Bond.. James Bond

You may all laugh and think "Yea Whatever" when I mention this, but here it goes..

almost a year ago I was sitting around at work talking with some people, and the subject of James Bond Came up. What we decided at that time was the following..

Ewan MacGregor set in the 1960's.. at the Beginning! Before he became a badass..

Flash forward a year... to the release of Casino Royale.. Where..

Daniel Craig (Layer Cake) plays a young James Bond.. not even with "Double 'O'" Status yet.. giving the series a very badly needed reboot.

Casino Royale is James Bond's first mission, where he must stop a banker from winning a casino tournament and using the prize money to fund terrorist activities.

This is what the series has needed so badly. going back to the basics, stop making bond a parody, and get back to the beginning. Danil Craig got a lot of flack for being picked as Bond, but I think he captures the essence of Bond perfectly. You learn so much about the character, his motivation for the rest of the series... Why he's so cold hearted, why he trusts no one.

In this movie, Bond isn't a super-hero, he has flaws.. he doesn't mind getting hurt, he's human.

I really wish that now they go back and revisit the earlier Bonds now and do things right.

Casino Royale: B

Yes, it has been a while...again.

Once again life has been interfering with going to movies. But I have seen a few so here's a quick look at some of the movies I've seen lately:

Man of the Year - Barry Levinson and Robin Williams get together for the first time since they made GOOD MORNING VIETNAM in 1987.
This time around, Williams plays a comedian with a show much like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, who decides to run for president and wins.

That's the premise that the marketing people WANT you to think, but it's sort of false advertising. Yes, that's the abridged version, but there's a little more to it than that. It's part political satire, part thriller and it falls apart because of it, unfortunately.

Barry Levinson, who wrote and directed the film tries to make a movie with the same biting commentary that his previous political satire WAG THE DOG had, but just doesn't have the bite. Robin Williams is given his chance to improvise, but in the end, the movie doesn't do or say much.
Man of the Year - D

WORLD TRADE CENTER - I've sort of been sitting on the fence about seeing this movie and UNITED 93, after following the debate about Hollywood making ANY sort of movie about the events of 9-11. Has it been too short a period for movies to be made? Is it just Hollywood's way of cashing in? So, I went into this with a bit of Trepidation asnd dread at what the end product would be. I left pleasantly surprised.
As everyone knows by now, the movie is based on the true story of 2 harbor patrol officers that went in to try and evacuate people from the World Trade Center the morning the planes hit. They get trapped when the building collapses around them, and it shows what happens during the aftermath.
Director Oliver Stone has made a respectful film, and centers only on the 2 cops, played by Nicholas Cage and Michael Pena. The story doesn't focus on the planes, or try to have the events glorified, we are left in the dark, just like the 2 cops. The story told in WORLD TRADE CENTER is that of the 2 cops, nothing else. Because of this, the movie shows respect, and in my opinion doesn't glorify anything.
World Trade Center - B

Wanna Join a group?

I've been quite busy the past few weeks trying to get the Calgary Screening Group going. It's a great group of people, and we're having a blast.

Do you see movies, and DON'T live in the Calgary area? Wish you could chat about the movies you see with people from around the globe? Well, now's your chance.

Our group has started an online forum. It's located at http://screenclub.forumup.net . All you have to do is register, and start talking away!

Hope to see you online there!

Monster House?

After Raiders of the Lost Ark came out, Stephen Spielberg produced Poltergeist, and let Tobe Hoper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) "direct"* the film about a house that was built on a graveyard, and was haunted by ghosts that freaked out the family in it. There was something about Poltergeist that sticks with me to this day, I can close my eyes and SEE parts of it running in my mind. To this day, there hasn't been a movie about a haunted house that's left that impression on me.

This summer along comes Monster House, a new animated movie produced by Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis (Polar Express) that holds the potential of being so much more than it is, but is still satisfying in an odd way.

Monster House is about three teens that discover that their neighbor's house is really a living, breathing, scary monster that eats everything that lands on it's property. The kids try and convince the adults, then decide to go in and try to solve the mystery of the house. We follow their adventures, and (if you're 11 years old or YOUNGER) get thrilled along the way.

The movie is done in the same kind of motion capture technique that Robert Zemeckis used in Polar Express, only this time the computer generated people in the movie don't have that creepy "exhibits from the Hollywood wax museum come to life" feel to them. Director Gil Kenan brings a movie that had a great cast at his fingertips (Kathleen Turner, Steve Buscemi, Jason Lee to name a few), and gives us a movie that drags at the start, but picks up speed towards the end that made me think of GOONIES. The kids were happy at the end.

This is a PERFECT first horror movie for the younger set: scary enough to make them jump, yet not so scary they'll be sleeping in their parents bed for months after. At the screening I was at all the kids younger than 9 were shrieking in delight at every turn. There were 2 lines in the movie that were directly aimed at grownups and there was laughing from the parents that brought their kids.

But you know.. during the ENTIRE time I was in the theatre, I couldn't help but wonder how it would play out as a live action movie. Poltergeist came into my mind a lot as I reimagined Monster House as a live action popcorn thriller, where real people are being terrorized by a computer generated house. I saw a lot of potential that way.

However, that isn't the product on the screen. From what is on the screen, most parents will find the movie a grind to sit through, where children will find it a safe scary movie. harmless fun all around.

Monster House - C

Calgary Screening Club

I'm starting a screening group in Calgary. It's an informal group, that will meet twice a month. The group has a temporary website.. it is located here.

It would be great to see it grow, and form a group of people who enjoy seeing and discussing films.

I remember back in 1978,

seeing Richard Donner's SUPERMAN for the first time, and leaving the theatre thinking "Holy Crap a man CAN fly"! After this first film, Superman 2 came out, then the other sequels that really didn't make much of an impression, in fact, for the purposes of this post, let's pretend they DIDN'T even happen.. they were just a bad dream. Unfortunately, those sequels pretty much killed the Superman Franchise, and its laid dormant for over 20 years.

Now, after this long hiatus, and with a TON of fanfare, Warner has resurrected the Superman franchise with director Bryan Singer jumping ship from the X-Men franchise (unfortunately) to bring the man of steel back to the screen in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

Singer dispenses with backstory trying to tell the origins of Superman, and jumps right in to the story, which gives this a feel of a CONTINUATION of Donner's Superman and of course Superman 2. Superman goes back to check out the remnants of his home planet, and comes home after being gone for 5 years. When he returns, he finds a different world and Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) now has a son, is engaged to be married, and has won a Pulitzer for her article "Why the World doesn't need Superman". Also coming back into the picture is Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) who wants revenge on the man of steel.

SUPERMAN RETURNS not only tries to deal with the SUPER in Superman, but the MAN as well. Singer has given Superman/Clark Kent an inner conflict, where he has to deal with his emotions of finding out that Lois has moved on, and also keeping up with his fighting the bad guys. The movie is sometimes a little too heavy handed, using the "Christ" metaphor a little to liberally.. with shots of Superman falling to earth, arms outstretched like he's being crucified, and dialog like "You say that the world doesn't need a saviour, but every night I hear people calling for one". There is also the shot of Superman in a pose like the God Atlas. When you see the movie, you'll get all the religious references.

What you might also get are all the HOMAGES to all the different incarnations of Superman himself, especially the Donner film, which starts with the opening credits, and sprays them liberally throughout, even down to the pacing, which is almost the same as the '78 version.

Some critics have said that the movie has lost the "fun" aspect of the Donner film by bringing the Human aspect into Superman. I disagree with that. I think what Singer has done is try to pull off a balancing act with this movie.. Kickstart the Superman franchise after a 19 year absence, while trying to make the movie a homage to all the other incarnations before it. I think he did a good job.

Superman Returns: B

As I noted in an earlier post, Superman Returns is the first film that uses the new IMAX process of converting a film shot normally into 3D. The 20 minutes of footage in 3D I thought looked impressive. If you've seen it in 3D, tell me what you thought of it.

I like Jack Black.. he can

be a funny guy. School of Rock was good, he was also good in Hi-Fidelity, Even in Peter Jackson's KING KONG, He brough Carl Denham a smug sense of humour. In my mind, Jack Black is one of those guys you see in a movie, and can't help but smile when he's on screen.
Which makes me ask why in the name of GAWD did he end up in this steaming TURD of a movie?

Nacho Libre has Jack Black playing a monk that lives near a small village in Mexico, serves crap to orphans, has a crush on a nun, and takes on a secret life as a masked wrestler. That's the setup.

The problem with this movie is that it's a one line joke, stretched out and never gives the payoff. It isn't Jack Black's fault. It's the movie.. it never takes off. The problem is there's no content.. It's disjointed... things happen, but it's like someone stuck in a VERY deep rut in their life.. they go through the motions, with nothing ever really happening. The basic rule of a COMEDY is that there has to be at least some jokes that hit the mark. The gags in Nacho Libre have set-ups, but no payoff.. it's like this:

Here's a joke: A guy walks into a bar with a duck and sits down.. Has a drink.. Then leaves.

See... a set-up.. but no payoff. In a COMEDY, that isn't a good thing. Now imagine the above example happening for 80 MINUTES, and you're sitting there... waiting.


Its been 24 hours since I've seen the movie, and I'm still shaking my head. Director Jared Hess who made NAPOLEON DYNAMITE shows he has promise with that movie, and one of the screenwriters was Mike White, who wrote School of Rock, The Good Girl, Orange County and a few others. He has talent as well... I just can't put my finger on who's to blame for this movie, all I know is its the first time I didn't smile when I saw Jack Black on screen in quite a while.

This movie is like a 80 minute joke... only without the funny part, and told really badly, with some fart noises thrown in to try and save it..

Nacho Libre: F-

Do you live in the Calgary Area?

Do you like going to movies?

If you do, I'm thinking about starting an informal movie discussion group. It's a group where people who like movies can get together, go see a movie and then head out and discuss the film with other people over coffee.

If your interested, send an email to gicalgary@gmail.com to be subscribed to learn more information as we start things up

Before going to see

A PRAIRIE HOME COMAPNION, I have to admit I'd never heard the show on radio, since it doesn't play up here in Canada that I can find. I was aware of Garrison Keillor, but hadn't really heard the radio show this was based on.

Keillor concocted the screenplay about a radio show very much like the one he's been broadcasting since July 1974 from St. Paul, Minn. With the exception of scenes in a diner, The entire movies takes place as a "fictional" show prepares for the last show before the theatre they use is torn down by the Texas conglomerate for a parking lot.

But no big deal is made of the occasion, as the cast treats it like it's just another show. Robert Altman follows the various performers both onstage and backstage, capturing their quirks and private agendas, as their personal and private lives mix.

Its a tool Altman has used many times, including in his films about other artistic backdrops, such as "The Company" (dance), "Kansas City" (jazz), "Ready-to-Wear" (fashion), "The Player" (film), "Vincent & Theo" (painting) and "Nashville" (country music). Altman's first significant professional job was as a radio writer, and while the film doesn't concern itself with the craft and mechanics, there is a comfort with the setting that dovetails with Altman's evident delight in the performers he's put in front of the camera.

Many of the characters are carried over from Keillor's actual radio show: cowboy crooners Dusty and Lefty (Woody Harrelson, John C. Reilly), whose ongoing banter culminates in a final number, "Bad Jokes," in which the off-color lyrics are indeed as bad as they are hilarious. Adding more down-home flavor is L.Q. Jones as a vet country singer. Private Detective "Guy Noir" I'm told is one of the COMPANION'S most long time and memorable characters, and for the context of the movie is slightly rejigged as a chronically underemployed P.I., who does security for the show. The part is played wonderfully by Kevin Kline in 40's threads and attitudes.

As well as being narrator, Guy is supposed to keep an eye on things but gets distracted by a mysterious blonde (Virginia Madsen) who materializes to incorporate herself into the proceedings in unforeseeable ways.

But the most prominent characterss here are Yolanda and Rhonda Johnson (Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin), the surviving half of what used to be a promising quartet of sisters. In the company of Yolanda's teen daughter Lola (Lindsay Lohan), who writes suicide poetry, the two gals yack on in wacky ways about family, special memories and disappointments.

All through the show, GK refuses to acknowledge that it's the finale. "Every show's your last show. That's my philosophy," he explains. Nor will he mention it when one cast member dies offstage during the broadcast; "I don't do eulogies." Where these quips may have come from Keillor, I can imagine what kind of meanings they would have for Altman, who was 80 when he filmed the movie. The films fleeting style doesn't betray for a moment. The spectre of death, or something like it hangs over the project but in a light way, as if ignoring it is the only thing to do.

The humour comes from many places in the film, but first and foremost is Kline whose comic timing in an uproariously silly phone scene, brings him almost in a class that could be compared to Cary Grant, and Woody Harrelson, who has a deadpan style that shines in every scene he's in.

All in all, A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION is Altman's loving look at a slice of Americana, and brings me back to his other work, and this can be held up among them with no shame.

A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION: B

It was a sad day for most

fans of comic book movies when they heard the news that Bryan Singer was leaving the X-Men franchise to work on Superman Returns. The fear was that a new director was going to screw up what Singer had started. For most, their fears were realised when Fox brought Brett Ratner (Rush Hour 1 & 2, Red Dragon) on board to complete the X-Men Trilogy with X-men: The Last Stand.

In this third outing an anti-body is invented that suppresses the "X Gene" allowing mutants who are injected with this drug to lose their powers and become "normal". This movie exapnds on the subtext set forth by the first 2 movies equating Mutation with homosexuality. Of course, the discovery of this "cure" causes the mutants to rise up and try and form a mutant army to go out and destroy it.

Another story line is (from what I've been told) the appearance of "The Dark Phoenix", which is a watered down version of the storyline from the graphic novel, and disappoints many of the comic fans out there (again, from what I've been told).

The major difference between this movie and the other 2 is obviously directing style. Where Singer brought a lingering feel to even the quietest moments, Ratner seems occupied with speed. This movie clocks in at 105 minutes, 20-30 minutes SHORTER than the previous 2, and because of that there's a rushed disorganized feel to the movie. It drops and picks up subplots randomly, and the movie doesn't blink at bumping off major characters while adding new ones.

It's only towards the end where the film FINALLY gets it's legs, and starts to try and get its groove, but ultimately it's too little too late.

The X-men Trilogy suffers from the same problem as the Original Star Wars Trilogy, where the third film in the series is a letdown, having a rushed feel that makes it unsatisfying. X-Men: The Last Stand is the RETURN OF THE JEDI of the X-Men series. It's sad to see Rattner take everything that Bryan Singer and crew build, and tear it down with absolutely no thought or feeling whatsoever.

X-Men: The Last Stand: D

As for the title... X-Men: The Last Stand may mark the end of this trilogy, when any movie makes 100+ million its opening weekend, you can be sure that there will be a movie like X-Men: The Next Generation to keep the franchise going.

The Da Vinci Code review

is giving me a lot of email.. and people want a couple of more hints.. so here they are..

1) one of the words is BUY

2) it's a statement. When I said "computer" I didn't mean a computer phrase like "cyber" or "RAM" or something like that.

3) this is a general statement. if you know me, you know what it is.

Have more fun!

Today, I'm going off topic for once and

talk Hockey. Hockey is Entertainment.
In my opinion, the NHL is about millionaires, watching millionaires doin' something that you can see for free at any arena, but whatever.

I live in Calgary, the home of the Calgary Flames. Y'know... also the home of the Red Mile. 2 years ago, the Flames had their run for the Stanley Cup, and we had large gatherings.. The Red Mile is known for the occasional girl lifting her shirt, and some guy climbing a pole





This year, our neighbours to the north.. Edmonton.. is having their run for the cup. Fair enough. They're having gatherings on their street as well. What's Edmonton's celebration getting known for?



Hockey is Entertainment. Please.. Celebrate Responsibly.

More movie stuff later

Further to yesterday's post

and to answer the emails..

1) Italics
2) Anagram
3) Computers

Good Luck :)

LONG before a single frame of

film was shot, Ron Howard's THE DA VINCI CODE had it's teaser trailer out to generate buzz around the fact that Dan Brown's book was being made into a movie. Since then, the Sony Pictures HYPE machine has been in full force, generating buzz around the movie. This film is without a doubt the most anticipated movie this summer by a lot of people, just not me.

Before I begin, I'm not going to be one of those people that will spend months trying to decide if THE DA VINCI CODE is a book that is a work of fiction, or if it is a clever book based on fact. I'm sure there are scholars around the world that will debate that fact for the rest of time. I do know that when I walked through the local book store on my way to the movie, the book was in the FICTION section, so I'm sure that there will be MORE scholars debating whether book stores have put the novel in the wrong section as an attempt to save religion as we know it.

Since the movie has made more than 70 million at the box office in North America ALONE on it's opening weekend, and 50 Gazillion People have read the book, recapping the plot here would just take up space and time. I know my time is valuable, I would just hope yours is as well.

I found The Da Vinci Code a frustrating movie. I grew impatient sitting in the theatre. This ISN'T one of Tom Hanks better roles, he seemed pretty stiff in the movie. The chemistry between Hanks and Audrey Tautou stilted and laughable. This isn't an action movie either. This is a talky film, it's HEAVY on the exposition, and after a while I found myself nodding off, much like I did during history class in grades 7 thru 12. To me, it was boring. I fidgeted, and I rarely do that in a movie during the summer.

I'm sure director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman did an admirable job of being faithful to Dan Brown's novel, Much like Christopher Columbus did with the first Harry Potter movie. But again, there is this fine line any filmmaker has to take when taking a novel from the page to screen, ESPECIALLY a Novel like The Da Vinci Code, where there is such a HUGE following: You have to satisfy the established base, and try and keep the interest of someone, like myself, who hasn't read the book. I'm not sure if they succeeded.

So, at the end of the day, The Da Vinci Code: The movie comes off as a long, drawn out snoozefest for me. Will it draw me into conspiracy theories like so many people? Will it make me wonder about religion? I doubt it. Is it a perfect example of the Hollywood Hype Machine gearing into overdrive to generate so much buzz people can't HELP but want to see it? That I'll go along with.

The one piece of controversy that has arisen from me seeing The Da Vinci Code came when I went to get my usual Diet Pepsi. The theatre chain has dropped Pepsi Beverages from their concessions, and have gone with Coke products. You would think it isn't the end of the world, but it is for me. Besides that, nothing to see... time to move on to the next summer movie, which next week is X-men 3.

The Da Vinci Code: D+


ps.. no they aren't a mistake... it's a GAME.. in the spirit of the movie...

Say goodbye to movies for Grown-ups

for the next 3 months as this past friday marked the beginning of the Summer blockbusters for 2006.

Kicking it off is Tom Cruise in the Third movie in the Mission: Impossible franchise, with the aptly original title Mission: Impossible III (for the purposes of this review, I shall now refer to this movie as M:I-III, which will save on typing). M:I-III is better than John Woo's Mission: Impossible 2, but doesn't hold a candle to Brian De Palma's Mission Impossible 1

Unlike the past 2 Mission: Impossible movies, which relied on a Impossible Missions, and lots of action, this time round director JJ Abrams (LOST) decided to try and give this movie more of a "personal and intimate feeling" by having a look a Ethan Hunt's (Tom Cruise) personal life. We get to see Ethan at home, his friends, his Fiancée (played by Michelle Monaghan), a nurse who thinks Ethan studies traffic patterns for a living.

Ethan is trying to start a new life with his Fiancée, Julia, which means his has to face his real Mission Impossible that every man must face: living happile ever after with the woman he loves, he isn't a secret agent trying to save the world, he's a man trying to save his marriage.

Problems begin for the two when Ethan, who now trains agents, is lured back into the field when one of his star pupils is kidnapped by an evil arms dealer named Davian (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman). How does a guy who studies traffic patterns for a living explain late night phone calls, then explain to his fiancée right after he hangs up the phone why he has to suddenly leave for 2 or 3 DAYS because there's an emergency in the traffic department?

The other major difference between this movie and the other two is that those movies actually had missions that were considered, well, impossible. This time round, there are 3 missions.. one in Germany which could be considered Mission: Easy, Penetrating the Vatican (Mission: Not so easy), and the last one that finally takes place in the last 45 minutes or so of the movie that even starts to come close to a Mission: Impossible. In between are the usual uninspired explosions, car chases, and other mindless loud stunt sequences that border on the edge of sensory overload, and are the usual staple of a sumer action movie.

There are quite a few problems I have with this movie..
1) You would think in this day and age, the tired "Secret Agent" genre could be given a fresh shot in the arm with everything thats happening in the world. There could be NEW villians to face now, what with the war on terror. M:I-III doesn't touch on any of this and plays it safe with a what is now a generic villain (Hoffman showed more of an evil nature playing Truman Capote than he does in this movie).

2) The overall problem I find with this entire franchise is Ethan Hunt. He has a private life now, but no personality. He's just one of those summer movie heros that is boring unless he's being chased, or leaping off tall buildings (not in a single bound, mind you.. that's coming June 30th.. but I'm getting ahead of myself). Unlike James Bond where we like the action, but we also admire his lifestyle.. The cars, the women, everything. For all we know Ethan Hunt drives a VW Beetle to work. Sure, it's great to see Ethan run (which he does a LOT of), but do you want to be like him?

So, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to sit through the first 85 minutes of this 130 minute movie to see the actual 45 minutes of a film that this movie should have been the enire running time.

M:I-III - C+

As you read this,

The "future of DVD" will have arrived with the release of HD-DVD, and coming out very soon is Blu-Ray DVD. These 2 competing formats will be in a huge battle for your money, and the winner will become the dominate format for years to come.

Right now, the appeal is for the "early adopters".. people that like to buy any new technology as soon as it comes out, and proudly display it for others to envy. I used to be one of those people. I was the first kid on my block with a LaserDisc player, and a DVD player. Heck, for a while I sold LaserDiscs and DVDs online to other early adopters. This time round though, I will pass.

For those early adopters that ARE embracing HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD, I salute you. I think it's great that you have $600 (Canadian) to go out and purchase an HD-DVD player, then spend the $30 on one of the 4 movies available in the format to show your friends. Then when Blu-Ray comes out in a couple of months, you will have the $1,000 to buy that player and spend money of movies as well.

It is you, the early adopters that will help decide which format wins the the war, and will allow us people that waited the 12 to 24 months for the dust to clear, and purchase the next generation player that will be considerably LESS than what you paid, and will be able to select from a much wider range of movies than you had originally, and probably at a much lower price point than you had.

I applaud you early adopters for blazing this trail for the rest of us. I AM quite jealous that you will be able to purchase the HD version of RUMOR HAS IT for $40us to help advance the cause. I, however don't think I could run into my nearest Best Buy and hold my head high and say "I want that"

I have seen the picture on HD-DVD, and although it looked good, it didn't make we want to yank my Credit Card out of my wallet and wander home with one.

If any of you ARE early adopters, I'd love to know what made you decide to jump in with this technology.

I have been eerily quiet

this past while, because of 2 reasons:

1) I haven't been able to get around all that well, since I have been having foot problems.

2) There hasn't been anything worth going out of my way to see lately.

No, wait.. I lie. I did go see THE WORLD'S FASTEST INDIAN starring Anthony Hopkins, and quite enjoyed it. Yes, it was a little cornball, but Anthony Hopkins performance made it watchable. The rest of the time I just stare at the movie listings, and think "What would I want to spend my hard earned money on?" The answer is nothing.

There was a point where I would go see anything, and not cared. I would just head to a theatre, find the movie that started closest to the time I went, and sit and turn off my brain for the running time of the film. These days, I haven't found anything worth doing that with.

This has bothered me. I'm worried that I have started to lose my love for cinema and film. This is something that I don't want to lose. What do you do when you get this way? How do you rekindle your love for films? I would like to know.

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! In IMAX 3D

There has been a rumour the IMAX was working on a new method to convert regular movies to IMAX 3D.

Word came today that SUPERMAN RETURNS will be the first conventional LIVE ACTION movie to be converted into IMAX 3D.

This could be the start of an interesting trend! I'm looking forward to it!

**Updated**

I guess that only 20 minutes of the film will be in 3D.. there will be visual cues when to put the glasses on to see it.

First off, sorry for anyone

who took my Oscar picks like they were gospel.

I was many of the people that entered Oscar pools, and although I posted my top *6* choices on here, I had to make picks in all 19 categories for the pools. My Record this year: 15 right out 19.

Although I picked BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN as best picture, I'm satisfied with CRASH taking it. If you look back at my review of CRASH on here, you know how much I gushed over it. In my younger years, I would have had the moxy to pick CRASH and stick with it. This year, I went with the sentimental favourite, and got burned, like I think most everyone did.

Next year, I'll have learned my lesson, and will stick with my gut feeling.

Good film won, boring show overall. Jon Stewart is funny on The Daily Show, but I didn't think it translated for the Oscars.

In this time of the year, when movies

like FINAL DESTINATION 3 have a shot at being the Number 1 movie in the country, I take great solice in the fact that where I live where there are art houses.

This weekend, I saw MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS, the movie that Dame Judi Dench is nominated for Best Actress for this year.

In the movie, Judi Dench plays Laura Henderson who shortly after her husband's death, to relieve her boredom, buys a West End theater, the Windmill. With his cigars and pomaded coif, Vivian Van Damm (Bob Hoskins) is the manager she hires and immediately locks horns with. He wants complete artistic freedom, she wants to meddle. After the Windmill's initial success dwindles, she comes up with idea of doing a show in which the girls onstage appear naked.


It's wartime in London, and between Blitzes the theater does a thriving business in servicemen. Despite its scandalous reputation, the show itself is relentlessly tasteful, in the manner of '40s Hollywood musicals: In order to stay within the bounds of official censorship, the girls pose decorously as tableaux vivants. They're nudie cuties serving the cause of king and country.

Dench's role is so in her comic range that it would be easy to mistake it as her doing it in her sleep. The key to her performance is the depth of feeling beneath the imperiousness.
Henderson is nobody's fool, but as the film rolls along we start to realize that it is foolish passion she truly craves.
She finds it with Van Damm, who is as no-nonsense as she is. (Theirs is a real-life story). Van Damm and Mrs. Henderson are forever fighting each other because, of course, they recognize how much alike they are. Although Van Damm has a wife, his bickering with Mrs. Henderson mimics a marriage in which the jabs are really love pats. In one particularly memorable comic scene, an assistant interrupts the two of them at full throttle and is informed by Mrs. Henderson that "you must never interrupt a perfectly good argument."

There is plenty of Wit like that in MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS, compliments of Screenwriter Martin Sherman, who is at his best with these kinds of exchanges, and Director Stephen frears keeps things moving briskly along. The film is crafted very well: you watch the emotions slide from Witty Banter to utter sadness in one fell swoop, and at no time do you ever feel like you are being manipulated emotionally by a bunch of hucksters.

The director, like his actors, understands how high theatrics especially with show people, often hides deeper emotions.

Mrs. Henderson Presents presents theatre life with gusto! It's a nice break from the February Movie Blahs!

A

It has been a while since I've posted to this Blog.

A few people have been wondering if I had died or not. No, I am very much alive. Life has been interfering with movie-going. Between being quite tired after work and trying to walk for exercise, and actually taking a VACATION with the family to Disneyland, I have been quite busy indeed!

Oscar Nominations were announced, and in my previous post my predictions were 4/5s accurate (Unless you count my wildcard, then I was 100% accurate). The Nomination that I wasn't sure about was the Best Picture nod for CRASH. When the picture was first released I thought it would be a shoe-in, but in the past, the Academy Members have had short memories for pictures that were released early in the year. This is why, if your wondering, that most of the pictures that want to be considered for nominations are released towards the END of the year.

The other nominations were expected. This looks like the year Brokeback Mountain will win best picture, and it is very well deserved.

In the some of the other categories, I think the winners will be:

Best Actor - Philip Seymour Hoffman for Capote

Best Actress - Felicity Huffman for Transamerica

Supporting Actor - George Clooney for Syriana

Supporting Actress - Rachel Weisz for Constant Gardener

Those are my predictions, so feel free to use them and win your Oscar Pools!


A Killer of a movie..
I went to see Final Destination 3. It was the middle of the afternoon, and I was bored. I'm sorry I did. It was horrible. the "gore" wasn't, and I almost fell asleep during it. I can't think of a single redeeming factor for the movie. F-

Things are slowing down for me now, and I'm out of Vacation mode. I'll try and post more frequently.

Oscar Noms

I'm posting this at 5am My Local time. They are rehearsing the nominations announcement as we speak, using such great names as MILLION DOLLAR BABY as the potential nominees. This is false of course, but at 6:30am my local time, the real nominations will be announced. These are my guesses as to what till be nominated for best picture..

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
CAPOTE
CRASH
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
WALK THE LINE

My wildcard pick will be MUNICH.

I'll follow up after the nominations are announced, with my picks as well.

5:12am Calgary Time. Just got them in under the wire.

No movie has had MORE Debate around it

than Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain.

""You know I ain't queer," Ennis tells Jack after their first night together. "Me, neither," says Jack."

The most common way this movie is being described is it's "A Gay Cowboy Movie", which really oversimplifies it, and is totally unfair. The movie is about forbidden love.. it's the story of a time and place where two men are forced to deny the only great passion either one will ever feel. Their tragedy is universal. It could be about two women, or lovers from different religious or ethnic groups.

The movie doesn't try and give any message, it doesn't try to tell us "This is bad or good".. it does nothing but tell the story of these men. It stays on these men, never wavering, never looking at the big picture.

The movie starts in 1963, when Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) are about 19 years old and get a job tending sheep on a mountainside. Ennis is a boy of few words and he can barely open his mouth to release them; he learned to be guarded and fearful long before he knew what he feared. Jack, who has done some rodeo riding, is a little more outgoing. After some days have passed on the mountain and some whiskey has been drunk, they suddenly and almost violently have sex.
"This is a one-shot thing we got going on here," Ennis says. Jack agrees. But it's not.
Years pass. Both men get married. Then Jack goes to visit Ennis in Wyoming, and their undiminished urgency passion stuns them. Their lives settle down into a routine, punctuated less often than Jack would like by "fishing trips."

Make no doubt, in any other hands, Brokeback Mountain could have just been "a gay cowboy movie, but because the movie focuses so intently on the story of Jack and Ennis, it understands the individual characters, the more it applies to everyone. Hence, the story becomes a tragedy, the story of forbidden love, something that could never be. That what makes this movie deserving of all the praise it's getting, and will probably get it best picture this year.

Brokeback Mountain - A

Yes, I fully realize that I gave King Kong high marks as well. How can I give a movie like Brokeback Mountain and King King the same grade? Well, King Kong is a great POPCORN Movie. I never thought Kong is high drama.. it is what it is.. a matinee movie, something along the lines of early Spielberg. Brokeback Mountain gets an "A" for story, performances, and direction.