Reviews: Australia & Bolt

Down Under the Weather

As is now happening as we enter the final weeks of 2008, there is a barrage of films being released that had Oscar analysts and bloggers running wild in a frenzy to try and pick which films would hit the strongest mark upon their release. I remember when talk of this film surfaced, the long delayed and ambitious project from a noted, and Oscar-less, director. To many it sounded very intriguing. To me, however, it sounded like an bloated feature that would spend a fair amount of its time on the style and leaving the rest up to the suspension of the audience. So is the plight of Baz Luhrman, and so is why I continue to find his films wonderful looking messes.

In an obvious attempt to become a throw back epic of the 1940s, the story transports itself to Australia at the beginning of World War II. Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) goes to the continent/country to tend to a cow ranch that her recently murdered husband had in his possession in order to fulfil an army contract. After she fires the villain of the film (David Wenham) for moral corruption, she hires Drover (Hugh Jackman) to help her get the cattle to the ships. Things take a major turn when the love story begins to bloom between Sarah and Drover, as well as a complicated social relationship that she has with a half white, half Aboriginal boy (Brandon Walters).

The movie is the exact definition of epic. Nothing about the picture is ever small. The majestic landscape cinematography from Mandy Walker, as well as the intense close ups of Jackman and Kidman, make the movie feel as big as it can be. The film is also the definition of what a Baz Luhrman film is. Luhrman always has A-plus material when it comes to the style of his films, and the sets and costumes by two time Oscar winner Catherine Martin (Mrs. Luhrman) are in all excess and beautiful to look at. The same goes for Walker's lighting. However, very much like his praised Moulin Rouge!, the story then takes a backseat to the visual spectacle.

Hidden within the story are a few gems here and there, but a lot of if makes the movie shift from place to place. There's a rousing action adventure, a sweeping romance, a war time drama, and a schmaltzy tear jerker all rolled up into one. Of all of them, the action is the most impactful, and a scene involving a stampede near a cliff is a very exciting one. The rest of them would strike a chord if the film was not so self-consciously aware of its nostalgic scale. The film's continuing reference of The Wizard of Oz really makes the film come out as a bit smug.

Kidman has always been an actress that I've liked, but have never understood why the rest of the world loves (I'm looking at you too, Jennifer Aniston). She and Jackman, also wasted here, are just as much prop pieces as the CGI ships that glide in the background. Needless to say, the acting is not the main draw here, despite the very good Wenham and Aboriginal actor David Gulpilil to help bring the sinking ensemble up for air.

To be perfectly clear, Australia is a beautiful film to look at. Still, I cannot really say that you should spend ten dollars, as well as two hours and forty-five minutes, on a movie that really has no other satisfaction than that. The cast is okay, and the story is far too vast in trying to keep up with the visuals. I have still not seen a film from Luhrman that I really liked. However, I do believe the day will come where he will deliver a film that is equally capable of achieving a great visual spectacle along with a competent story. Unfortunately, this isn't it. ** / ****; GRADE: C






Doggy Style

Wherever you seek out the best animation, one should look no further than Disney. Actually, to be more precise, one should look a little bit to the left on the Disney property and look into the house with the name Pixar out in front. Future Oscar-winner Wall-E was an outstanding achievement and is certainly a true winner in everybody's books. Recently, in an effort to take back their own animation, Disney unveiled its new CG animation that wasn't quite Pixar, but wasn't quite Dreamworks either. The last one they had was Meet the Robinsons, and I'm guessing that those who actually remember that film are very few. Bolt isn't without its faults, but it is generally a fun ride that most kids and adults can enjoy.

The title character, voiced by John Travolta, is a dog who is also the star of a hit primetime show on television where he plays a dog with superpowers. The only catch is that the creators of the show have taken careful efforts to make the studio environment seem real to him (sort of like The Truman Show), and he comes to believe he actually possesses these powers. However, during an episode where Bolt believes his human master Penny (Miley Cyrus) is kidnapped by the show's villain, he breaks free to try and rescue her.

That attempt is foiled, and he gets shipped away from the LA set to New York. It's there where he forcibly recruits a stray cat (Susie Essman) to help him find Penny, along with an energetic hamster (Mark Walton) who is a fan of Bolt's show. During the trip is also when Bolt begins reconcile with the knowledge that he doesn't have any powers and learns the true value of friendship.

Being a Disney movie, it isn't without its traditional Disney sap, and when those scenes of danger or loss start to play to John Powell's stringy score, you can hear Martin Landau yelling, "Pull the string!" right next to your heart (that right, it's an Ed Wood reference). Even with all of that, the movie still remains effective in getting you emotionally involved with the characters, as well as being really funny. Some of the visual gags are good for everyone, and because this new Disney animation lies between Pixar and Dreamworks, there are occasional references to other movies and media, but never with a sense of an overbearing nature. When there are discussions about the world of television executives and pitch ideas, I could definitely hear more parents in the audience laughing than children.

The voice acting isn't superb, but it does a nice job with its cast. Travolta brings a little charm to his character, but not much. Most of it comes from the animators who, and I've never said this about any animated animal, is actually a really cute dog. Cyrus is good, but I was more entertained by a slight parallel of the studio's insistence to keep Bolt within their grasp to her own relationship with Disney. By far, the funniest performers are Essman and Walton, who deliver the right amount of energy in their characters. I do wish we could have heard more of Malcolm McDowell, but I'm satisfied enough just to hear him.

As I said, the movie isn't perfect. It's a fairly predictable family film that doesn't have a consistent comedic tone. However, there are enough full hardy laughs to say that a good time will be had at this show. I would still say that if you want great animated films, you should go to Pixar, but this other division of Disney is working just fine now. Also, if you can catch this movie in 3-D, I'd recommend it. It doesn't have a lot of the "in-your-face" 3-D, but it gives a lot more depth to the film, making it more of a 3-D movie and less of a movie in 3-D. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: Let the Right One In

Love at First Bite

After I finished watching this film, I started to amuse myself with some of the thoughts that were swirling around in my head. One was that I had just seen a movie that I had virtually never heard of, before a few days ago, and never would have seen without a good friend of mine's appreciation for Swedish cinema. The other thought was that I was seeing a vampire film, an interesting choice since on Friday marks the highly anticipated opening day of the Noggin-marketed Twilight. For those who have fallen in love with Edward Cullen, I'd actually say to them to look at this vampire film instead, because what they may find is a slight deviation from the usual genre steps that ends up being a nice surprise.

Based off of John Ajvide Lindqvist's book (who also wrote the screenplay), the story centers around Oskar (Kare Hedebrant), an ostracised twelve year old living with his divorced mother and constantly avoiding the insults of the school bully. He eventually strikes a friendship with the mysterious Eli (Lena Leandersson), who is also "twelve, more or less." Their friendship grows little each day, even though her arrival has been linked to several neighborhood murders, some performed by her guardian (Per Ragnar), that have left the victims at a loss of blood. Soon the truth comes out that Eli is a vampire, but their relationship tries to survive that test.

The vampire genre, and the horror movie one for that matter, tends to offer very little unless there is an attempt to alter the formula. This film attempts to do that, and it is probably why it is a vampire film of a slightly elevated class. Only once is the term "vampire" used it the film, and many of the cliches of those types of film are absent, such as the cross, the piercing of the heart, the garlic wreaths, the holy water, the non-reflected mirror and the transformation into a bat. Without these elements, the characters are able to form in a quasi-realistic way and it adds greatly to the picture. Director Thomas Alfredson does very well with framing the movie, always keeping the audience pent up within the atmosphere, very much to the appreciation of Hoyte Van Hoytema's muted cinematography.

Lindqvist's script works most of the time, but detracts major points when the storyline detours into the subplot of a newly transformed vampire. Some of it is because a scene of the nouveau vampire getting attacked by a house full of angry kittens features laughable special effects. Most of it is because that is when some of the old cliches start to come out (death by sunlight), and when the film spends a lot of time veering away from those elements, it's a little saddening the way it comes out. One of the last violent scenes in the film is beautifully shot by Alfredson and Hoytema, but as written, it feels a bit too dramatic in a circumstance I feel should have been left more ambiguous and intimate.

A great saving point for the film comes from the wonderfully talented younger cast. Hedebrant, looking like Paul Williams from Phantom of the Paradise, gives Oskar real depth, never making him a stock character that has a forced bond with the vampire. His problems exist within the real world that just so happens to have a supernatural backdrop. The same is said for Leandersson, who plays Eli in a status of almost an older adolescent trying to deal with her younger exterior, and it is fascinating to watch her balance that tricky act. Even the school bully, played by Patrik Rydmark, never feels cartoonishly cruel. Like most of the time in films centered on children, the adult actors are window dressing for the rest of the plot, constantly being outshone by their younger costars.

As my friend fervently told me, this is not a crowning achievement of Swedish cinema. Since I have seen very little of those films, I have no choice but to agree with him, and he is more than likely right. However, I considered this film, as it stand alone, to be a very intriguing piece. A plot detour and some half witted plot elements do cause some harm, but with the atmospheric direction and cinematography, along with the marvelous acting from the young cast, I certainly say this is one of the year's few gems to discover. Unfortunately by this point, the chance to catch this movie in the theatre has probably gone, especially with Twilight being released and an eventual American remake of this film planned in the near future. However, if you do happen to catch the DVD copy out of the corner of your eye, I'd advise you to take the same chance as I did. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Review: Quantum of Solace

The Spy Who Loathed Me

I admit it, that I'm a very huge James Bond fan. My passion for this secret agent goes beyond mild admiration. I know all of the films, the crew associated, the stories behind them and any other bit of trivial information that one can associate to a Bond film. I love the James Bond series. When I was younger, that bias usually meant that I rated the Bond films much higher than they deserved (Die Another Day is an example, I have since learned). Now, however, it has now made me be more critical of the Bond series in terms of the standards they now have to live up to. Despite the potential for this film to become something really special in the Bond franchise, it falls painfully flat.

The film picks up right after the events of the previous Bond flick Casino Royale left off (though it is not the only one to follow events from a previous film). After Bond questions the mysterious Mr. White, he discovers the larger organization known as Quantum (similar to SPECTRE, for all you Bond fanatics). In his quest, Bond comes across Dominique Greene (Mathieu Amalric), an international environmentalist who also spends his time setting up dictators and holding an iron grip on lands with barren water supplies. Also in his company is Camille (Ogla Kurylenko), the bombshell who is using Greene to get closer to the general who killed her family, once again adding to the revenge theme that the film has taken on.

When Daniel Craig was selected as Bond in Casino Royale, I remember vividly the outrage that people had, labeling him as "Mr. Blond" and calling for a boycott of the film. I never thought about doing anything that severe, but I did have my reservations about Craig (I still say Clive Owen would have been a wonderful choice). However, I was very impressed with Craig's first outing, but still said I had to wait until he could pull it off a second time until I could officially say he worked as the new 007. In this film, he works very hard to try and save it, and the faults are not with him. His Bond is still stern and edgy, even if the film is not. I wish the follow-up could have worked with Craig, but he brings it up enough for me to declare Daniel Craig is a good James Bond. Kurylenko is good, but rather forgettable as a Bond girl. But Bond's best girl for the series now is actually Dame Judi Dench, who still infuses M with a great sense of sternness and humor.

The villain embodied by Amalric is not very threatening or intimidating. The same could be said of the previous villain, Le Chiffe, as a force who was not very threatening in that film as well. However, I think Mads Mikkelsen worked because he refrained from any major physical altercations with Bond, keeping his character more so a cunning businessman than a disposable baddie. Amalric had the opportunity to become this, but as soon as he tries to fight Bond in a physical match, he gives up all of his mysterious credibility. There was also a strange note in his henchmen peculiarly looking like nerdier versions of Quentin Tarantino.

Nobody in the cast is really to blame for the major faults of this film, although the sort of throw away conflict provided by Bond stock writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, along Oscar-winner Paul Haggis, certainly doesn't help the movie either. The biggest liability for this film is its director. Marc Forster has always been a director that, to me, has made good films (Finding Neverland, Stranger than Fiction, The Kite Runner), but never has anything special about his films. His movies are usually enjoyable, but there is never an element of anything significant for the film to stay with you. The same is said here, only without the part about being good. Forster's background also does not support action films, and every adrenaline fueled scene reflects that. The action is put together so shoddy and sloppily, that we as an audience are constantly trying to figure out what's going on. It's a disorienting process that is very annoying.

Forster also does not have any real sense of how to look at an action scene. The stunts don't always have to be believable, but it's important for the audience to at least see them. Forster clumps the cuts together that the suspension of disbelief is cut, and falls straight to the ground with no protection net. Forster, also being the first European director of the series, seems more interested in showcasing the scenery and culture of the locations rather than focusing on the plight of Bond. There is also not any imagination in this film. There are elements borrowed from other Bond films such as From Russia with Love, The Spy Who Loved Me and even the all sacred Goldfinger. But the film also takes elements from the Jason Bourne series, even after countless efforts to distance the two franchises. But in the end, it is the terrible editing that persists not only in the action scenes, but throughout the whole film, much to the thanks of Forster's usual editor Matt Chesse and Paul Greengrass regular Richard Pearson.

Also, to mention quickly, the gun barrel scene does appear, but not where you'd have hoped. After that, the main titles, which have always been a proud staple of the Bond films, feel very flat and uninspired. The theme song, sung by artists Alicia Keyes and Jack White (White wrote the song) has better music than it does lyrics. I know not everybody agreed on the card motif and droning notes of Chris Cornell from the previous film, but it worked very well for me. Not so much this time.

The first film almost had an unfair advantage. The director of Casino Royale was Martin Campbell, an experienced Bond veteran having directed GoldenEye, knew what was needed for a Bond film to work, and Craig's debut set the bar very high for a follow up. Yet, even that handicap doesn't help this film. Forster's misstep with the film's action, plus his horrible sense of cutting, hurt the film tremendously. Some of the cast tires, but I don't see this film becoming a highpoint in the series. It breaks my heart for me not to recommend a Bond film, but instead of Connery's follow up, From Russia with Love, this might be more so remembered as The Man with the Golden Gun, Roger Moore's return. Thankfully, Forster has agreed not to sign for the next one. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Reviews: Madagascar 2 & Role Models

Into the Wild

I still say that the DreamWorks animation department has little to offer in terms of the advancement of animated films. I will relent that the Pixar standard is a very hard thing to live up to, but ever since Shrek 2, I have witnessed all their films morph into pop culture ridden pieces that do not really fulfill the laughter of children and fall flat with adults. After their abysmal failure with Shrek the Third, which I thought was the worst film of 2007, they bounced back this year with Kung Fu Panda, a delightful surprise that not only made me laugh at jokes that were contained inside the actual story (not borrowing like Shrek and Shark Tale did) and also had a meaningful story behind it. In the sequel to their (unexpected) mega-hit, Madagascar 2 strives a little better than its predecessor, but I feel still falls short in becoming something recommendable.

The movie's events start exactly where the first adventure ended, with Alex the arrogant lion (Ben Stiller), Marty the smart talking zebra (Chris Rock), Gloria the sassy hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith), and Melman the hypochondriac giraffe (David Schwimmer) trying to escape the island Madagascar in order to return to their New York home. After a shoddy plane captained by the penguins (the best part of the first film) crashes, the group discovers more of their kind in the inland parts of Africa. Here, Alex discovers his father (Bernie Mac) who is the king of their herd. A sort of silly conflict arises when rival lion Makunga (Alec Baldwin) plans to take control over the herd and become the new alpha lion.

The film is a little better than the first one only because of the element involving Alex and his father. Part of this might just be the circumstances surrounding the actor who voices the elder lion, but it is still something the original film did not have. It's a part of the story that is the most emotionally involved, and it pulls the audience along to watch something that is more than just the jokes. A father-son relationship isn't stretching in terms of complexity, but it's a lot more than previously tried for these types of films. At the same time, that tender part of the story is overwhelmed by a ridiculous villain (not the good kind of ridiculous) whose ambitions are not really noteworthy. The film also antagonizes the old lady from the first film ("Bad kitty") and gives her a much bigger role than I thought necessary. And still, these movies continue with the pop culture references that go way above the kids heads. A second Planet of the Apes joke was admittedly funny, and a scene with monkey workers striking and the penguins calling the unionization communist was something I indeed had to smile about. However, when their are joking references being made to the war in Iraq, no matter how funny they are, do not belong in this film (and it is in this film).

After making me smile with Tropic Thunder (Robert Downey Jr. made me laugh), Stiller has put in a pay check role for this rather bland character. The same could be said of all the returning leads for that matter as none of them really elevate the characters more than the first time. It even seems like Sacha Baron Cohen, as the cooky King Julian, seems to have suffered the Johnny Depp-Pirates syndrome as his character seems more forced than nuanced like it did before. Not even Alec Baldwin can save his character from the carelessness of the story. The only one that really resonates is Mac, and it is unfortunately influenced by his passing last August. Just hearing one of the last times he ever spoke is something to marvel at, even if the material isn't working, and it makes you sad to know that voice will never be heard again in the future.

To be honest, I really hated the first Madagascar. I felt it was a flimsy excuse to get a bunch of A-list actors and put their names on a product. But no matter how I felt about it, it worked, and the movie made tons of dough that nobody expected it to. This effort tries a little better, but it is still bogged down by a weak story and pop culture references. In the end, I look back to an analogy that I made about Fantastic Four 2 in relation to its predecessor: "It's like saying a stub toe is better than a broken foot. It's a little more tolerable, but in the end, you still in pain." **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-





Parental Guidance Restricted

The days when people thought that a comedy that people could take great offense with would be a sign of death are long gone. There are many people who contributed, but the most prolific would be Judd Apatow. His directorial debut of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and subsequent line of producing, has made the edgy, R-rated comedies something to be greatly desired. With many of the players involved in this film, one would think that Apatow is behind this project as well. Those who assume that are mistaken. I'm reminded of Charade, which looked like an Alfred Hitchcock film, even starring Cary Grant, but was not one of his films. The same comparison can be said of this film to Apatow, only this one is not nearly as good as Charade was.

Paul Rudd, of the Apatow stock players, and Seann William Scott play Danny and Wheeler, two middle aged men who go around schools to sell their energy drinks and preach a message of drug abstinence. Danny is the emotionally distraught and dysfunctional one and Wheeler is the developmentally arrested, immature adult (as is always the case). After Danny's attorney girlfriend Beth (Elizabeth Banks, very popular this year) breaks up with him, Danny drives the advertising car with Wheeler onto a school's prolific property. The two are given a choice of thirty days in jail or 150 hours of community service at a mentoring program. For the sake of the plot, they decide to take the latter.

Upon their arrival, they are in a constant word battle with the program's director (Jany Lynch), who keeps bringing up her racy past, and the situations with their assigned kids aren't go well either (go figure). Danny is paired up with Augie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, aka McLovin), an older, heavily anti-social boy who has a fascination with a fantasy role playing game within his own community that operates like a live action World of Warcraft. Wheeler's kid is Ronnie (Bobb'e J. Thompson, a long way from That's So Raven), a foul mouthed, rude little brat that tests the patience of everyone around him. Do you think these two guys will warm up to their little counterparts and start to respect them?

That's a stupid question because it has an obvious answer. Of course these two guys will learn to like the kids their with. They'll first start off despising them, then they'll do something that causes tension and phrases like "I never want to see you again" being thrown around until they make a final chance to rekindle the relationship and it works. The story doesn't really reach for new territory. Director David Wain knows about comedy (Wet Hot American Summer), but there are many times when the comedy feels uneven by the editing pace. The comedy itself within the dialogue is not much either, as a lot of it is either constant profanities or numerous double entendres that have Rudd wincing. It's funny the first time, but by the end it's time to hang up the gag. It becomes so bad, that you'd almost expect Steve Carell to walk by the frame and mutter, "That's what she said."

I've always believed that Paul Rudd is a greatly talented performer, and after supporting roles in films like The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Reno 911!: Miami, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I thought he was more than qualified to carry a film as a leading man. This film does prove it, but Rudd tries desperately to work with unusable material. I give credit to him for trying and hope that a future project will help enhance his talent instead of enable it. Scott is okay, but it's the same type of character he has been playing since American Pie. Also, I think this is the perfect evidence to invite Elizabeth Banks into permanent residence for the all-boys club that is the Apatow stock players.

Now, I realize that this is only Mintz-Plasse's second film, but the character feels like McLovin-lite, a watered down version of a character already seen too much of. A lot of people think that seeing a child the way Thompson portrays him is a despicable act. I don't have a huge problem with it, I only ask the kid be cute as well. Not in the physical sense, but in the way that what they say may be obscene for a child, but is funny if an adult said it. Suffice it to say, the script does not have Ronnie become that cute. I do, however, give up a lot to Lynch, for even when she's poking at the material for it to move, she still delivers a few laughs.

What I found to be the funniest part of the movie actually has nothing to do with its theme of connection and discovering friends. It's an extended battle sequence in which the two adults and two kids participate in that is part of Augie's made up fantasy world. The fake deaths, attention to accurate dialect and nicely staged fight scenes make the sequence feel real, and it is really a marvel at how that is done. It's also the point where Lynch's frankness about her past finally becomes funny. Unfortunately, it's not enough to save it. Despite the best efforts from some members of the cast, the movie ultimately disappoints. I still hold out hope for Rudd, and I ask Apatow to throw Rudd a bone soon. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Review: RocknRolla

Portrait of a Serial Teller

One almost fells bad for Guy Ritchie now. The sympathy really isn't for his recent divorce from Madonna (or her directorial debut offering "competition" for this film), but it's actually for when he married the pop star in the first place. Ritchie's career started on very high notes when his skewering of British gangster movies hit the scenes with Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. But when the two tied the knot eight years ago, his reputation seemed to have suffered, as the titles Swept Away and Mr. Madonna seem to prove (though his short film in the series of online BMW commercials that starred Clive Owen was admittedly fun). Many might want to say that this is a great return for Ritchie, but I saw it as an overloaded film that still manages to pull you along for its insane ride.

In a plot that's filled with intercutting characters, the film opens on Lenny Cole (Tom Wilkinson), one of those gangsters who control everything, and his dealings in the criminal world. His main sight is getting a deal struck with a Russian criminal (Karel Roden) over some real estate. Lenny's right hand man Archie (Mark Strong) is also looking over some London thugs (Gerard Butler, Idris Elba) who owe some rent to Lenny. To get the money, they do some work for an accountant lady friend (Thandie Newton) who is also working for the Russian, and they are unaware they are stealing from him.

The film then takes a major turn of events when it introduces an element of a painting the Russian loaned to Lenny that was stolen by his stepson, the notorious rocker Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell). The rest of the film is all these characters circling around each other to try to get deals made and this painting back in the right hands.

What seems to be a staple of Guy Ritchie's films is that the characters remain the most interesting part. He's always known how to make them interesting enough to see that they can carry a movie even when their personalities would generally be turn offs. Another staple Ritchie is also that his excess of style in some scenes gets in the way of coherent narrative, and the onslaught of visual cues swirl the mind, making it beautiful to look at, but at times feel tedious and a bit smug. Still, the only thing that should really matter is the story keep going, and that's what Ritchie tries his best to do here. He isn't really helped by the fast editing from James Herbert, but cinematographer David Higgs and composer Steve Isles help create a real pulp atmosphere reminiscent of late sixties-early seventies that adds greatly to the texture of the film.

To go off of these wild characters, you need some damn good actors as well. Wilkinson is the best there is, and he is probably the only person to play a character that slaps a child and still make you marvel at the talent of the actor. He is truly one of my favorite actors, and the film should be seen almost for him alone. Other noteworthy performances are sprinkled throughout the cast, like Butler in a entertaining one, but not really fulfilling, Ludacris and Jeremy Piven as the American managers of Quid (though Piven is still playing Ari Gold here) and Newton is a great step up from her weird interpretation of Condelezza Rice, but is so cold here that it sometimes feels uneven with the humor of the picture. There's been a lot of notice for Kebbell, and he is very good here. His character is one that is hard to like, and that sometimes makes his sarcasm seem more like narcissism, but he manages to carry his weight.

I would point out, however, that the film suffers greatly because of its plot. In truth, the story is not of main concern here. The movie has pockets of different stories and interesting characters in each, but they are all strung together by a very weak link, that being the painting. Though, I give kudos for Ritchie not revealing the actual painting in the movie. It's a ploy that's been done before (like the suitcases in Pulp Fiction and Ronin), but it adds a little more to the film when he doesn't want us to be concerned with the picture but more so the motivations behind it. It falls a little flat, however, when those motivations are pretty weak and barren. The film's comedy does not really work that well either. Most of it reaches to really broad categories, such as intentionally horrendous dance moves from Butler and Newton, and a tenacious Russian assassin that refuses to go down. Those jokes run out of steam pretty quickly, and the film's reoccurring gay joke starts out as a little offensive but then becomes a little laborious.

Had this movie featured a plot that was noteworthy, it might have been better. As it stands now, it has a collection of really good short stories that try desperately to connect themselves into a feature length. It never really works, but those flaws get overlooked by the characters within them that are enhanced by the actors. I don't know if life after Madonna will get better for Ritchie, but hopefully the break will mean his style will be the same when he started making films, when he was like a virgin to the cinema world. *** / ****; GRADE: B

My Reluctant Vote for Barack Obama

Barack H. Obama (D)

44th President of the United States

First off, let me say that watching the campaign through this time period has always been one of general excitement. I do not think either candidate really dazzled me that much in terms of trying to get my vote, but in the last hours of the election, the anticipation for an answer started to grow. I want to congratulate Barack Obama for making history as this country's first African American president, a honorable precedent to have in this day and age. I also want to give congratulations to Senator Joe Biden for achieving the vice presidency, and I also want to say that John McCain and Sarah Palin, despite their odds, persisted to the best ability they could with nearly every obstacle surrounding them.

Having said that, I am still not entirely convinced, and still hesitant to support, Obama even though I voted for him in this election. However, I was always cautious to do so. It may have been that people expected it from me because I am black, or in college, or live in Illinois, or whatever number of reasons. Those are assumptions that people make, and I do not care for them being made about me. I also never believed I was hearing the real Barack Obama during the primaries or the presidential campaign. I heard things that sounded good to applause, but never anything concrete or realistic to me. A symbol of change was not enough for me. There were several things that I disagreed with John McCain about, but I always thought he knew the way the political game was played, and how he could work within it. Still, in the end, I cast my vote for Obama.

The reason for it is not because of the buoyancy of support he has for being a direct representation for hope and change. It started with McCain's pick for Sarah Palin as his running mate. To be clear, it is not Palin's lack of experience that I have trouble with. One can make the same argument for Obama, and it was made for him twenty months ago. To me, as his campaign has proven, it is a dead issue. What troubles me about Palin is that she is an extremist. My issue is not far right extremism, just a polarizing pull in general. With her in the White House, and possibly the next leader of our country, that is a scary thought. This country had eight years of extremism and it did nothing for us. But her presence in the campaign was more than that. It reflected something about John McCain. He picked her because somebody told him that after the predictable choice Obama made the week earlier for Biden, McCain then had to live up to his maverick name and pick a wild card choice. The McCain back in 2000 would not have been persuaded so easily. After a bitter defeat eight years ago by dirty Bush politics in Florida, McCain has thought that he didn't run the best campaign. That is not true. To be honest, the issues McCain talked about and supported back then are similar to Obama's now. I still believe that McCain is still there, but has presented to us a forced polarization that makes him seem worse. He takes the opinions of everyone to try and win this time. The McCain in 2000 against the Obama in 2008 would have seen a much better turnout.

Do I think that Obama is the best thing for this country? I don't know. Do I believe in his overall message of change? Not really. Do I think a McCain administration would have been terrible? Absolutely not. I thought both of these candidates would have served their country extremely well as president, with both learning from the mistakes of the past and moving their country into a positive direction. My vote for Obama was clearly based on the logic: "the lesser of two evils", which already sounds harsh. I do not fully support Barack Obama, which is why my vote was reluctant. But I believed him to be a candidate who has already been presented as a symbol of a new era, and perhaps that is enough to some. To say that I look forward to an Obama administration is wildly inaccurate, but I pray that Obama, after capturing this historic feat, does not slip from his pedestal and plunge this country's hopes farther down that it has ever been before.

This is one of the few times where our country stands at a crossroads. Both men were capable of doing the right thing. What I hope is more important is where this country wants its leader to go, and if he can deliver even a fraction of it. Obama used his closing election night address to say that he will do his best as president, even though he will not be able to accomplish everything in a year, or even one term. That was the first real thing I heard Obama say, and while I wish I saw more of that during his campaigning, it's a good step to make to try and get me to be an Obama supporter. It's been an exciting day, and I can't wait for the same politics to start back up again in four years to restart this process once more. Until then, and at the present time, I say congratulations President (Elect) Barack Obama.

Review: Zack and Miri Make a Porno

Bosom Buddies

In an attempt to be a fair and balanced reviewer, I'm going to disclose some information that isn't particularly fair and balanced about me: I am not a big Kevin Smith fan. To be understandable, I have always loved Smith's rather rebellious effort as a filmmaker as to never let the superficial boundaries like money or professional actors get in the way of his storytelling and advance as an artist. However, I've never been attracted to the storyteller that is Kevin Smith, as I've always considered most of his films featuring that "indie spirit" as window dressing to cover up tasteless and outrageous gross out humor. When one even mentions the title of Smith's latest film, one would expect similar territory from Smith and company. Many of those elements are still present here, but that undercurrent of something surprisingly sweet is what makes the film something a little bit more special.

Seth Rogen, of the Judd Apatow factory, and Elizabeth Banks, slowly making a name for herself this year, play the title characters, two very good friends who huddle together in their dingy apartment that is crowded with clothes, junk and unpaid bills. After a string of unfortunate events, such as the water, gas and electricity being shut off, the two find themselves on hard times. It is when Zack has the brilliant solution to make a porno, and use the profits to settle their debts. A co-worker of Zack at the coffee shop (Craig Robinson) puts up the money to act as producer, and a host of other performers join the cast, including Kevin Smith regular Jason Mewes, better known as Jay from Smith's films and makes his first deviation from that character in a Smith project.

Once again, we have a comedy, and the question I ask is does it follow the same rule of the single best character. It doesn't really break that rule like very few films have, but it does feature an element that is unusual. Many might say that Rogen is the best, or it may be Banks. Both are good, but I would actually say it's Robinson. Robinson has been showing up here and there in a lot of Apatow projects now, and is seen weekly on "The Office." He's setting up his own market as the straight man who thinks the rest of the world is crazy but goes along for the ride anyway, and he's really great in that atmosphere. It's the biggest role he's had, and I hope he continues to climb in recognition. Rogen, I've always thought to be more lucky than talented, plays the same type of goofy grown up character that we've seen through all the Apatow films in the past. He's no match for Banks. She outshines him everywhere (and I apologize for not mentioning her good, but not groundbreaking performance in W.) and proves herself to be a great comedienne. Everyone else, including Mewes, just shows up to say their funny lines and don't elevate the film too much. However, even though the trade off between Brandon Routh and Justin Long, as a former high school hunk as his gay pron star lover, at Zack and Miri's high school reunion is completely unnecessary, it is a very funny scene almost worth the price of admission.

It occurred to me that Smith writes this film almost like a porno itself. It's relatively short, the dialogue isn't much (a lot of it is sprinkled with profanities to keep the giggles moving) and every character exists in a world without the acknowledgement of condoms, HIV, STDs, or pregnancy. Those dismissals subtract from the film's attempt into new territory, and it a subject that has always bothered me. However, I like how Smith has also made the issue of sexual preference in this film completely futile (except for one character) and that actually frees the movie from becoming bogged down with labeled sexual humor. It makes the film's comedy more broad, but I think that's the right thing to do for a film this polarizing. However, the score by James L. Venable I found emphasized too much the spirit of indie film scores that was overbearing in every scene. When a crescendo of music is playing and the funny part is actually cutting away from the music, that to me says there should have been more of those scenes.

There is one scene in the film that has been getting a lot of notoriety on the Internet, and it is a scene that has been aptly named the "shit shot." I'm not going to divulge any further, because I think everyone should be surprised, but I will say that it is a shocking moment and completely unexpected even though the scene has a set up. It will make your jaw drop for sure. It also marks the point where many of Smith's films tend to veer off into the gross out humor that eventually leaves you with a dirty feeling. This film doesn't do anything that extreme, which many people might say is a change. However, Smith instead replaces the gross out gags with more of the raunchy and sexual humor. Some of it is funny, while at the same time being a little too late to add, but I still think it is Smith doing the same thing, only with a different tactic. It's not as bad as the other shot, but it still serves as a point in the film where it drags on when really it should start wrapping up the tender story it has developed underneath. It's a different move using the same technique to me.

The love story between the two characters isn't anything new and the outcome is pretty obvious. What makes this film unique is only because it is Kevin Smith, which is a direction we don't see that much from him. Sometimes it is just the attempt to do something different that catches are eye, even if the different thing has been a norm for many others. Smith still needs to work on his endings, but he is helped by a very talented cast. I still don't declare myself a Kevin Smith fan, but if he continues to prove that not everyone has him figured out all the way, then I might be interested in that label in the future. *** / ****; GRADE: B