able to check out their collection of opening and closing sequences from various films. Their collection should continue growing over time, so I'm personally looking forward to see what else they'll be adding soon.

Review: The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Everyone who is even remotely interested in comic books or the comic book films would know that Ang Lee's 2003 comic book attempt Hulk was an utter failure at adapting the story of the green monster to the big screen. He's the same director who brought us Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2003). Geez! What would he know about a giant green monster named Hulk? I haven't even seen Lee's film yet, because I've heard so many bad reviews about it. However, since the release of The Incredible Hulk (2008) last week I thought I would swing by the movie theaters to give it a viewing. It couldn't hurt me, would it?

Marvel Comics own the rights to the Hulk character as well as Iron Man; both characters are hitting big numbers this summer with their own independent stories that are playing on the big screens. There is even an wonderful crossover for both films that you definitely don't want to miss since it foreshadows the onslaught of the 2011 planned release for the film The Avengers. If you haven't seen Iron Man yet, then you should stick around until the end credits have finished playing for you to see the crossover reference that I am talking about. However, for The Incredible Hulk the moment appears right before the end credits begin to roll when Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man, appears in the film's final scene. Every comic geek in America is going wild with this news!

Despite my inexperience with the first cinematic attempt at bringing The Hulk to the big screen I will have to base my entire opinion upon the 2008 film version alone. That shouldn't be a problem since Edward Norton's rendition of the character works wonderfully for the story. The film does deserve bonus points for not only including the original Hulk actor -- Lou Ferrigno -- in a cameo appearance as a campus security guard, but also having him provide the voice of the Hulk for the film. This was an excellent decision! I thought that was an excellent touch for the film.

Has anyone every noticed that this story is the modern day version of the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story? There is a direct connection between the two stories. It's a complete side trip from my review, but I wanted to point out that people are digging the storyline regardless of what century it takes place in. The film begins with the mild manner scientist Bruce Banner who is hiding out in Brazil. He is aware of his physical impairment that he is having to live with and he does everything within his power to expel if from his body. While working as a mere factory worker in a bottling company the United States military discovers his hidden location in South America. Against Banner's wishes the military expends a high amount of time and effort trying to track him down and bring him back to the United States for the purpose of evolving him into a controlled military weapon. That is when the action sequences kick into high gear. It's kind of like a comic book version of the Jason Bourne trilogy (Identity, Ultimatum, and Supremacy).

Usually I don't jump at every opportunity to go see an action film, but for this film I had thoroughly enjoyed the story and the action sequences. It was a wonderful film that I know will continue to attract a lot of action film fans and comic book readers. It is one particular installment in an unofficial series that I know will be leading up to the release of The Avengers in a couple of years. You should watch this film and Iron Man before The Avengers is anywhere near being released in the theaters. I should admit that I'm rating this film with a comfortable eight out of ten possible review points. Good job with the film adaptation!

Review: The Strangers (2008)

If the character Brick Tamland (of Anchorman fame) was watching this film he probably would be screaming "Loud Noises!" with every jump scene that appears in The Strangers (2008). The film stars Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler as a couple who must come to terms with their fading relationship. Right from the beginning we learn that the pair have passed the honeymoon stage of their relationship, and she's not quite ready to get married to him. To his surprise he was rather disheartened after she turned down his marriage proposal despite planning a romantic evening at his family's summer house to celebrate his intended night of engagement with her.

Now, taking a quick step back to the Brick Tamland reference I should point out that this film is an entire collage of jump scenes that are enhanced with a lot of loud sound effects. Chains are rattling, wind chimes are constantly blowing in the wind, an axe is pounded through the front door, and heavy breathing is heard with every appearance of the bad guy. The Strangers feels like it's nothing more than a film school student's thesis paper on the use of sound effects to engage the reaction of the audience members. I think I've lost certain hearing frequencies when the fire alarm scene happened early in the film. If you've ever stood underneath a ceiling fire alarm at home as it is buzzing very loudly when you accidentally burned the Christmas turkey then you would know how annoying the sound could be to your ears. Now imagine that sound be loudly amplified through a surround sound system with the booming power of 1.21 gigawatts. Great Scott!

The film is entertaining if you're a high school teenager looking for a good date movie. The last time that I was suckered into seeing a promising suspense and thriller film was when I went to go see White Noise (2005) on its opening night. Hated It! The Strangers was promising when I first started seeing the previews for it's release. It brought back childhood memories of when my grandparents had owned a few acres of land out in Chino, California and I would have a strong fear that a scary monster would show up in the middle of the night to scare the crap out of me when I was visiting Grandma and Grandpa. In reality there was never any monsters or scary people who would show up on their front doorstep, but I did have to sleep with my sister in the same bedroom as she would try to convince me that there is a bogeyman who was hiding in the closet. To a five year old kid the bogeyman is the scariest guy around if you happen to be watching Halloween episodes of sitcoms on the television as your sister pinches you in the arm when you're not looking. She had blamed it on the bogeyman for pinching until I started crying to grandpa. Don't worry about me. I've already been to the therapist for all of this. And I still love you, Big Sis!

After sitting through ninety minutes of loud sound effects and a screaming Liv Tyler it would only be fair to say that the film wasn't as fun and exciting as I was hoping it would be. She does a lot of screaming, and there are a lot of moments when I would wonder why the bad guys would appear and disappear at random times as if they were a ghost instead of the sadistic torturers that they were written to be. There are a few moments when one of three bad guys would follow the victim up to a certain distance before magically vanishing into thin air when the camera shot would change. It's humanly unfeasible to move across a great distance within a short amount of time as you are expected to believe when watching the film. Why would one of the bad guys trail a victim by a matter of a few mere feet through an open field without being noticed by the victim and without doing any harm to the person before the bad guy would magically disappear with the blink of an eye. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few confused viewers who would wander why the camera would show a wide shot of the two people going through a field, followed by a close up of the victim scrambling around, and then back to another wide shot that shows just the victim. Uh-oh! Where did the bad guy go?

The film lacks any fulfillment upon the promise of its marketing campaign. There was only one moment that really made me jump out of my seat even though I was expecting it. It was the scene where she's hiding in the kitchen pantry and one of bad guys suddenly jumps right in front of the door and starts banging away through the wooden slats to get to the victim. I had a hunch it was going to happen, but it was so loud and sudden that it caught me off guard. The movie is all about the thrill of getting jumped out of your seat with surprising events.

There was no real meat to the film's story, and I was rather bummed because of that fact. Why did I even get my hopes up to begin with? My final rating for the film is generous as it is, but I thought it deserves some merit for making an attempt at keeping me in my seat for the entire film. I've decided to give the film a solid four points out of ten possible review points. It's a generous score, but I thought it deserves the rating for a the half-witted attempt at making a decent flick. I would highly recommend that you go watch Liv Tyler's other blockbuster film that came out only two weeks after the release of this one. Of course, I would be referring to The Incredible Hulk.

Review: The Happening (2008)

M. Night Shyamalan's new film The Happening (2008) stars Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, and John Leguizamo. This movie marks the first film he's every written and directed that was given an 'R' rating. The film contains several morbid scenes involving people committing suicide through various methods including one twisted moment when a guy gets run over by a tractor sized mower. The Happening isn't a horror film in the goriest of ways when it is compared to any of the films that Wes Craven or George Romero had directed in the years past. Taking several steps away from the horror genre I would indeed classify this film as a suspense thriller that attempts to be an upscale b-movie. Well, I shouldn't circumvent the issue here since The Happening is a b-movie just like last year's thriller film The Mist.

There are several people who are slamming this film for its lack of an intriguing storyline. What killed it for me was the lack of character personalities. Elliot Moore (that would be Mark Wahlberg's character) talks like a boy scout trapped in the body of a high school science teacher. It's "golly gee" this or "aw shucks" that and it seems very strange to be listening to Mark Wahlberg speaking those phrases. Some of the other characters are also missing a believability factor that would grab the ears of the viewer and drag him or her right into the storyline.

Elliot's wife Alma (played by the character actress Zooey Deschanel) has an over-the-top and wavering personality who has earned the reputation among some of her friends for not being able to finish what she starts. When we first see her in the film she is trying to avoid a couple of phone calls from an acquaintance of hers. The audience can quickly observe the clues that she almost had an affair with the guy that is calling her on the phone. Her facial expressions to every single phone call from the guy is way over the top with no subtle restraint in sight. On a side note the voice of guy on the phone is the voice of the film's director M. Night Shyamalan. It was a sly maneuver for a cameo appearance, and anyone who has seen his previous films would know he always makes an appearance in a minor role.

Interestingly enough the story begins in New York City's famous Central Park where the local citizens are under attack by an invisible force that influences them into a trance like coma. Their logic and common sense are thrown right out the window before they are compelled to commit suicide. The morbid and silent epidemic begins heading southbound toward Philadelphia to the horrific surprise of everyone along the east coast. The television news anchors are reporting it as an act of terrorism. These days it's not surprising to discover a group of Americans who are unsure of the reason why bad things are happening in their country. If they can't find an immediate answer to the huge dilemma they are facing, then it could only be an act of terrorists who are trying to destroy the American way of life! Oh, brother.

Once the main characters of the film are aware that they are standing in the way of impending doom they decide to pack up their bags and hit the road. They may not know what is causing the epidemic, but they do know to follow their gut feeling by leaving the danger zone. The only impending reminder they have to face for the remainder of the film would be the invisible force that continues to follow them as they run for their lives. This is where the b-movie factor comes into play for the story. We are expected to believe that the driving force of the epidemic is the collection of plants and trees that emit some kind of pollen that is transmitted through the air and into the bodies of the human victims.

The film has a halfway decent story for being a b-movie, but I don't think it's the best film to date for Shyamalan. I understand that he is trying to stray from being painted into a corner with his film career. Ever since his breakout hit film The Sixth Sense (1999) broke new ground with its surprise ending he has been trying to avoid the stereotype of becoming the Surprise Ending Director. I don't blame him for attempting to break the career curse, but that shouldn't stop him from attempting to aim for producing quality material. My final rating for this film suffers with a mere five points out of ten possible review points.

Dent, I thought you were dead

The name's Dent. Harvey Dent. Need I say more? You two face punk!



Watch the hi-def version.

Review: Get Smart (2008)

I'm thinking of a film that was based upon hit television show from the 1960s which resulted in an utter failure at the box office. Take one look at the 1998 flop The Avengers and you may understand what I'm talking about. However, when a comedy film adaptation of a hit 1960s television series appears on my radar I may be a little hesitant about watching it. Unless, of course, that film adaptation happens to be Get Smart (2008) starring funny man Steve Carell and the beautiful leading actress Anne Hathaway. The interesting piece of "trivia" that is listed with the film on IMDb.com claims that the film was under development ten years ago with Jim Carrey's name associated to star in the leading role. I'll stake that factoid with a rumor flag unless I hear a confirmation notice from a more trustworthy source such as Jim Carrey's agent or maybe from the man himself.

With personal honesty I think Steve Carell's comedy films and television shows have their fair share of ups and downs. Maybe it's the material he has to work, I'm not completely sure. Sometimes I find his comedy routines tremendously hilarious while at other times I have to keep myself awake just to make it through to the end of the scene. For this film it was the perfect combination of the written material and his strive for comedic timing that worked out in his favor. Get Smart is a hilarious of the 1960s television show starring Don Adams in the lead role as Maxwell Smart, a.k.a Agent 86.

I remember watching the show on Nick At Nite when I was younger, and I know some of you will be disheartened by that fact. If by any chance you happened to have watched Get Smart as it was being aired during its initial run I could only imagine what you may feel like to think that I watched the show for the first time only twenty years or so after its first airing. In turn I could bite the Old Man Bullet when I take a look at the Nick At Nite website to see what they are currently airing. They are broadcasting a list of shows that I remember watching during their initial run. So sad and so scary to think about that, but I'll be okay. Don't you worry about me.

What placed a smile on my face was to see the end credits of the film begin rolling and find out that the original creators of the show (Mel Brooks and Buck Henry) were listed as consultants for the film. It's nice to know that they were given an opportunity to help out with the transition from the television screen to the big screen. In the same ballpark I would consider it to be the same opportunity that could be given to an author who would like to see his book being translated into a movie. However, it is a lot easier to convert a television show into a major motion picture film than it would be to translate a published novel into a screenplay. The scripts are usually shallow and lack any real detail, and a novel is filled with a lot of adjectives and a great amount of detail that is spelled out on the published page. Trying to water down a published novel is like trying to turn a bowl of homemade soup into a can of condensed Campbell soup. It's a difficult job to do and it doesn't always succeed.

Jumping back to the main topic at hand I would like to continue discussing some of the attributes of what I enjoyed about the film. Steve Carell has done a wonderful job with the iconic role. It's an hefty job trying to take over the role of Maxwell Smart when it was turned into the iconic character by Don Adams. Whenever I hear the phrase "I missed it by that much" it could only be said in the whiny voice of Don Adams and no one else. Carell's only direct reference to Adams's performance was with that particular phrase. The entire remainder of the film I could only imagine the character to be a complete creation of Steve Carell's and no one else. I couldn't even allow myself to think how Jim Carrey would be able to pull it off. I like him and everything, but when Jim begins a comedy routine I'm afraid he immediately falls into his usual routine as Ace Ventura or Fire Marshall Bill.

As for Anne Hathaway's performance in the film I'm afraid she was hired for her similar looks and being the Brunette Flavor Of The Month in Hollywood more than for her acting skills to portray Agent 99. No offense to her, I find her to be an attractive woman and I have enjoyed several of the films she has appeared in so far in her career. But it is with the physical similarities with Barbara Feldon who had played the original Agent 99 that would lead me to believe that Anne would be hired for this film. Joining her among the cast of actors is Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Oscar award winning actor Alan Arkin, Oscar nominee Terrence Stamp, Oscar nominee James Caan, and Oscar nominee Bill Murray (in a very brief role as Agent 13).

The writing for the film had hit the right spot of comedy that served as an endearing memory of the entire television series. I thought the theatrical cut of this film brought enough of the original feel of the show to the big screen and then expanded upon it so that the younger generations are able to enjoy the fun and excitement of the crazy antics of Agent 86 and his butt-kicking partner Agent 99. My final approval rating for Get Smart arrives comfortably with a nine out of ten possible review points. I couldn't go all the way to a perfect ten points, because only Maxwell Smart could miss it by that much.

An Outlet For Writing

Some people love writing stories or novellas, and others get a kick out of formatting their stories in a film script format. Are you a writer? Are you looking for an arena in which you could get a healthy stream of feedback and input about the stories you write? What about those of you who enjoy photography and musical composition? Believe it or not there is one particular website that allows a group of creative producers to join together and offer their knowledge and experience to their peers. Before I begin discussing more information about the website let me offer some background information about the company that supports it.

Back in 1969 Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas had joined together to start up their film studio American Zoetrope. The average movie goer may not be familiar with the company's name when it is shrouded under the dark shadows of the other big name studios such as Warner Brothers, Walt Disney Pictures, and Universal Pictures. However, don't underestimate the hidden value of the company's name. American Zoetrope (pronounced zoh-ee-trohp) has several big films credited to its name including the following: THX 1138 (1971), The Conversation (1974), The Rainmaker (1997), The Virgin Suicides (1999), and Lost in Translation (2003). To view a complete list of the company's produced film titles you can visit their IMDb.com page here. The term zoetrope is the name of an old cinematic invention that you may have seen as a kid when you visited a local traveling carnival. The invention looks like a cylindrical pot with little slits etched into its sides near the rim. Lined upon the interior walls of the makeshift pot is a strip of cartoons that look like a time line that you would see in a flip book. To operate the zoetrope you must spin the invention along its central axis and peer through the slits on the sides. Are you confused yet? Then check out this YouTube video that may clear things up a little bit for you. Anyway, the company was started by a pair of friends who wanted to support each other in creating their art of film making. It wouldn't be a far stretch to see the workshop practicality of their relationship being applied to their internet website.

Zoetrope.com is American Zoetrope's official workshop website that allows creative producers to join together and help each other out with the refining their art work. Writers, photographers, musical composers, and directors can sign up for a free account on the website and can get started with their creative sharing immediately. The idea for the website is to offer feedback to what the other people are posting. This allows the site users to fine tune their skills as a photographer or composer, or to polish up a film script or short story. I've contributed a few photographs to the website myself and I have already received several helpful tips from other photographers on how I could improve upon the pictures that I was taking. It's also fun to read all the short stories and novellas that are posted on the site that I don't have to pay a single penny to download. The only requirement that is expected from all of the site members would be for them to offer feedback on the creations that are posted to the site. However, receiving feedback isn't the only benefit for the website. The site users are exposed to the potential for gaining public recognition and the possibility of getting a paid job. The site is host to an annual screen writing contest and there is a special section reserved for producers who are interested in hiring the creative services from the site contributors. Another positive benefit of the site is the opportunity to get your story published in Zoetrope's All Story. This publication is a quarterly magazine filled with short stories and other writings that is produced by American Zoetrope. Getting noticed in the quarterly magazine would be a huge amount of publicity for any aspiring writer. The Zoetrope site is the perfect outlet for writers and other creative people who want to interact with other people who hold a similar interest. You might want to check the site out when you can by visiting www.zoetrope.com.

Review: Funny Games (2007)

Remakes and sequels are a nightmare for the film connoisseur. It's like being stuck with left overs every night for dinner, but never getting to experience the original meal. Personally I would like to see more movie that are fresh and original. Why must the American audience be subjected to choose between a sequel film Harry Potter 9: Attack of the Wandering Wand or a remake Funny Games U.S. Edition? Did you even know that the suspense film Funny Games (2007) is actually titled as Funny Games U.S. because it is a remake of a Austrian film? Pardon those hardcore film snobs who cringe at the lack of originality. It maybe a cringe shuddering similarity to Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. Gasp!!

However, can there be an exception to the rule with the lack of originality if the director that worked on the original film was hired for the remake? He's copying his own work from the Austrian version over to the English version. I haven't seen the original film, so it would be rather difficult for me to write a comparison review at this time. However, I could only imagine if one film version would hold any substantial reign over the other in terms of production quality and entertainment value. I point this out because there are times when a remake could improve upon a story or just be a vehicle to make money at the box office. Setting those differences aside I would like to spend the remainder of my time discussing the qualities of the American version of Funny Games.

One of the things that I actually enjoyed about this film was the use of implied violence. After reading the review from Variety.com it sounds like the original version is graphically violent. This is a stark contrast with the film's remake when there is only one shot where the audience is subjected to viewing a bad guy getting shot in the stomach at close range with a rifle. All the other acts of violence occur off screen thus producing a realm of implied violence. Modern American cinema is inundated with close ups of blood and guts that some of the audience members may become diluted to the horrific reality of violence. When the villain takes a swing at the father with a golf club you never see a point of impact, but the father proceeds to limp around with a bad leg for the remainder of the film. Also, the son is tragically killed with a rifle and yet the audience only hears the sound of the gun shot and see the blood on the wall. I guess I bring this up at the start of my review, because I'm tired of seeing non-stop violence and action in American films. Please, change things up once in awhile!

The downfall for the American remake is the lack of motivation and character development during the progression of the film's story. The audience is left to create a believable reason why the villains would repeatedly torture a suburban family of three. The talkative villain never offers a logical explanation to his violent actions. He just beats the crap out of his victims just because he can. I could only assume he does it for the cheap thrills and "funny games." The suburban family is in a predicament with the lack of any real personality. The role of the father is portrayed by established actor Tim Roth, but it looks like he is sleepwalking through the entire film. He just stands around or sits on his butt with a placid look on his face for a large portion of the film. He doesn't even flinch as the villains humiliate his wife as she is asked to strip down to her underwear.

I'm really sitting on the fence about the approval rating for this film. It deserves bonus points in my book for the use of implied violence in lieu of a barrage of graphic violence. However, those bonus points are quickly deducted since the people in the film appear to lack any valuable depth of character or personality. At the beginning of the film the married couple play a sleep inducing game of Guess That Classical Composition. They go back and forth with a flat tone of voice that may stir up a little bit of jealousy for the monotone voiced actor Ben Stein (of Ferris Bueller fame). To sum up my reaction from the film I would like to give it an approval rating of five out of ten possible review points.

Review: The Grand (2007)

I have never really been a fan of Christopher Guest's mockumentary films, but there is a great potential for continued growth for the comedy genre. If you're unfamiliar with the term "mockumentary" but you have seen the comedy film This Is Spinal Tap, then you may immediately recognize the unique style of the genre's comedic storytelling. Films like Spinal Tap or The Grand (2007) are created with a central idea for the backbone of a fictitious documentary film and are brought to life by a group of actors who improvise their way through the movie. The central idea for Spinal Tap is intended to be a documentary about an 80s hair band who travels the country for their concert tour. On the flip side The Grand focuses upon a group of card players who are trying to win the million dollar prize at a poker tournament in Las Vegas.

The film begins with the story of One Eyed Jack Faro, played by Woody Harrelson, who had inherited a second rate Vegas casino from a relative, but he quickly learns that he lacks the business skills that is required to keep the business from being bought out by a corporation take over. As he struggles to figure out what he would need to do to prevent the loss of his inheritance to a billionaire businessman he arrives at the idea of entering a poker tournament. He figures the jackpot money would help him keep the ownership of the casino under his name. As the sign ups for tournament begins the film is flooded with an endless arrival of eccentric characters.

The film is nothing but lighthearted fun for anyone who has become addicted to watching poker tournaments on television or playing a weekly games with friends. Recently I was talking about mockumentary films with a co-worker of mine when he had indirectly brought up the point that I had mentioned a moment ago. For a viewer to find the humor in this film, or any other mockumentary for that matter, he must understand the nature of the cliques and satirical social groups that are represented in the story. There a plenty of jokes that are littered throughout The Grand that rely on the knowledge of the game and upon the library of stereotypical characters that are seen on televised poker tournaments.

The humor of the film may not fall upon deaf ears. You don't have to completely understand the nature of a poker game in order to enjoy this film. I found it to be quite entertaining and light hearted fun. The film isn't award winning material, and it doesn't hit my list of top favorite films of all time. However, I found it to be engaging and interesting because of my amateurish experiences with playing Texas Hold 'Em poker and watching the tournaments on television. There are several celebrity appearances in the film, and I think almost every single one of them plays in real life celebrity poker tournaments. Some of the celebrity appearances are small bit parts, such as Shannon Elizabeth's two seconds of screen time as the bartender, versus other celebrities such as Dennis Farina and David Cross who portray a main character in the story.

In all its lighthearted, poker playing comedic glory I would like to give this film a rating of eight out of ten possible review points. It's a high rating for a film that I wouldn't list in my list of top favorite films, but I think it was worth the time to sit down and relax for a little bit to watch. Would I recommend this film to everyone? No, I wouldn't. But I think it sure is a lot funnier than some of the comedy films that the SNL comedians have been acting in lately.

Review: The Big Lebowski (1998)

Just about everyone has a particular film that they hold dear because it strikes a romantic nerve of some kind. Can you stop for a moment and think of a favorite film that sparks a feeling of nostalgia, a longing for a fond memory of an event, place, person, or favorite activity? Personally I am drawn to drawn to the Coen Brothers film The Big Lebowski (1998) for it's nature of glorifying the low key sport of bowling, the comedic undertones of laziness and the camaraderie of a group of guys hanging out. There are a dozen or more scenes that take place inside a local bowling alley and for some reason I want to go up the street to the local bowling alley to hang out with some friends of mine and play several frames of bowling.

The opening credits for this film are an enticement to anyone who enjoys playing a good game of bowling. It is a slow motion display of a group of bowlers hitting strikes and splits with the slightest of ease. Matching the opening credits sequence with the same amount of geeky romanticism is the closing scene that shows the inner workings of a bowling alley. It can be sentimental for a bowling geek just as a car mechanic would be enthralled with viewing the inner guts of a turbo engine in action. Maybe you could label me as just a mere bowling geek, but I must admit that I do want to go bowling after watching it. On a side note you may want to observe that the lead character for the movie, Dude Lebowski, doesn't even pick up a bowling ball and roll it down an alley. Go figure!

The entire film doesn't completely revolve around three friends sitting around at the bowling alley. Jeff "Dude" Lebowski is thrown into an inconsiderable mess when a pair of thugs show up at his house, beats the crap out of him, and then proceeds to piss on his living room carpet. The Dude wants to be compensated for his damaged floor carpet. So, he arrives on the front door step of a millionaire who shares his last name. Millionaire Lebowski is the true target of the carpet peeing thugs, and he doesn't give one ounce of concern for the loss of Dude Lebowski's carpet. However, Millionaire Lebowski sparks a moment of genius and calls upon his new found friend to help him get rid of the thugs who had kidnapped the millionaire's young wife.

For the remainder of the film Dude Lebowski is running back and forth between his near death run-ins with the thugs and the demanding Millionaire Lebowski who wants to see his young wife again. The comedy of human behavior ensues for the entire film that could only be written by dark humored film making duo Joel and Ethan Coen. It was a mere two years between the release of The Big Lebowski and their previously released dark comedy film Fargo (1996) that felt like a million years for those fans who were dying for another Coen release.

The film lacks any intellectual depth to it, but for some reason it does strike an emotional cord with those who could relate with the main character. He doesn't really show any clear signs of a personal direction in his life other than to lounge around and hang out with his friends. He's a forty-something year old guy, one would assume, who doesn't really have an established career or a growing IRA pension. He's described as a lazy man which is a proven fact that he doesn't even bother to participate in bowling game with his friends or go to work.

It is the personification of human behavior that makes this film click for the viewer. The dialogue was written with a unique flair, despite the heavy use of the word fuck, that mirrors real life conversation. If you have some down time and want to search YouTube for a moment then type in the search terms "big lebowski short version" and you'll see what I mean by the over used f-bomb. No complaints here since that's how a lot of people talk these days, but the YouTube video will be rather entertaining for some viewers out there.

The entertaining value of behavioral comedy between the characters is what makes the film work. I'm sure we all have a friend like Donny who always it out of the loop of conversation, and he just may never get it. That's why we always hear the phrase "Shut up, Donny!" from his outspoken friend Walter. When the group of friends are deep into a philosophical conversation about Lenin it is no surprise that Donny suggests that he was the composer of the song I Am The Walrus. If you are unaware that Lennon wrote Walrus and Lenin wrote the book The Development of Capitalism in Russia then it burdens me to inform you that you may be the "Donny" in your circle of friends. The film is great and I enjoyed watching it tremendously. I have decided to give it a review rating of nine out of ten possible review points.

President Bush stars as Norman Bates

I swear to God that I couldn't make this type of stuff up out of nowhere, but it's the honest truth! Brushing through the cobwebs of my rapidly fading memory, and to imagine that I'm only in my mid-twenties at the current moment, I could have sworn that I heard a news story about a search portal that brought President Bush to the top of its search results if the user typed in a search word like 'crazy' or something similar to that. I had attempted to do a quick news search of the subject matter, but I came up short in my results listing. Am I alone here in this vague recollection of news events?

Directly moving on to the focus of my article I would like to point out that I recently stumbled across a web search algorithm that does correlate President George W. Bush with an improper search term. I only refer to the search term as an "improper" function, because I wouldn't think that an adjective term would bring up a list of names as the only results of a DVD search. This morning I was doing a basic search on Netflix in hopes of finding the list of available DVD titles in the series of Norman Bates stories. You are familiar with the horror series that I am referring to, correct? That's right I am talking about Alfred Hitchcock's famous horror film Psycho (1960) and all of it's sequels. I have proof of my Netflix search results for the term 'psycho' with a screen capture that I have posted below for your viewing pleasure.

I don't know where you stand in the political realm, but I don't find it odd that President Bush is quickly associated by Netflix search results as being a Psycho. He may have a leg up with the competition against Norman Bates on this front. Where is my movie title search results? Who knows, and frankly should I even care? If you happen to have a Netflix account, or even access to the online Blockbuster rental site, then I would definitely suggest you give the interesting wacky search a try.

Now here is the strangest part of the entire situation. I tried repeating the search term for "psycho" and surprisingly the results arrived with a solid list of DVD titles including Alfred Hitchcock's classic horror film residing in the number one spot. I'm glad I was able to grab a screen shot of my first search results from earlier this morning before I lost my opportunity for hardcore proof. I even attempted to repeat my search through several different pathways on the website, but to my dismay none of the varied attempts had produced the same search results. Go figure.