THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

Writer/Director Noah Baumbach tells a thinly veiled story of his parents’ divorce, and the result is a good example of why autobiographical films work so rarely. The end result is a lot like sitting through your neighbor's vacation videos, only in this case you hate your neighbor. While it's admirable that Baumbach writes his characters with all their flaws because at heart he loves them, we’re given no reason to love or even care about this disintegrating family. The plot is connected only because it’s chronological, and the ending seems tacked on mainly because there is so little narrative to most of the film that dragging one in for the final few minutes rings false.

All that said, the movie’s not a complete disaster. The actors are uniformly superb (especially Laura Linney, who seems unable to turn in a poor performance wherever she appears), and there are some truly funny, unconventional moments. Still, the end result is uncomfortable, which is fine if it also offers some insight. The Squid and the Whale never even comes close.

NO (4/10)

WE ARE THE STRANGE

M. Dot Strange’s first feature, “We Are the Strange” is wildly inventive and endlessly fascinating. Its animation (both computer generated and stop-motion) is never content to present one image (or style) at a time, giving viewers a near overload of excitement. The plot consists of little more than two outcasts trying to buy ice cream and ending up in a battle to prevent the end of the world, but the story here is nearly beside the point. Love it or hate it, any movie lover will see this as a sign both of what movies may look like in the future and as an announcement of a stunningly original voice in filmdom.

YES (8/10)

HAND IN HAND

In a story extremely reminiscent of 2006’s “Right At Your Door,” a young couple in the city must quarantine themselves in their house to guard against a threat outside. In “Right Outside Your Door,” a dirty bomb in Los Angeles gives a real sense of tension and panic. In “Hand in Hand,” a smallpox outbreak in New York gives nothing more than the opportunity to watch the couple whine, fight, and cry for an hour and a half. Dark, boring visuals and amateurish audio further detract from the movie. It’s the dialogue, though, that’s the real killer. Being quarantined with people this numbingly shallow makes you wish more than anything to break out of their house, smallpox be damned.

NO (1/10)

FACADE

The greatest compliment to this film is that, despite its amazingly low $7000 budget, it plays not as a hobby or student film but as simply another movie vying for an audience. When reviewed as such, Facade suffers in many respects. The quality of acting swings wildly (why not call for another take when an actor flubs a line?), art school symbolism runs rampant, and numerous shots have a stylized look that jars from the realistic tone of the film.

The story here, “inspired by true events,” is that of a group of kids in their late teens do a lot of drugs at Harry’s house. Harry recently lost his father to suicide, and the drugs and interrelationship’s between the four guests at his party ultimately cause Harry to follow his father’s footstep’s and hang himself. It’s all rather bleak, obviously, but there are more than a few nice, funny exchanges between characters. The film plays out in real time (so that it essentially chronicles the final 89 minutes of Harry’s life). While this works on many levels, it also forces the writer/director to cram as much drama as possible into one night. With so many backstories coming to the surface in such a short amount of time, Facade loses some of the reality that is otherwise its saving grace.

As an example of what can be done with a tiny budget and no-name actors, Facade deserves high praise. Perhaps unfortunately, it does that so well that it rises to become only a less than average rental.

MAYBE SO (4/10)

A DOG'S BREAKFAST

Ostensibly a comedy, A Dog’s Breakfast offers zero funny moments (though the actors at times seem to be pausing for a laugh track). It also neglects to develop its characters, fails to offer even a semblance of originality, and squanders any goodwill it manages to muster. Simply put, the movie seems to exist for the sole purpose of making any alternative to it look better.

See, there’s this guy who hates his sister’s fiancee, decides to kill him, then has to hide the body. Except he has no reason to hate the guy. He has no incentive to kill him. He doesn’t murder him but takes credit for the accident that kills him. Except the guy doesn’t seem to really be dead. And his sister doesn’t seem to care either way. And neither will you, see? But that’s okay because there are so gosh darn many jokes. Except they aren’t funny. At all.

A Dog’s Breakfast does feature a cute dog. He should fetch himself a better agent.

NO (1/10)

FROZEN DAYS

Frozen Days pulls off the trick of being extremely creepy without being gory, scary, or even very suspenseful. Like a fine Twilight Zone episode, this Israeli film makes the utmost use of mood, lighting, and sparseness. It doesn’t hurt the film, of course, that it happens to star one of the most beautiful women any audience will ever see.

Anat Klausner stars as Miao, a drug dealing apartment squatter who meets a man named Alex in an internet chat room. The two meet without seeing each other’s faces (his power is out), and have a playful, sexually charged encounter. Miao bolts when the lights go on, then entices Alex into meeting her at a nightclub. When a suicide bomber blows up the club, Miao narrowly escapes. Alex is not so lucky. What follows is a puzzle of sorts, in which memory, identity, and reality are all liquid and malleable. Like the best Twilight Zone episodes, only the star is aware that something is terribly, terribly off.

The movie plays in black and white (besides a memorable sequence in color), which adds to an unrelenting creepiness that is spoiled only by occasional shots so brazenly artsy that they come across as laughable. The pacing, too, is detrimental to the film - Frozen Days is only 91 minutes but feels at times much longer. Still, it’s often fascinating to see how (and if) the pieces of this puzzle will come together.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

FULL GROWN MEN

Middle-aged Alby refuses to grow up, and his wife is tired of the games. After a fight, Alby leaves his wife and young son to return to his childhood home, where he can be a kid again without the pressures of the real world. Of course we know that Alby will give up his action figures and take on some responsibility by the end of the movie, but it should be a mild pleasure to watch the formula play out as he gets there.

Unfortunately, Full Grown Men can’t decide if it wants to be touching, slapstick, witty, or a collection of cameos, so it tries them all out along the way. The result is a comedy without any real laughs, a coming-of-age tale in which no one grows up. The premise could have grown into a fine film, but it’s never allowed to mature.

NO (3/10)

BLOOD CAR

In the near future, when gas has hit $35.00 a gallon, no one can afford to drive. No one, that is, except Archie, who has modified a car to run on blood. His invention leads to a killing spree. Sound like an update of ‘Little Shop of Horrors’? The filmmakers avoid repetition by adding swear words, nudity, golden showers, close-ups of bodily fluids, mass amounts of blood, and the killing of dogs, disabled veterans, and kindergarteners. Critics often talk of ‘gross-out’ humor, but the movies they describe are bible pamphlets compared with this one. Yes, it’s extremely funny at times, but you’ll likely hate yourself with every laugh.

- for teenage boys - YES (9/10)
- for everyone else - NO (4/10)

MONSTER CAMP

In Seattle, a large group of people gather for one weekend every month to play a live action role-playing game at an event called Nero. They dress as wizards, lizards, gnomes, and creatures they’ve invented to battle with harmless swords and throw beanbags (potions) at one another.

Amazingly, director Cullen Hoback mostly manages to avoid playing the participants for laughs and instead looks at the outcasts as a family. Most of the interest here is in seeing a world we didn’t previously know existed, but the movie really succeeds when it gives insight into the things we know well, like belonging, ambition, the politics of organizations, and fantasy.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

BIGGA THAN BEN

Cobakka and Spiker, two kids from Moscow, “come to London to rip it off.” Days after arriving, they are homeless and working toward a bank scam involving overdraft protection and bad checks. Sadly (for them), getting a bank account in the first place requires identification, an address, and proof of employment. As the two slink around London making friends and enemies, their own lifelong friendship begins to feel the strain of their situation.

This could all play horrible and trite, but director Suzie Halewood is unafraid to make her characters brash and often unlikable in an attempt to keep the movie true (helping is that the film is based not only on a true story but on the co-authored diary by its protagonists). There are titles, subtitles, animation, and surprising cinematography at every turn, but the non-showy performances give the movie the intimacy of a documentary. Unfortunately, there are also moments that simply don’t work (like Spike Lee-ish political rants to the camera). In a movie that fires on so many cylinders, though, a few misfires can’t stall the engine.

MAYBE SO (7/10)

JUST SEX AND NOTHING ELSE

Though it’s certainly entertaining, it’s difficult to find more to say about this Hungarian film than ‘think ‘Sex and the City’ with subtitles.’ That statement pretty much sums it up in this story of a woman who (based almost solely on seeing some cute kids in the park) decides she wants to have a child. She doesn’t want to mess with a relationship, though, as hers seem to fail every time. Who, then, will father her child? The funny deli worker? The stable but unglamorous musician? Or will it be the man who’s a dead ringer for Mr. Big, the character Carrie Bradshaw ends up with on ‘Sex and the City’? And will she be able to stop herself from falling in love? You can probably guess.

NO (4/10)

THE PRINCE OF SOAP

Ilona Varis accidentally walks into an interview to write for a soap opera, gets the job, and falls in love with the star in this Cinequest feature from Finland. And while that sounds trite, it becomes engaging and often hilarious in the first half of the film. The second half, on the other hand, spirals into an unbelievable mess of forced absurdity, ridiculous revelations, cliché, and the most inexplicable homage to ‘The Graduate’ ever put to film. Forty five minutes into the movie, ‘The Prince of Soap’ had earned itself a 9/10. Forty five minutes later, its rating - yes, like soap bubbles - trickled slowly down the drain.

NO (4/10)

THE NAMESAKE

Certainly overlong at two hours, and with a couple strikingly clunky moments, ‘The Namesake’ nonetheless works very well as a glimpse into both Indian culture (think Calcutta, not Native American) and the meaning of family. This is due to a few stellar performances but primarily to novelist Jhumpa Lahiri, who seems to have an innate sense of how to tell an engaging tale. The story here concerns two generations of one family and the struggle to retain the culture of home after transplanting to the United States. Irfan Khan and Tabu are simply incredible as the immigrant parents, but it is Kal Penn (of 'Harold and Kumar...' fame) whose unexpected depth is the nicest surprise here. While it could have easily turned out preachy, ‘The Namesake’ at its best moments feels much like a highbrow soap opera. As its pacing drags and running time drones, however, it begins to feel like a miniseries watched in one sitting.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

MURDERBALL

This movie is certainly heartwarming, but it immediately lets you know that its subjects would kick your ass for calling their stories heartwarming. Whether true or not, this documentary about quadriplegic rugby feels like it lets the subjects be themselves without manipulation. Because the players are so competitive and have so much at stake, Murderball works as a simple sports movie. The fact that the players are in wheelchairs soon becomes secondary to the fact that they are fascinating people, and that’s essentially what makes the film a success.

MAYBE SO (7/10)

SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL 2006

To keep this site dedicated solely to film reviews, a sister site named 'Seven Days in the Beehive State' has been set up to give personal reactions (in a sprawling, sloppy, and hopefully entertaining manner) to the 2006 Sundance Film Festival.

You can find it here.

Quickie Sundance reviews follow:

FRIENDS WITH MONEY
Occasionally affecting, laugh-out-loud funny at times, and filled with stellar performances, 'Friends With Money' is nonetheless brought down a number of notches by a creeping sense that we've seen it all before. Look for it in limited release in theaters beginning April 7th, though you're probably better off waiting for the DVD.
MAYBE SO (6/10)

OFF THE BLACK
Above average only because it sets its sights so relatively high, this story of Nick Nolte as an aging loser who becomes friends with a high school boy suffers from illogical or unexplained plot points, a dragging pace, and some extremely inappropriate and unintentional sexual tension between a brother and sister. Nolte shines nonetheless, and there are moments in which the filmmakers' grasp does meet their reach.
MAYBE SO (6/10)

DESTRICTED
Six short takes on pornography by six avant garde directors, 'Destricted' is by far, by far the worst film you will ever have the pleasure of never seeing. If you have a choice between seeing this film and gouging your eyes out with sticks, ask for extra-sharp sticks. You don't want to leave any chance that you'll catch a glimpse of this pretentious dreck.
NO (0/10)

LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
Though it's really not much more than another ensemble comedy with quirky characters, 'Little Miss Sunshine' does just about everything right. The stellar cast (including Toni Collette, Steve Carrell, Alan Arkin, and Greg Kinnear) doesn't hurt a bit, and things stay moving quickly enough that it's nearly impossible to get bored with this story of an impromptu family road trip. The Sundance audience whooped, cheered, and cried as usual, but this time the outbursts are well deserved.
YES (8/10)

OPEN WINDOW
It's hard to dislike a film about the tragedy of rape and the bravery it takes the victims to survive it, but director and screenwriter Mia Goldman makes it possible by pulling half the film's lines from Hallmark cards. The movie's cast is across the board likable, but there's only so much water they can squeeze from a stone so dry.
NO (3/10)

STEEL CITY
Brian Jun's first feature suffers from trying to cover so much ground that it ends up running in place.The story would have benefitted greatly from choosing a main plot and sticking to it, but Jun chooses instead to throw every idea in and wait to see if anything sticks. Not much does, but though it is extremely forgettable, 'Steel City' at least has the sense not to try anything its cast and budget can't handle.
NO (3/10)

IN BETWEEN DAYS
Filled with a genuine and honest sweetness, 'In Between Days' is unfortunately marred by one of the thinnest scripts ever seen in a feature-length film. The first-time actors do a commendable job, and the extremely low budget look actually helps with a sense of intimacy, but you'll find yourself watching your watch as much as the screen.
NO (4/10)

STAY
Written and directed by Bob Goldthwait (yes, Bobcat Goldthwait), 'Stay' is as funny as you'd hope, but also surprisingly touching and complex. It isn't flawless by any means - some early scenes miss their mark, its look is far from cinematic, and the film borrows too liberally from both 'Meet the Parents' and 'Everybody Loves Raymond' at times. Still, the highly original and hilarious premise is mined to surprising depths throughout, and this one will certainly leave you talking (and shuddering) for hours.
MAYBE SO (7/10)

DREAMLAND
'Dreamland' contains a great number of shots that are almost unbelievably beautiful, but both its jarring, trendy editing and its art school level poetry sequences drag the film down to average at best. The story - of a small trailer park in the desert and the girl who is trapped there by her own kindness - is solid, for the most part. When it asks us to believe in deep, teenage love at first sight, however, 'Dreamland' stretches credibility to the breaking point. Shakespeare could pull it off. Someone needs to tell director Jason Matzner that he can't.
MAYBE SO (5/10)

THE DESCENT
'The Descent' makes an audience jump the old-fashioned way - with loud noises, sudden violence, pitch black, and loads of creepy monsters. The film does scare, but since it never infiltrates the intellect (or even pretends to, really), any terror it creates dissipates the moment the credits finish rolling. In other words, it'll make a date jump into your arms, but it can't make her stay.
MAYBE SO (5/10)

LITTLE RED FLOWERS
Zhang Yuan's 'Little Red Flowers' is absolutely flawless visually, with every shot a small work of art in itself. It also (amazingly) features wonderful, complex performances from a cast comprised of mostly four and five year-olds. The film has so much going for it in this story of a rebellious orphaned boy whose teachers attempt to make him conform that its lack of resolution is especially frustrating. It doesn't end so much as it just stops, and the lack of closure makes all that came before lose some of its luster.
MAYBE SO (6/10)

RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR
Chris Gorak has worked on numerous films in the art department, as an Art Director, and as a Production Designer, and it shows in his directorial debut, 'Right at Your Door.' The visuals perfectly evoke a dark, mysterious terror that takes place after a series of dirty bombs are detonated in Los Angeles. The story does an equally adept job of evoking the same, but its major flaw is that it doesn't get much beyond setting the scene. It's fairly obvious that Gorak (who also wrote the screenplay) came up with a brilliant premise, a twist for the ending, and then had to scramble to fill in the very large blank between. What a shame it is that the product, though it comes close at times, cannot match the promise.
MAYBE SO (5/10)

STEPHANIE DALEY
A pregnant teenager prematurely gives birth on a high school skiing trip, then throws the dead baby into the woods. A middle-aged forensic psychologist is pregnant and worried that she will again give birth to a stillborn. The two women collide in 'Stephanie Daley,' and though there isn't much more to the story than finding the truth in the teenager's version of events, superior acting from both Tilda Swinton and Amber Tamblyn make the film eminently watchable and upsetting, if not quite as profound as it hopes.
MAYBE SO (7/10)

FORGIVEN
When Paul Fitzgerald's 'Forgiven' focuses on politicians and how their private selves do battle with public image, the film is subtle, nuanced, and believable. When the plot thickens with a 'Crash'-like confrontation in which a disenfranchised man gets his violent yet eloquent say, it stretches credibility and slaps us in the face. Issues are treated intelligently here, but 'Forgiven' often feels like an episode of TV's 'Law & Order' (albeit the best episode you've seen).
MAYBE SO (6/10)

UNDERTOW

Can bad editing ruin an otherwise good movie? The answer is yes. The proof is David Gordon Green’s ‘Undertow.’

Within the opening credit sequence alone, ‘Undertow’ makes use of just about every trick that comes with even the cheapest editing software. It repeats scenes. It uses slow motion. It shows us negative images. It freezes frames. And all to absolutely no effect other than to ensure that audiences cannot lose themselves to the story.

Throughout the film, a pattern emerges. Just when the story of two brothers on the run from an evil family member hooks you in, ‘Undertow’ uses some ten cent editing trick to take you right back out of the spell the story has cast. It’s an extremely frustrating experience.

What makes the editing catastrophe even more frustrating is the fact that the film at heart is often beautiful. David Gordon Green gets poor country folk exactly right, creates memorable, fully fleshed-out characters, and has an ear for natural dialogue like few others. His cast is good to superb, with the two child leads especially shining brightly.

The plot is one part ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,’ two parts ‘Night of the Hunter,’ and a healthy dose of ‘The Dukes of Hazard.’ There are also biblical references, folklore, and more to sift through. Thankfully, there’s no need to catch any of these references in a story of two poor kids whose lives go from bad to worse when an uncle comes for a visit. The film is enjoyable on its surface alone. Enjoyable, that is, until in-your-face editing gimmicks break the spell and shatter all the beautiful realism that has come before. It could have been a small masterpiece, but 'Undertow' (and you) will have to settle for a pretty decent flick.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

YOJIMBO

When a screenwriter straps a sword on nearly every character in a small town, it’s pretty evident that there’s going to be some fighting. But when the screenwriter is Akira Kurosawa (with Ryuzo Kikushima), you can also count on the fact that there’s going to be a whole lot of heart as well.

‘Yojimbo’ begins as a simple story of an out of work samurai warrior who in his travels comes across a town where his help is sorely needed. Two rival businessmen in town are at odds, and both have hired a small army of thugs to do battle. As a master swordsman, our loner hero finds himself in great demand. That’s just fine with him, as his skills demand an ever-growing price from the men on both sides of the feud.

As the feud is brought to a head, the complexities of violence, loyalty, and friendship rear their ugly heads and attempt to bite their owners. The town leaders and hired thugs reveal themselves to be exactly what we expected. The samurai warrior, however, lets slip a few surprise glimpses into his character he’d rather we not know.

‘Yojimbo’ is Japanese, subtitled, and ridden with swords, but damn if it isn’t one of the better Westerns Hollywood never created (though Clint Eastwood made a remake in ‘A Fistful of Dollars’). While those who shudder at that description should probably stay away, others who know that Westerns can be more than pistols and spittoons will be glad to find that samurai films, in the hands of Akira Kurosawa, can be more than swordfights and stoicism.

MAYBE SO (7/10)

LA DOLCE VITA

Federico Fellini's 1960 film 'La Dolce Vita' is a often hailed as a masterpiece, though like many of Fellini's films it probably has as many detractors as fans. The film is certainly too long and drifting for most modern audiences, but nearly every scene is exciting in its own way (even if those scenes rarely 'add up' in the way we expect).

The plot of the film is as close to novelistic as any movie you're likely to see. The narrative is loose, as 'La Dolce Vita' attempts to capture the scope of an entire life instead of strictly a series of events. Marcello Mastroianni plays Marcello Rubini, an entertainment journalist. Rubini is part of the high living celebrity world, but only in that he waits in prey on its fringes. Rubini is nearly always accompanied by a swarm of photographers, and it depicts them so well that the term 'paparazzi' was borne of the film, a play on one of the photographers' name.

Rubini longs to write a novel, to make more of an impact on the world and his own soul than trash journalism allows. However, he finds it nearly impossible to succeed. The pull of the upper crust (and especially, especially its women, for Rubini is a playboy to a fault) is a constant obstacle.

Of course, this synopsis is like describing a house by humming the tune of its doorbell. Fellini packs so much into the film that each memory of its viewing yields new information and insight.

On the potentially off-putting side, 'La Dolce Vita' clocks in at very nearly three hours in length, and (true to form) Fellini seems to have put very minimal effort into syncing recorded dialogue to the movements of the actors' mouths. In addition, the film's culminating statement may be that life is unbearably empty and sad, no matter to which social rung you climb.

Whether 'La Dolce Vita' is an immortal masterpiece will remain a cinephilic debate. Is the movie dull at times? Yes. But is it astoundingly ambitious, multi-layered, and affecting? Yes.

So is the film worth checking out or not, Mr. Reviewer? The answer is a resounding...

MAYBE SO (7/10)

MELINDA AND MELINDA

'Melinda and Melinda,' Woody Allen's 739th film, seemed to appear and disappear both from theaters and the public consciousness with hardly a blip. When it was noticed at all, it was generally by critics who compared the film unfavorably to Allen's career highs. That's a shame, because even though it does pale with Allen's greatest films, 'Melinda and Melinda' is a perfectly serviceable, enjoyable little movie.

The gimmick of the plot here is that the events in the film aren't "really" happening. They are simply stories told by two writers sitting around a restaurant table. One is a comedy writer, the other writes tragedies, and once they are given a premise by a friend the film unwinds as two versions of an often similar story about the fictional Melinda.

In both the comedic and tragic storylines, Melinda is played by Radha Mitchell, who does an admirable job of separating the identities of the two Melindas with more than just different hairstyles. Unfortunately, the tragic version of the character quickly becomes tiring. When she threatens to jump out a high-rise window, you almost wish Allen would write in the sidewalk splat.

In the comedy version of things, Will Ferrell alternates between a pretty decent Woody Allen imitation and the same old Will Ferrell with just the right touch of added sadness. Based solely on some of the houndog looks he's able to make work here, it's easy to imagine that Ferrell will one day pull a Tom Hanks and make the leap to roles with more depth. The rest of the cast keep things running smoothly, save for a number of clunky lines that most likely couldn't be saved by Brando at his best.

'Melinda and Melinda' strives to be a deep look at whether life itself is comedy or tragedy, but when it forgets these pretensions and simply entertains, it doesn't matter whether we're laughing or crying. We're caring, and sometimes that's just enough.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING

Around 1665, Johannes Vermeer painted 'Girl With A Pearl Earring,' a beautifully haunting portrait of a young woman. In 2003, Peter Webber directed a film by the same name that attempts to achieve a similar effect. One of them has survived over 300 years to become a masterpiece. The other stars Scarlett Johansson.

'Girl With a Pearl Earring' - the movie - tells the story behind Vermeer's painting. In truth, nothing is known about the subjects of any of Vermeer's portraits, but in the film we find an imagined tale of unconsumated longing (or possibly only musing) and a battle of class. The film is based on a bestselling historical fiction novel by Tracy Chevalier, but where that novel delved deep into the fictional story of Griet, a maid who poses for the portrait and tells the story herself, the film keeps Griet at a distance. In fact, Johansson delivers so few lines in the film that it's nearly comedic. We hardly know her well enough by the end of the movie to care much about what's happened to her, and we know her better than anyone here.

Visually, the film is at times stunning. It's obvious that great care was taken to attempt to match the luminosity of Vermeer's paintings. Most of the time, it's a rousing success. Some shots, however, do make it look as though the film stock was accidentally dropped in bleach.

While there's nothing very intriguing beyond the premise here, there's also nothing to offend. You could do worse than renting the film, but it's a much better idea to hop on the bus and get yourself to a museum.

MAYBE SO (5/10)

LANTANA

To sum up the plot of director Ray Lawrence's 'Lantana' is to run the risk of doing a great disservice to the film. When spoken of as a series of events, 'Lantana' is little more than a detective story, a whodunit in which we learn about the victim and the law enforcers in turn - the equal of nearly any episodic crime show on television.

Thankfully, 'Lantana' is about more than the events that take place within it. It's a film that trusts and relies on a glance as much as a murder, a nod of the head as much as a screaming match. The story examines its characters' lives until there is nowhere left to dig, their emotions and secrets painfully raw. There are no good or bad guys in 'Lantana,' only complex mixtures of both. In a uniformly exceptional cast, Anthony LaPaglia and Kerry Armstrong are especially successful at playing well-rounded human beings instead of 'types.' In a film at its core about trust, LaPaglia, Armstrong, and the rest aren't afraid to play with the audience's own trust. The story's explorations of love and fidelity may not be pleasant, but they are somehow beautiful.

'Lantana' is also visually beautiful. The composition of each frame of the film seems to have been planned in exacting detail, and camera movement is nearly always - if the movement of a camera can be said to be so - tender. All of this is true without drawing attention to its accomplishments. The pictures always serve the story without stylizing it.

Though the script increasingly relies on coincidence to make the plot work as it chugs along, the coincidences here are entirely earned. It takes no stretch of the imagination to see that these lives are intertwined by more than location or circumstance.

The last few minutes threaten to tie up all the film's frayed ends into too neat a bow, but that mistake is (narrowly) avoided. And while no one quite lives happily after, we feel okay leaving these characters when the credits roll. When all is said and done, 'Lantana' is crime drama, a detective solving a murder. That the death is the least enthralling aspect of a film that still trusts subtlety and complexity lifts 'Lantana' beyond any genre.

YES (8/10)

RIZE

The first time you hear the subject of David LaChapelle's documentary, 'Rize,' it's easy to think you're being put on. See, it seems that there is a trend in some of the most dangerous areas of California where people, mainly teenagers, get together for hours on end and stage dance battles in the street, people's garages, and playgrounds. Their dancing is frenetic enough to warrant a disclaimer that the film has not been sped up, and the dancers proclaim this as not a fad but a way of life. Oh yes, and they dress like clowns, form clown gangs, do the occasional birthday party, and even have a yearly battle in a local sports stadium.

'Rize' is a look into this fascinating movement - called 'clowning' or 'crumping' depending on style - but it ultimately tries to cover too much ground. There is a lot to be said about the way this dance craze saves teenagers from becoming gang members, how the good things we do are not always rewarded, how growing up in a broken home is difficult, how friendship and mentorship change lives, how even niche interests can split into smaller factions, etc, but by including all of these issues and more, 'Rize' can never fully explore even one.

Even as the film fails as narrative, it has its share of compelling moments. One dancer, Dragon, is wise far beyond his years. The stories of both Tommy the Clown and Tight Eyez are inspiring. The sight of a 'Payless Caskets' store next to a dance studio is heartrending.

And the dancing? Well, it gets to be a bore at times, frankly. Some dancers appear as if they're merely feigning seizures, while others offer no variation whatsoever. Every few minutes, however, a dancer appears on screen whose moves are original and poetic and say more about who these people are than the film as a whole can ever hope to convey. Those moments alone are well worth the price of admission.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND

As art, 1978's 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' certainly deserves a 0/10. Because it is so unbelievably, terrifically atrocious, however, the movie is a joy to watch.

In lieu of dialogue (except for narration by George Burns), 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' uses various songs by The Beatles to drive and dictate the plot. Oh, and what a plot it is. The Bee Gees and Peter Frampton star as the title band, who become world superstars a week after being discovered by a record company executive. They then set out on a mission to retrieve magical instruments stolen by Mr. Mustard and his evil robot posse and restore joy to the world (and take a bit of time out to catch an Earth Wind and Fire concert). Throughout, 1970's musicians and minor celebrities play a slew of characters based on songs by the Beatles. Alice Cooper is the Sun King, Billy Preston is Sergeant Pepper, and Steve Martin - in by far the worst performance of his career - plays Dr. Maxwell.

To say that the performances don't do The Beatles' songs justice is a negligent understatement. With the exception of a relatively amazing 'Come Together' by Aerosmith, the songs are neutered at best and raped and left for dead in the worst cases. Imagine George Burns singing 'Fixin' A Hole.' Then imagine two six year old girls as his back-up singers. Now imagine that this isn't the most cringeworthy performance in the film.

Thankfully, no one here seems to take it all too seriously (though when his girlfriend, Strawberry Fields, is killed, Peter Frampton's obviously thinking about his Oscar chances). Props are oversized, facial expressions are exaggerated, and the special effects aren't special at all, even by the day's standards. The 'actors' seem to be having a good time instead of trying to convey a story, and this lack of pretension may be what ultimately saves the film.

Saving the film means, of course, making it merely the butt of a joke that is enjoyable to endure. You can't turn crackers into cake by covering them with cheese, and 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' is a 'No' any way you look at it.

NO (3/10)

ELF

Playing a human raised by Santa’s elves at the North Pole, Will Ferrell throws himself as completely into his role as any great method actor. As Buddy, his childish wonder comes across as much in his face as in the ridiculous events of the plot, and Ferrell never hesitates to play things to the hilt without ever overdoing it.

‘Elf’ is a Christmas movie, and like pretty much every Christmas movie in existence, the story concerns a lack of Christmas spirit in the world and how to remedy the problem. Buddy grows up in Santa’s village and is an outcast in nearly every way. When he finds out that he is not an elf but an adopted human, Buddy travels to Manhattan to find his birth father, and it is these scenes – when Buddy’s elfish upbringing crashes headfirst into the modern world - that produce the most laughs. Buddy’s father has lost both the Christmas spirit and the true spirit of life, so… well, you get the rest.

James Caan plays the Ebenezer Scrooge character and brings not much more to the role than the fact that he is James Caan. Zooey Deschanel plays Buddy’s love interest but isn’t given much to do besides show off a pretty remarkable singing voice. Peter Dinklage makes the very most of a small part, and the rest of the cast generally blends into the woodwork. All of this is just fine, since ‘Elf’ is the Will Ferrell show and he knows it.

The beginning of ‘Elf’ plays as little more than set-up, and the final third loses most of its giddiness, but Will Ferrell and the script’s middle lift the film above the average holiday fare. Director John Favreau plays by the rules to a fault, but there’s a warmth of spirit in ‘Elf’ that can’t help but break through.

MAYBE SO (7/10)

PAPARAZZI

Cole Hauser stars in 'Paparazzi' as action movie star Bo Laramie, and that character name says about all you need to know about this film. What could have been a probing into celebrity photographers and the lengths they will go to to feed America's hunger is instead an '80's retread revenge flick.

Bo Laramie is a new celebrity, and thus he and his family have to deal for the first time with the spoils of fame. These include recognition, money, and a posse of photographers who follow Bo around for - note the subtlety - Paparazzi magazine. When the photographers cause a car accident that injures Bo's wife and son, he decides to take revenge by murdering the underlings and framing the paparazzi boss. Oh, and Dennis Farina stays hot on Bo's trail in a role that borrows heavily from TV detective Colombo. Yes, it's that ridiculous, and, no, they're not joking.

Mel Gibson produced 'Paparazzi,' which led me to believe that the script would have some insight into the celebrity world or, well, anything. Instead, it seems as if it were written based on movies seen on cable TV on Sunday mornings and not on any sort of reality or thought. Aside from one mildly funny joke about the Baldwin brothers (brother Daniel has a part here), there's no charm or wit to be found. There's nothing offensively bad either, and that's probably the best that can be said for a film that aims so low in the first place.

NO (3/10)

RASHOMON

'Rashomon' and its director, Akira Kurosawa, are critics' darlings, and it's easy to see why. 'Rashomon' is extraordinary in its willingness to make the audience think for themselves. It is highly odd and original (especially by 1950's standards, when it was made). It is complex and ambitious while playing on the surface as a rather simple tale of the lies humans tell. And it is shot majestically by cinematographer Kazuo Miyagawa.

Unfortunately, 'Rashomon' is also incredibly slow at times when the story practically begs to play faster, is acted in a style very foreign to American ears (and though some complain that it is 'bad' acting, I truly believe it's another style entirely), and plays far more to the intellect than to the emotions. These things, only some valid complaints, have made 'Rashomon' a film snob's secret instead of part of the fabric of our moviegoing culture.

The story in the film is actually four versions of the story of how a samurai was killed in the woods. Four people (including a medium channeling the dead man's take on the events) relate their tales, and no two versions are the same. As listeners within the film try to decide who and what to believe in the absence of any evidence, the audience at home must make the same choice. Kurosawa broadens that decision to include whether man can be trusted at all, and this is in part why 'Rashomon' sticks with an audience long after memories of any swordfight have gone.

'Rashomon' is not the pinnacle of film achievement we occasionally hear that it is, but it isn't a dated relic without relavance to the average American, either. Certainly any person even remotely interested in excellent camera work should buy and study a copy, but even casual film fans will find it a memorable experience. If you think you'd like to see it, you most likely will - but your mind may thank you more than your heart.

MAYBE SO (7/10)

COOL HAND LUKE

A quick online search of ‘Cool Hand Luke’ shows that popular opinion of the film falls into two camps. It is regarded as either exhaustingly slow and boring or an enthralling tale of man’s will. In truth, it’s both. While nearly every scene’s running time could quite easily be cut in half, the story as a whole is gripping.

Paul Newman stars as Lucas Jackson, a man caught vandalizing public property in the first scene. By the second, Lucas is reporting for duty at the prison work camp that will lord over the rest of his life. Like Jack Nicholson’s McMurphy in ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,’ Lucas slowly becomes a hero to a group of caged men, a rebellious symbol of freedom and free will. He is opposed by both physical imprisonment and a web of rules enforced by numerous ‘bosses.’

The first half of the film is almost entirely dedicated to showcasing how cool Luke Jackson can be, and though it plays too slowly, it exceeds this goal. By the one hour mark, every woman in the audience wants to sleep with Paul Newman. In turn, every man wants to be him (without the jail time, of course).

Even as it builds tension, the second half of ‘Cool Hand Luke’ becomes almost bizarrely repetitive and more and more heavy-handed with symbolism. Still, any viewer who’s been paying attention is far too attached to Lucas to look away. When his fate finally is revealed, the film attempts to make some big statements about faith, perseverance, loyalty, and a host of other issues. It needn’t bother. The story of one man fighting authority and himself is more than enough. Unfortunately, only those who haven’t turned off their television in frustration will find that out.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

SYRIANA

Among its many strengths, possibly the most impressive thing about Stephen Gaghan's 'Syriana' is the fact that a major studio funded it at all. The film is so complex and assumes so much intelligence on the part of its audience that it's very nearly off-putting on first viewing. Moments of simple, timeless humanity keep at least one of the movie's feet on the ground, though, and the complexity becomes enthralling.

There is no true leading role in this story of oil's importance in the 21st century, but George Clooney, Jeffrey Wright, and Matt Damon are given the most screen time in a large cast. Clooney is especially good here. He reportedly gained thirty-five pounds for the role (twenty of it in his beard, it seems), and mostly lets his posture and facial expressions work for him in place of dialogue. The supporting cast is accomplished (and largely unknown) enough that it's easy to forget that they are paid actors. Plenty of handheld camera work may be nauseating but also adds to the realism.

There is no doubt that some audiences will find 'Syriana' a puzzle not worth the effort it takes to solve. It plays like few other films and comes to no neat conclusions. Those looking for sheer entertainment will find it entirely too much work.

For audience members who are willing to work toward understanding, the movie is rewarding. Even after one viewing, with many plot points little more than a haze, 'Syriana' weighs heavily on the mind. It is about oil, yes, but it is also about corruption, secrets, politics, modernity, business, and more. The film simply feels important. It may prove otherwise on further viewing, as some have suggested. But the fact that further viewing is not only necessary but an exciting prospect as well speaks volumes.

MAYBE SO (7/10)

9 SONGS

In the special features section of the '9 Songs' DVD, actress Margo Stilley makes passing mention of the script for the film - and that is the biggest surprise in or around the movie. It's nearly unfathomable that a script existed at all. The story, if one feels generous enough to call it that, is made up entirely of the following: Matt and Lisa live in London. They go to a bunch of rock shows and have a lot of sex. Lisa leaves for America and Matt goes to Antarctica. Roll credits.

'9 Songs' has made a name for itself for two reasons. First, it contains live concert clips of some famous (for the indie rock world, at least) bands such as Franz Ferdinand, Super Furry Animals, and the Von Bondies. Secondly, the sex in the film is real and explicitly shown. Those who watch the movie for either reason will no doubt walk away disappointed. The concert footage is terribly shot, and the bands' songs are cut short every time. The sex scenes are neither erotic nor thought-provoking.

Proponents of the film talk about a careful study of the rise and fall of a relationship through the actions in the bedroom. Applying this level of thought to a movie so barren, however, is like seeing God's face in a Rice Krispie treat - it may sell on ebay, but you're fooling yourself.

Any person's need for sex and rock and roll would be far better served by turning on a radio and renting pornography. '9 Songs' fails as music video, titillation, and engaging story. Thankfully, it is nearly as forgettable as it is pointless.

NO (1/10)

ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW

When we are teenagers, many of us go through a period in which we see meaning in the tiniest of events. We feel emotions with a depth that shocks us. We use the word 'deep' without being ironic. We are unguarded and raw and awkward and we discover a level of living that we truly believe we are the first to recognize. Of course, we grow out of this phase. We become wiser, more jaded; we guard ourselves off. Unless, that is, we're Miranda July. The writer/director/star of 'Me And You And Everyone We Know,' at thirty-one years old, is a high schooler at heart, with both the good and bad that that label implies.

July's film is not only confidently directed; it has a unique, unwavering vision both visually and thematically. The film features incredibly believable child actors, comic book-like splashes of color in nearly every frame, original situations, truly touching moments, and a lilting, easy flow. On the downside, it (like a high schooler) can be treacly, overeaching in its desire to shock, and meandering. To say that the pros outweigh the cons here is an understatement.

Plot synopses don't work for a film of this sort. What happens in the story serves only as snapshots of a larger picture. When a woman buys shoes, it's a grasp at human connection. When a girl plays at feeding her friends as if they're birds, it's about dreams of order and control that we know will be shattered. When two teenagers practice their blowjob technique, it's about competition and friendship and adulthood and more. 'Me And You And Everyone We Know' is, in a word, about loneliness. In eighteen words, it's about how we'd better appreciate the tiny connections we're able to make, because they may be all we get. Given that, the fact that it is humorous and uplifting along with its melancholia is a major accomplishment.

YES (8/10)

THE BOONDOCK SAINTS

What is a reviewer supposed to do with a film like ‘The Boondock Saints’? The acting is at times nearly unwatchable. The lapses in logic are unavoidable. The movie as a whole derives so much of its tone, attitude, and content from Quentin Tarantino that the man should sue. There is nothing more than a vigilante story here. No insights into the human condition. No character development. No brains.

And still – still - ‘The Boondock Saints’ makes for a vastly entertaining ride. Sure, it’s one bloodbath after another by two self-proclaimed superheroes, but those massacres are set up and carried out awfully well. Especially well done is a sequence in which we see an FBI agent hot on the Saints’ trail explain the events of a crime on set as the crime takes place. It’s potentially the only original thought here, and it pushes all the right buttons. Even that spell is soon broken, however, by the usually reliable Willem Dafoe, who proceeds to overact his way out of 1,000 paper bags.

As nutrition, ‘The Boondock Saints’ is like a bowl of Fruity Pebbles cereal. It may be cheap, easy, and bad for you, but it tastes really good going down. Just don’t try to live on this garbage.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

OVERNIGHT

For roughly the first five minutes of the documentary ‘Overnight,’ Troy Duffy comes across as a confident, likeable, rising star. For the remainder of the film, no audience in their right minds can see him as anything but one of the most arrogant, pompous, and cruel villains to ever disgrace a movie screen.

At 25, Duffy sold his first screenplay – ‘The Boondock Saints’ (see review elsewhere on this site) – to Miramax. Included in his deal was the opportunity to direct the film, make casting decisions, have final cut, gain co-ownership of the bar where he works, and have his band write and record the soundtrack. Duffy becomes, for a short time, the toast of Hollywood.

Presented with this gift horse, Duffy not only looks it in the mouth but punches its teeth out one by one. Through his ridiculous behavior (and, it has to be said, the fickle business of independent film), Duffy’s pedestal is chopped down inch by excruciating inch. He loses half his budget. He loses his record deal. He alienates movie stars, record label heads, his band, his own family, and surely countless waiters, waitresses, and production assistants who didn’t make this documentary’s final cut. Duffy ends up with nothing to show for the experience but a lot of lost love and a dvd release of his sole film. His entourage (with the exception of the makers of this documentary) is left scrambling for pieces of what they once thought was a given and a sad story to tell.

There is nothing especially noteworthy about the look of ‘Overnight.’ It never rises above serviceable and at times appears amateur. Instead of diminishing from the film, this actually adds to the effect overall, making us feel as if we’re spying on the goings-on instead of watching ‘Take 11’ of some version of the truth.

As a cautionary tale, ‘Overnight’ probably misses its mark. Any person even remotely as self-delusional as Troy Duffy would never admit that the lessons here apply to them. The film’s true success is in presenting a completely original, repulsive character to the world of film and then, thankfully, making us spend only 82 minutes with the man.

MAYBE SO (7/10)

YESTERDAY

Movies about AIDS - or about any 'big issue,' really - run a serious risk of becoming pamphlets supporting an agenda. When tackling these issues, its easy to do it at the expense of human drama. 'Yesterday' avoids this trap by inverting it completely. It is a film about AIDS that only mentions the disease by name once. We see only two infected people, and the politics involved are scarcely even hinted at. This is a film about people first, foremost, and finally.

Leleti Khumalo stars as Yesterday, in a performance that relies almost entirely on facial expression. Khumalo uses hers to great effect - only the blackest of hearts wouldn't be won over by her within the first ten minutes of the film and moved to tears during the last ten. The supporting cast is nearly equally impressive, especially the very young Lihle Mvelase as Beauty.

Filmed in South Africa and performed in Zulu, 'Yesterday' looks and sounds like few other films. It is easy to enjoy the first quarter of the film simply as a sightseer. The landscapes are positively beautiful and the way of life is far removed enough from our own to be interesting no matter what is taking place on screen. As time progresses and our heroine Yesterday grows severely ill, the story becomes interesting more and more because of its universality. Even as the landscapes grow in beauty, it is the characters we want to see.

Some will certainly argue that more could have been done with the premise of this film. With AIDS ravaging Africa, is it right to tell such a small story? Surely there's room in the film for it - at times 'Yesterday' moves almost maddeningly slowly, and there isn't a subplot in sight. It would come as no surprise if the dialogue added up to no more then twenty pages of script. Writer/Director Darrell Roodt has obviously decided that less is more in this case, and the results speak for themselves. 'Yesterday' is finally and emphatically not about AIDS; it is about a woman with AIDS and her struggle to change the tide, to make tomorrow better than today.

YES (8/10)

SEX AND LUCIA

It's always admirable when a film trusts its audience enough to take risks with narrative structure or avoid spoon-feeding plot points. It is a nice (and rare) experience, having your intelligence respected by filmmakers. 'Sex and Lucia' provides this type of experience for much of it's 2:08 running time, but ultimately ruins the spell by relying on pure and multiple coincidences to tie its plot together. As these coincidences slowly come to light, any audience member who has put effort into understanding the complexities of the story will no doubt feel hung out to dry.

The plot of the film is complex enough that an accurate summation is difficult after only one viewing. However, the core of the story is plainly laid out. In it, Lucia (the preposterously beautiful Paz Vega) falls for Lorenzo (Tristan Ulloa), a novelist. The two move in together after the briefest courtship in movie history, and a healthy dose of sex follows (more on this later). Just as the two are at the peak of bliss, an event from Lorenzo's past comes back to haunt him. As his past slowly collides with his present and his novel-in-progress collides with his reality, Lorenzo's life slips out of his control. Lucia is left to pick up the pieces of her own life while mourning the one she shared with Lorenzo.

'Sex and Lucia' is a story about loving someone despite themselves, about running away from the past, about people as complete beings instead of convenient one-note players. That the above plot synopsis barely begins to cover what happens in the movie is a testament to its fullness.

That said, the coincidences that tie the beautiful mess together are too much to bear. If I walk into a cafe an hour after writing it to find Paz Vega sitting in the corner reading this review, complete with my name (which came to her in a dream) tatooed across her chest, it will be less coincidental than certain elemental plot points in the film.

'Sex and Lucia' is shot beautifully, with the exception of certain exterior scenes looking terribly bleached out. The editing falters at times as well, cutting during a few tense sequences as if it were a second rate slasher flick. In addition, one major plot point is nearly missed simply due to it being hinted at but never filmed (a low budget is the only forseeable excuse).

Because it sometimes sacrifices complexity for heart, and because the story is ultimately built on quicksand, 'Sex and Lucia' is in no way a 'must see' film. It is, however, far better than average if for no other reason than because it trusts us to make sense of a twisting, turning plot while trying its damndest to be about so much more.

(Note: 'Sex and Lucia' was supposed to be part of a series focusing on explicit sex in cinema. Netflix took the film out of that category, however, by sending an unrated, toned-down version. While the sex is still present and somewhat graphic, jumpy edits make it apparent where certain material has been deemed too risque for my eyes to handle. This is most likely at no cost to the story, but being forced to watch a version other than the one the director wanted me to see is always disheartening).

MAYBE SO (7/10)

JFK

There are at least two important factors to consider when reviewing any film "based on a true story." The first is how well the movie plays as a coherent, compelling narrative. The second is whether the film is factually accurate.

Oliver Stone's 'JFK' does remarkably well in the first regard. Despite its three hour running time, the story races by, mixing numerous characters and events and both personal and public struggles without losing its center. That center is Jim Garrison, played without misstep by Kevin Costner. 'JFK' is at heart a story of one man's - New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison - search for truth among a veritable mountain range of opposition. Even amid countless pieces of evidence given through excellently edited testimony, flashback, and whispered secrets, Stone never forgets that heart.

As for the second barometer, factual accuracy, 'JFK' is at very best suspect. Though the period set design, costuming, and locations are pitch perfect, the 'evidence' of a massive conspiracy to kill and cover up the murder of President Kennedy is strung together from Garrison's own questionable account and those of like-minded theorists. The film cannot be taken at face value as historical truth. It must be watched as one man's version of reality and his struggle to make that reality known. In that respect, it is an unbridled success.

YES (8/10)

SAVED!

Though it tries again and again to be a biting commentary about narrow-minded religious fanatics, 'Saved!' works far better in the few moments when it forgets its agenda and lets genuine emotion poke through.

'Saved!' takes place during Mary's (a genuinely likeable Jena Malone) senior year at American Eagle Christian High School, paying extra special attention to holidays (lest we don't realize that time is passing). The plot, in a nutshell, concerns Mary and her boyfriend Dean, young Christians in love. When Dean admits that he thinks he's gay, Mary is told by Jesus that sleeping with him will convert the sinner. Dean is sent away to Mercy House. Mary finds out she is pregnant. Mary's friend Hilary Faye becomes an ex-friend, then enemy. A kid in a wheelchair and a Jew make nice. A nerdy girl is accepted into the cool clique. And on and on until the inevitable climax at the school prom.

The first half hour of 'Saved!' concentrates almost solely on sticking it to religion, but the jokes never rise above sketch comedy level. Mary is fleshed out, but the rest of the cast during the first segment of the film never become more than cardboard characters we've all seen in other movies. Things don't get much better from there, though when the movie lets itself be a simple story about high school pregnancy and feeling like an outcast, 'Saved!' does become a better (if different) movie than it tries to be. Then it's right back to broad satire, and the moment is lost. There are some touching scenes in 'Saved!' but even those feel cribbed from better films. It's the near constant slams on religious zealotry that truly set this film apart. Ironically, they're also the weakest cog in the machine.

'Saved!' picks an outstanding target - I wish it had practiced its aim. As it is, the film is perfectly average, and just like the perfectly average kids at high schools across the nation, 'Saved!' doesn't generate much better or worse than a shrug.

MAYBE SO (5/10)

8 1/2

'8 1/2,' Federico Fellini's classic, is stunning in the way it balances brutal honesty with incredible absurdity. The film reveals itself in layer upon layer right up until the last scene, twising and turning on itself constantly while always digging deeper. Those who don't know its plot and are daring enough to enter into its world blindly should stop reading this review right here and find the nearest copy on DVD.

At its most surface level, the film is about Guido, a film director who is stuck looking for the story for his next film. His actors are present and prepared, his producer is anxious, and sets are being built - but no one, including Guido, knows what this next film will be about.

Deeper, the film is only partly about the above. Through fantasies, dreams, and memories, Guido learns not only what his film must be about, but what his life must be about. And if that sounds banal, believe that these words of description are to blame, not the way the film plays out.

'8 1/2' was filmed in beautifully crisp black and white, and each shot is so thoughtfully constructed that pausing the movie at almost any moment of it's 2:10 running time would create an image ideal for framing. Interestingly, it is also one of the greatest examples of 'meta' filmmaking ever released, all the more impressive considering its 1963 release date.

A small number of scenes seem out of place here, especially when they delve into the wackiness of silent film type action. Also, the storyline can get a bit confusing upon first viewing. These flaws are so minor, though, that they're like complaining about comma placement in the greatest book you've ever read.

'8 1/2' will without doubt not appeal to everyone, but even the most casual film fan should take the time to find out for themselves.

YES (9/10)

THE GRADUATE

Impeccably cast and flawlessly shot and acted, 'The Graduate' is as close to perfection as a feature film can hope to achieve. This doesn't mean that it speaks to all the deepest questions we humans can ask; only that it surpasses its goals of being extremely funny and deeply poignant, often at the same time.

For those seven Americans who don't know the plot, a summation: Ben (Dustin Hoffman, in his starmaking role) has just graduated with honors from college and has no idea what to do with his life. Content to spend his days floating in his parents' backyard swimming pool, Ben soon falls into an affair with Mrs. Robinson, an older family friend. After pressures from his unsuspecting parents, Ben takes Mrs. Robinson's daughter Elaine on a date and falls in love with the girl. When she learns of Ben's affair with her mother, Elaine forces Ben's hand, and he must choose whether to continue on his lackadaisical path or take his life into his own hands.

'The Graduate' is a masters class in screenwriting, featuring constantly raised stakes, unique situations, and infinitely quotable dialogue. With actors who completely inhabit their characters, inventive editing, and one of the finest final scenes in film history, 'The Graduate,' despite occasional claims to the contrary, cannot be overrated.

YES (10/10)

I HEART HUCKABEES

Far less than the sum of its parts (a stellar cast and original concept), 'I Heart Huckabees' is still worth seeing, if only because movies this truly strange rarely get made in Hollywood. Jason Schwartzman plays a manchild who hires an existential detective agency to help him solve the mystery behind three coincidences in his life. The detectives, played by Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman, mostly ignore the coincidences and instead help Schwartzman find the meaning of life. This story is, of course, nonsense, and it's refreshingly treated as such throughout the movie. All the major roles in 'I Heart Huckabees' (with the exception of an Americanized Jude Law) are filled with actors who seem to be playing themselves and having a great time doing it.

The point is that the plot is beside the point. The movie nods to the big questions - and even answers them - without taking itself at all seriously. If ever a film could accurately be called a romp, it's this one, and that isn't an insult. The film doesn't add up to very much, but because it never really pretends to, it's possible to just sit back and enjoy a nearly two hour string of odd, funny scenes without asking for very much more.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

CLOSER

'Closer' is a well written, superbly acted, visually exciting film, but no one should have to watch it twice. The story - of four people whose sex lives and lies overlap repeatedly - is so squirm-inducing, 'Closer' plays as the film version of walking in on your significant other in bed with the milkman.

It's hard to imagine who Mike Nichols had in mind as a target audience for this film - People already disgusted with love looking for validation? Married couples seeking a reason to fight? Teenagers who want to hear Julia Roberts describe the difference in taste between two men's ejaculate?

At times, the film's roots as a stage play show through, making for an awkward break from the reality that has been set up well elsewhere. There's also something deeply unsatisfying about the ending, though looking for satisfaction here is probably beside the point. Still, it's hard to give a negative rating to a film that gets under the skin so deeply. It does that so well that while I can't recommend it, I dare you to sit through it.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

ELEPHANT

Working with a crew of mostly non-actors, Gus Van Sant gets some nicely realistic (and some argue boring) performances in this non-story of a school shooting and the hours leading up to it. For most of the film, there's no real plot - at least no more plot than there is in me typing this review while taking occasional breaks to smoke. Knowing what will occur by the time the movie is over, however, lends real weight to every movement, action, and word spoken. Overlapping time is masterfully handled in 'Elephant' (and unlike in '11:14' [see review] isn't a substitute for depth). The camera work is stunningly smooth and unobtrusive - the Steadicam operator is arguably the brightest star in the film.

Van Sant does falter a few times. When three teenage girls synchronize their bulimia in the school bathroom, reality is broken in a film that relies on it. There are clues as to what eggs the teenage killers on, but do they need to exhibit them all on the same day? And the ending point seems almost randomly chosen. The film could be ten minutes longer or ten minutes shorter to much better effect.

The true greatness in 'Elephant' is in the bold decision to point no fingers, to offer no indictments of blame for teenage violence. Instead of preaching, or even dominating the conversation, Van Sant carefully chooses a first sentence and trusts each audience member to continue the discussion themselves.

YES (8/10)

11:14

This movie, the first feature length film written and directed by Greg Marcks, has a fervent following online. These fans can't fathom why the film didn't see theatrical release and why more people aren't lining up to rent the dvd.

I am here to let these people in on a secret - '11:14' is not a good movie. Yes, it has plenty of mindfucks of the 'huh? Oh, yeah, I guess that makes sense' variety, but there's so little character development here that it's hard to see a story on screen instead of a puzzle. Personality traits are not personalities, and though Patrick Swayze does a decent job of creating something more than what's been written for him, the rest of the cast don't even try. Hilary Swank suffers more than most - she is likeable but unbelievable in her role as a teenager (no, those shiny braces on her teeth aren't enough), but it's her role as Executive Producer that's truly confusing.

Marcks' directing is solid as far as the look of the film, but without a story any deeper than 'then this happens, then this happens,' all the effort is wasted.

(Nitpicky but true - for a movie as obsessed with precise timing as this one, it's unforgivable that the audience is asked to make several large leaps in logic, i.e. activities which would take up half an hour at the very least are shown to have occured in mere minutes here).

NO (3/10)

SPANGLISH

'Spanglish' is nothing more (or less) than a charming mess. A cluttered story of cultures, families, languages, and personalities colliding, this James L. Brooks film tries to cover so much ground that it only occasionally hits on something deeper.

There are some major flaws here - characters are forgotten about completely for long stretches of time, Tea Leoni's portrayal of Deborah Clasky is extremely grating, and the narrative framing device (a college entrance letter) doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

With all those flaws and more, though, there's something likeable in here. Adam Sandler underplays his part to great effect. Sarah Steele, as Sandler's daughter, is at times heartbreaking. Chloris Leachman does as much as she can with the little she's given. And Paz Vega plays the sweet side of Flor Moreno to perfection.

As art, 'Spanglish' is roughly the equivalent of an episode of 'Just Shoot Me.' As something to sit down and watch with the family after Thanksgiving dinner, it's not the worst way to spend a few hours.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

DEAD MAN

Johnny Depp stars in Jim Jarmusch's long-form poem put to film. The story, which plays out in what feel like short chapters (due to Jarmusch's decision to fade to black between every new scene), is simple on the surface. William Blake (Johnny Depp) comes to a new town in search of a job, is shot, kills a man, and escapes to the wilderness both to avoid capture and to live his last days before his gunshot wound does him in. There he meets a Native American who guides William on his journey.

The film, however, is not that simple. Like much great art, it's about as complex as you let it be - there are meditations on death, violence, history, gore, dark comedy and more packed into what plays as an incredibly sparse movie.

Like 'The Thin Red Line' or 'Elephant,' the plot in 'Dead Man' spools out slowly and is subtle enough to frustrate many viewers. For those patient enough to travel with William Blake at his snail's pace, however, this is a remarkable film.

YES (8/10)