The Lady in the Water

"The Lady in the Water" is more than M. Night Shyamalan's worst movie. It is the worst movie of the year, and probably one of the worst movies of the past twenty-five years. Moreover, it is the movie that I have been waiting for, a movie that I could mercilessly lampoon and berate as stupid and indulgent. "The Lady in the Water" makes M. Night's previous debacle, "The Village," look like a masterpiece. There is not one saving grace or aspect in the entire movie. If you choose to see it, which you may if you love horrible movies, you will feel like you are watching a plane crash into a building or a typhoon hitting a poor Thai village. It is embarrassing for Shyamalan, who has previously shown great potential as a director, and even more embarrassing for the audience. Worst of all, Shyamalan, as evidenced from the plot of the movie, believes that he is a genius with a creative muse.

After watching "The Lady in the Water," one thing is abundantly clear: M. Night CANNOT WRITE SCRIPTS OR STORIES. He has the wit of a two year old and the screenwriting ability of a fetus---a fetus that is the product of a mother who drinks heavily and smokes marijuana. If M. Indian Shyamalan is going to salvage whats left of his career, he only must direct other people's stories and characters. To be sure, M. Night can direct well and create mood. But his talents are wasted on his own retarded stories. Besides not writing his own screenplays, I have two other pieces of advice for Shyamalan: First, you are not and will never be Alfred Hitchcock. Stop with the suprises and hackneyed suspense building. Second, you are a really bad filmmaker and should stop the indulgent practice of placing "M. Night Shyamalan's" before your movie titles. Only good directors can do that (Hitchcock, Fellini, Kubrik, etc). In your case, the only reason that you should put your name before the movie title is to alert people not see it (i.e.: M. Night Shyamalan's Next Shitfest Film."

The movie begins with one of Shyamalan's nonsensical fairytale openings which include a bunch of illogical and overly complex rules (like the villagers cannot display red colors because the creatures will get mad). We are told of the history between humanity and "the water people." Apparently, back in the good old days, humans and the water people were good buddies. In particular, the water people would give humans good advice which would help them live good moral lives. Then one day, humans stopped listening. They commenced wars, fenced off property, and created free market capitalism, which of course, has not helped anyone (well, except the poor through the creation of the welfare state----and the Arts by government subsidized projects---and science (most notably the space program through centralized planning---and human rights through cultural initiatives and the defeat of fascism and Communism). Without the water people, humanity did awful things, and the water people hid deeper in some sort of water world---not necessarily the ocean, but puddles, pools, and saliva. The main point is that even though humanity evolved from sea creatures to land animals in pursuit of more protein and sunlight, the "water people" are actually more evolved and in tune with the universe.

Every now and then, one of the water people known as a Narf (or Sea Nymph) appears in the world to help one person find the proverbial light. Even better, every millennia or so, a Madame Narf, who is like the Queen Narf, comes to earth and institutes profound change. The "Lady in the Water" is about a Queen Narf who comes to a Phiadelphia apartment complex pool in order to inspire one of its guests (we will get to who later). Alas, the narf cannot just pop out of a puddle and pontificate. She is constantly hunted by Scrunts, which are vicious wolves made of vines. However, the scrunt does not go unchecked; he is kept in line by three mohawked monkeys with the same name (it was so ridiculous, that I forgot the name). The scrunt cannot attack a narf when she has inspired the human and is awaiting a ride back to the water world from a giant eagle in the sky.

Those are the rules. Notice that I did not have to add much commentary to make them seem laughably stupid. Even though Shyamalan spends a great deal of the film elucidating these rules, the audience finds out an important fact: that a scrunt has decided to break all the rules and attack a poor narf illegally. Thus, the rules are totally useless and have little if any impact on the story.

That said, a queen Narf is sent into the pool of the aptly named "The Cove" apartment complex. The super, played by the talented Paul Giamatti, finds out about her, takes her in, and tries to decipher the puzzle. Oh yes, did I mention that Giamatti's character is named Cleveland Heep? Have you ever heard of a more contrived name? Does Cleveland Heep live on 123 Fake Street? If he does, I wouldn't be surprised given Shyamalan's ear for names. But wait there's more: The Queen Narf's name is Story! Let me repeat. The name of the central character of an alleged bed time story is.......Story. Why not just call her "Central Character" or "protagonist" or "Jane Doe" or "Edith Everywoman?" By the way, if you are still on the fence about this movie, if you do not quite believe that this movie will be horrible, stay tuned!

Despite Paul Giamatti's annoying name, there is something even worse about his character. It seems that Cleveland Heep (cringes) has a stuttering problem. While this would normally make you feel sympathy for a character, Mr. Heep's stuttering is so off the wall that it sounds like he is choking to death every few minutes. I cannot describe the feeling of sitting in a movie theater and witnessing 100 or so people laughing every time a main character stuttered. One really has to question why Paul Giamatti agreed to act in this film. He has been a trendy pick as of late, especially after his commendable roles in "Sideways" and "American Splendor." I guess the answer is simple. People will do anything if the price is right.

Cleveland Heep (cringes) tries to help the new found Narf but is foiled by the attacks of a scrunt. He later goes around to all of the tenants for advice. One of the recurring themes of Shyamalan's movies is acceptance of the bizarre. "The Cove" is presented as an allegorical collection of different races and cultures living and working together for common goals. However, much to my enjoyment, Shyamalan ends up asserting the broad stereotypes that mark a shallow, unsophisticated, and bigoted society. There is the superstitious Mexican family who prays alot and becomes scared at the drop of the hat. There are stoners who are unproductive. There are Japanese people who can barely speak English. There is a Jewish family who obsesses about their digestive movements. There is the dumb black kid that doesn't know anything valuable (talk about racial stereotypes). There is a jock who only works out his one arm for some reason---presumably to improve his already chronic masturbating schedule. Interestingly enough, the movie even has a resident movie critic character who comments on how stupid and contrived it is (though this is done by the critic poking fun at movies that he is currently reviewing which bear strong resemblance to Shyamalan's work).

After going into the swimming pool, finding the Narf's house, retrieving some medicine for her wounds, and breathing under water for 15 minutes or so, Heep tries to find the person whom she must inspire. Let's stop for a moment. What is the corniest thing you can think of right now? Who can the Narf inspire? Why, M. Night Shyamalan, of course! I am not kidding. M. Night Shyamalan has chosen to transcend his normal Hitchcockean cameos and become a supporting actor in his own movie. Better yet, the Narf is meant to inspire Shyamalan's character who is writing "about what's wrong with the world and stuff." Hidden behind the movie's plot is the indulgent arrogant thought of Shyamalan that he is a brilliant storyteller who is inspired by almost divine muses. The funny aspect of this subconscious assertion is that Shyamalan is not only bad; he is really awful. I don't know who these muses are that visit him, but M. Night should really ignore them. In any case, Shyamalan is inspired by the Narf to write an important political book that will change the future. But the problem still remains: how do we safely get the Narf back to the water world?

After some searching, Heep finds the Japanese family that barely speaks English. For some reason, even though sea nymphs and wolves represent classical symbolism found in Greek Mythology, an ASIAN woman knows the bed time story and explains it to Cleveland. Besides telling him what the audience already knows from the beginning, the Japanese woman adds to the legend: if the Narf cannot get back safely, there are predestined humans who can help her: the healer, the protector, and the guild. MORE RULES? Haven't we had enough? These rules prove that Shyamalan is not s storyteller, but a conveyor of makeshift mastabatory horseshit. There is no genuine attempt to understand all of the characters or their predicament. There is no attempt to solidify any story. M. Night Shyamalan's movies are simply an attempt for him to scare the audiences with wolves around the corner and various other cheap surprises.

I won't even tell you the ending because you already know it. Needless to say, the people of "the Cove" engage in more confusing and nonsensical actions until the movie culminates. When you do see the end, you will jump out of your seat like a psychopath and demand your money back. It is that bad.

Shyamalan has reported that "The Lady in the Water" was based on a bedtime story that he created for his daughters. Furthermore, as evidenced through the assertions of several of the characters, the movie is also M. Night's manifesto on storytelling: that we must suspend our thinking and just believe in the unbelievable. We all must approach his movies like an awed child. The above statements are ironic because "The Lady in the Water" is not even entertaining by children's standards. It is the work of a lunatic who is so full of himself that he will not revise or even question the quality of what he is doing. If M. Night thinks of it, it must be good! Sadly, judging by his last several movies, the adage should be the opposite: If M. Night thought of it, it is going to be horrendous. I would really love to know what Shyamalan's daughters thought of the bed time story. Did it put them to sleep or did it incite blind anger? In the end, a bed time story is the perfect thing to call this movie. It was made up as M. Night went along and although it is meant to entertain for a short while, it inevitably ends up putting the audience to sleep with dreams of a better day on the horizon. I'm sorry M. Night. You put me to sleep and I cannot dream that a better movie is on the horizon.

1.0 (Avoid this movie like the plague)

Scoop

"Scoop" is not the best Woody Allen movie. It is not on the level of "Annie Hall" or even "Match Point." But it is a fun and interesting movie. It is like a short story by an author who has previously created master works. Woody Allen has undeniable wit as a screenwriter. He also has a strange dichotomy as an actor; audiences juggle the fact that he is both annoying and likeable. Without a doubt, in one of the most disappointing movie summers in recent memory, "Scoop" stands as one of the best films of the season.

The movie begins with a hilarious Woody Allen conception of death. People are sailing on a boat captained by the Grim Reaper. The passengers exchange funny quips about what happened to them and how they died. One passenger asserts that she knew that a British aristocrat was the famed "tarot card killer." A reporter overhears this conversation and jumps off the boat. He eventually appears as an apparition to a young and slutty college journalist played by Scarlett Johansson and gives her the scoop of the century. It is worth noting that Allen has made Johansson into a legitimate actress. Beginning with her role in "Match Point," she has learned comedic timing and how to become a character instead of imitating one. With the help of an aging and neurotic magician, played by Woody Allen (are you surprised?), the young reporter searches for the killer and seduces people that she suspects.

The story is filled with classic Woody Allen screenwriting: "I was born of the Hebrew persuasion, but I have recently converted to narcissism." All in all, this is a very enjoyable movie that will have you curious and laughing. I will go to see and probably enjoy everyfuture Woody Allen movie, even if it is not an "Annie Hall."

4.5

Great Movie: JFK

"JFK" is not only one of the most interesting movies that I have ever seen, it is also a paragon of technique and filmmaking. The movie also proves that when Oliver Stone makes a movie about the 1960's, he is almost infallible (see "The Doors," "Platoon," or "Born on the Fourth of July.") In its time (1992), "JFK" was very controversial. Several famous journalists called it a wacky conspiracy theory that had more speculations than truth. However, to view "JFK" like a History Channel special is to miss the point entirely. Oliver Stone is not very adept at fact (see "Alexander," his blunderbuss of a movie). Instead, like many talented directors, he is skilled in emotion and complexity. "JFK" is not asking its audience to believe 100% of its assertions. It is asking us to recall the emotions felt by America on November 22, 1963. More importantly, it is demanding that we always challenge authority in the pursuit of truth. "JFK" is not a source of truth, but it is an exercise in complexity of cause and situation. In my opinion, this movie stands at the apex of using film to explain complicated historical inquiries (notice I wrote inquiries and not fact).

From the moment that John Williams' beautiful score begins to play its military drums , you will be hooked. Stone brilliantly portrays Kennedy's assassination as a military execution. We are shown pictures of Kennedy riding in his limousine to his eventual demise. Additionally, Stone gives us a brief history lesson, which acts as an overview of the events that will come into play later on. He presents us with introductory snippets that will make more sense at the end of the movie. Cinematically, the audience will be taken from 1963, where everything was a bundle of confusion, to 1968 where a lone district attorney has begun to make sense of all the small tidbits and the nearly impossible complexity. This tactic, which is only five or so minutes into the movie, is inspired and engaging.

The main outline of the story goes like this: Kennedy is shot in Dallas Texas. A district attorney named Jim Garrison in New Orleans is left with an uneasy feeling after the government submitted the Warren Report, which asserted that a lone assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy from the Texas Book Depository on Dealey Plaza. Garrison begins to investigate and comes upon an intricate web of interesting facts. Eventually, Garrison forms his own theory which asserts that Cuban exiles, angry military leaders, and the mafia all conspired together to murder a President who shook up conservative government policy, especially in regards to Cuba.

At this point of the review, it is necessary to take a step back and reflect on how difficult it is for a filmmaker to portray the above story. Stone has two contradictory objectives. First, he must show the confusion, dead ends, unanswered questions, and slow progression with which Garrison comes upon his theories. Second, he must also present the vast amount of information in a coherent form for the audience to understand by the end of the movie. Furthermore, the information to be included sometimes only fits together by small strands of logical thinking or speculation. In a way, just as Garrison must prove his case in front of the jury by the end of the film, so must Stone make his case by using primary evidence.

In a movie that has many great attributes, it is the landmark editing that stands as the best aspect. Through small flashbacks and recreations of intricate events (such as the day of the shooting) intertwined with present events (such as Garrison's investigation and the trial of Clay Shaw at the end), the audience is able to understand the growing body of information that explains Kennedy's assassination. Moreover, the chaotic nature of the splices makes the audience understand the just anger with which Oliver Stone made the film. We realize how the government took advantage of pandemonium and fear in order to nonsensically assert that one gunman killed Kennedy. To give an example: in a segment discussing Lee Harvey Oswald's past and how the men who killed Kennedy set him up as a patsee, Stone splices in shots of an unknown person fabricating the famous Time Magazine photo of Oswald holding a shotgun and a Communist newspaper. In effect, as Garrison explains the set up, the audience is shown a metaphorical yet real comparison. My favorite part of the film is the final trial of Clay Shaw. November 22, 1963 is reconstructed in the courtroom and in a long live action sequence. The audience is shown what probably happened, what could have happened, and what the government asserted happened.

Jim garrison is an odd yet fitting person to have as the hero of the movie. On one hand, he a rogue district attorney from Louisiana who investigates a crime out of his jurisdiction using resources of his home state and commences a questionable prosecution against a man suspected (at best) of being a CIA contractor. In short, because of his location and choice to prosecute someone without smoking gun evidence, Garrison is not a very good lawyer in the case. On the other hand, given the movie's anger against the government, Garrison represents every man who searches for truth. He speaks for all of us when he asks what happened to our President in 1963 and why the government was not forthcoming about it. Despite a competent but not stellar performance by Kevin Costner, Stone does a fantastic job of making us respect and even empathize with Garrison, even if he is acting beyond his jurisdiction.

The only aspect of the movie that has come under fire after its release is its validity. Legitimate journalists panned Stone for engaging in a crazy conspiracy theory with little or no evidence. Perhaps the best example of Stone reaching to prove his points is the part of the movie involving Mr. X, an ex-military general who provides evidence that high ranking military leaders (which may or may not include Lyndon Johnson) had Kennedy killed to commence a coup de etat of conservative foreign and domestic policy in America. Admittedly, I also question the movie's validity on this point. However, I am not sure that Stone is providing a documentary on JFK in this movie. Stone's purpose is to provide all of the information whether valid or not in order to demonstrate what the public did not know and what we should have questioned after Kennedy's death. Thus, Mr. X is not fact; he is an indication that we should investigate all leads in a crime, even if they produce a dead end.

After "JFK" premiered in the early 1990's, the House of Representaives released a number of documents that actually proved many (but not all) of the assertions in the movie. Oswald was more than a lone gunman; he was a military trained communist defector. The CIA had many covert operations with unquestioned and unlimited funding. An angry group of Cuban exiles funded by the CIA could have planned the assassination. The government covered up many parts of the investigation because of its unknown support of this CIA terror cell. In the end, Oliver Stone has not proven who killed John F. Kennedy on that balmy day in November. But what he has done is capture a nation's anger and frustration. He has encouraged viewers to leap out of the dark and search for answers. Stone used "JFK" to get the ball rolling. In the process, he has created one of the best made and most memorable movies in American cinema.

5.0

Superman Returns

"Superman Returns" is an odd remake. It purposely tries to recreate much of the first movie with Christopher Reeves. In fact, the actor portraying Superman resembles Reeves, especially when he is Clark Kent. The other interesting aspect of the remake is that it had no purpose except to display an amazing array of special effects. We do not learn anything new about Superman or realize any insight into his character. Instead, we are presented with a laughable one dimensional character who wears an infantile suit and floats around like a pixie. I really wish that Superman had not returned. Everything that was good and entertaining about this movie did not involve the man of steel.

To be sure, despite the horrible acting and the terrible story (which I will deal with in a moment), the special effects are astounding---the best that I have seen since Peter Jackson's "King Kong." The movie begins with a long (and I mean long) credit sequence. The audience takes a very impressive ride through space, dodging asteroids, circling planets, and escaping black holes. But even though this sequence is enjoyable, what the hell does it have to do with Superman? Some guesses: He is from a planet far away. He often takes a sojourn into space. The closet reason I can figure for the space odyssey is to demonstrate Superman's trip back to Krypton. The opening premise of the movie is that scientists found the remains of Krypton and Superman leaves his life with Lois Lane in search for his home planet. After finding nothing, Superman returns to earth and finds that Metropolis has gone haywire. Lex Luthor was let out of jail because Superman was not in court to testify against him (I will not even discuss the myriad of legal questions this plotline raises). Lois Lane has been seeing another guy and has a child. Thus, even though the yellow sun of the earth makes Superman impenetrable to all earthly obstacles, he still must struggle with love, intimacy, and life choices. Yawn.

Lex Luthor was played by Kevin Spacey, the star of excellent films like "The Usual Suspects" and "American Beauty." Spacey does a very decent and often good portrayal of Luthor. However, as Johnny Depp discovered in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," it is damn near impossible to play a character that was depicted perfectly the first time. Depp did not compare to Gene Wilder's dark Willy Wonka. Likewise, Spacey, although good, does not compare to Gene Hackman's Luthor in the original films. The trick to playing a good villain is that you have to be diabolical as well as likeable, the best example being Hannibal Lecter from "The Silence of the Lambs." Gene Hackman played Luthor as an arrogant genius who was so idiosyncratic that he became almost comical. Spacey played Luthor too straight, which makes us dislike him. Arrogance with no self-deprecation creates animosity. We see Spacey's intelligence, but we do not see his resolve or his humanity.

Luthor and his Otis-like female companion, played by Parker Posey, hatch a new plot to control the world and defeat Superman. After somehow discovering Superman's Fortress of Solitude in the Arctic, Luthor finds magic crystals which he somehow knows how to use. He plans to drop the crystals in the Atlantic Ocean and create a new continent from a chemical reaction. The land mass will displace water which will flood the USA and Europe. According to Luthor, people will flock to his continent to buy real estate and he will become rich enough to control the world. Best of all, the island will be partially made of Kryptonite, which will chase off any signs of Superman.

I had two problems with the plot. First, why does Luthor assume that people will want to inhabit a jagged Krypton-like land mass full of stalagmites and stalactites. Beautiful beach front property? I think not. Second, despite the overestimation of how many people will flock to Luthor's Island, the Kryptonite land idea is very good. Luthor, as well as other criminals, will never have to deal with Superman again! My problem with this realization is that the plan does not work. Moreover, after seeing "Superman Returns," I really have to wonder if Kryptonite can actually kill Superman. In the movie, Superman flies onto the island, is stabbed in the gut with jagged Kryptonite, falls into water for 10 minutes, and lifts the island of Krytonite into space at the finale. Here's my question: how then does Kryptonite kill Superman? How long does it take? Luthor stabbed him with Kryptonite for crying out loud! What more do you have to do?

The worst plotline of the film was not Luthor's plan; it was every segment involving Lois Lane and Superman. Again, the actress playing the frisky reporter could not stand up to Margot Kidder's performance in the first film. Likewise, the no-name actor playing Superman really perturbed me as well. Is Superman supposed to be a pretty boy? I did not sense strength and power from Superman (as portrayed by Christopher Reeves). I sensed weakness, artfulness, and oversensitivity. Superman did not fly like a speeding bullet. He loitered in the air like a hummingbird. At a time when comic book movies are being taken seriously,"Superman Returns" needed a strong actor to play the lead role---someone who has the charisma and ability to embody the superhero's talents and mystique.

My final quip is the love story between Superman and Lois Lane. I understand why Batman maintains love interests. He is human and has an aura of dark mystery. In contrast, Superman is an alien with powers that exceed those of humanity. He wears bright colored pajamas and has no witty phrases or mystery to make him attractive. Superman is an outcast, a loner, a hermit. I do not understand why Superman would need a woman (would he not become frustrated with their frail human form?) and why any woman would want Superman. In "Superman Returns," Superman's lust and love produce a child. Apparently, it is possible to pass on the "I'm super under the yellow sun" gene. It is also clear that although Superman is an alien with a different genetic makeup, he can easily impregnate an earth woman. Scientific? NO. Entertaining? NO. Unnecessary? YES!

Oh yeah---one final point of annoyance. And I am very annoyed by the fact that no one, even upon speculation, can figure out that Superman and Clark Kent are the same person. Glasses and a different hairstyle really make the difference.

In the end, it is worth the ticket price to see "Superman Returns" (especially on IMAX) just for three action sequences: the beginning, a plane crash scene, and Lex Luthor's continental exploits. However, take notice that Superman was not present for two of the sequences. In the plane crash scene, although he did save the passengers by flying them to safety, we would have been just as entertained if it had crashed. "Superman Returns" is a good no-brainer, summer action movie.

3.2 (special effects played a huge role in this rating)

Great Movie: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Where did the human race begin? Where have we been? Where are we going? These are the profound questions tackled by Stanley Kubrik in "2001: A Space Odyssey," which in my opinion is the most intelligent and best directed film ever made. It is no secret that Kubrik films are dense and sometimes difficult to watch. He has a different conception of storytelling which deals more with themes and emotion rather than straight plot. The secret to watching 2001 or any Kubrik film is twofold. First, make sure you are relaxed and ready to commit 2-3 hours to the movie. If you are rushed or have other things on your mind, you will be distracted and bored. Second, and more importantly, watch Kubrik movies at least twice. I cannot recall a Kubrik movie that I liked the first time that I saw it. The style and story needs time to grow on you. Additionally, you will need time to process all of the complex themes thrown at you. That said, when you see 2001 for the second time, you will leave your seat appreciating both the grandeur and emptiness of the universe.

2001 is more than a science-fiction film. It is Kubrik's masterpiece that deals with his greatest fear: death, lonliness, and humanity's overwhelming need to create meaning. Moreover, it is a comment on evolution. Even though tools have helped us develop and create life, they have also either lead to death and destruction or have been useless in our greatest battle against death. In 2001, Kubrik shows us the dual nature and interconnectedness of all things.

Stanley Kubrik is the only person who could have conceived and directed this film. The task is daunting to say the least. Kubrik must show us our roots and a world we have never seen. Additionally, later in the film, he must show us a future that we have not yet experienced. Finally, he must create an emotional attachment to both of these worlds. This ambitious project along with the fact that it is successful is why 2001 is probably the best film in the history of cinema.

It is important to note that Stanley Kubrik has stated publically that there is no central interpretation of "2001: A Space Odyssey." Like any true artist, Kubrik wanted to create a vague canvass vibrant with ambiguities and strong symbolism. Our task as an audience is to take away from 2001 what we want to; that is the beauty of art. Below, I offer my own interpretation.

The movie begins with an overture, which could symbolize the big bang or the mysterious circumstances in which the universe was created. We are shown beautiful images of an empty planet earth. After a few moments (symbolic for world history), our ape ancestors suddenly appear. They are small tribes of herbivores that fight each other for other resources like water and high ground. This state of nature is difficult and dangerous; constant predators and other tribes threaten life and security. As the apes seem to be dying of a poor diet and threats from all around, they are awakened by the sound and presence of a mysterious black monolith. The apes approach the monolith with awe and fear. They finally touch the stone, which points up the moon.

The directing in this part of the film, as well as the other monolith scenes, is outstanding. The use of bizarre music (Legetti concierto) and the images instill a sense of urgency and wonder within the audience. The monoliths are placed in the universe by an alien intelligence or God. Kubrik does not answer the question of where the monoliths came from, a choice that allows us to speculate about our own origins. The monolith symbolizes an evolutionary obstacle. The apes must find a way to sustain life and grow as a species or they will die. In the next scene, an ape figures out how to use a bone as a tool. As he smashes the bone onto other bones, we can see the future consequence: animals fall to the earth and are devoured for protein. Meat allows apes to sustain themselves more efficiently and increase the size of their brains. However, the bones also becomes weapons which lead to death and destruction.

As the ape throws the bone into the air, it stunningly morphs into a spaceship, showing man's progression to the present day. The audience is taken on a short tour of earth's surrounding space set to Strauss' waltz. We are able to see the uniform and rational beauty of the universe. The spacecrafts seem to glide elegantly. Humanity finds another monolith on the moon (where the other one was pointing). This time, the stone is pointing toward Jupiter.

Following the directions of the monolith, man sets out on an ambitious voyage to Jupiter, which composes of 2 crew members, 4 members in hibernation, and the HAL 9000 computer, which runs the basic controls of the ship. It is worth a pause to reflect on the nature of the HAL 9000 computer. He is the most advanced tool ever created by humanity. HAL has many attributes of a human being: he has emotions, the capacity for thought, and most importantly, the capacity for good and evil. The question remains what gave HAL these attributes? Is he reflective of humanity (especially in the capacity for good and evil)? Is rational machinery inherently evil? Kubrik creates an interesting enemy with HAL. As the result of automated machinery, man is weakened into an almost nonexistent state. The men sit around and exercise for no reason other than to maintain their health.

Despite HAL"s similiarity to human beings, he still does not possess what makes humanity special: curiousity, artistry, ingenuity, and the ability to tell right from wrong. Halfway into the voyage, HAL reasons that the crew can only impede the mission given their frail form. HAL hatches a plot to lure the astronauts out of the ship with talk of a broken antenna. In a fantastically shot scene, HAL kills one of the crew members and leaves him floating in space. The other crew member tries to save him, but HAL prohibits both of them from returning to the ship. What HAL could not reason was man's bravery, persistence, and ingenuity. The crew member, who has no helmet, opens an emergency hatch and gains entrance. He then disconnects HAL, who pleads for mercy. This scene is odd and further questions how human HAL was. Furthermore, it is another example of how technology can bring life and death. In any case, the lone crew member reaches Jupiter and beholds the third monolith.

Without the use of tools, the third monolith takes the last crew member on a journey into the infinite. In order to show this voyage, Kubrik develops a new technique of shooting lasers and light into the camera to give a three dimensional effect. Combined with the music, the light journey is one of the most beautiful scenes ever captured on film.

The crew member is taken to a well adorned room. This space is largely symbolic and is meant to portray Kubrik's final point. The man sees a montage of his life from astronaut to old age and then to death. There is a part where a wine glass falls over and breaks, which symbolizes the separation between container and substance, or spirit and body. The man is on his deathbed and reaches again for a fourth monolith. He is then transformed into a star child who hovers in space almost like a celestial body. This scene is the most abstract one in the movie and is open to the most interpretation. Perhaps our next evolutionary step is to return to the awe and wonder of a human child. For me, the star child is a spiritual existence that is at one with the universe. Most importantly, the star child is a triumph over death, a feat that tools could not help humanity achieve. It is postulated by Arthur Clarke, the author of 2001, that for every star in the sky could lie the spirit of a past human being.

There are many reasons why "2001: A Space Odyssey" can be called a masterpiece or the best movie ever made, the writing, the directing, the special effects, the progressive structure of the story. However, I think it remains the best living film because it deals with the most important subject possible: humanity's odyssey through time, space, and one day, form.

5.0 (American Farmer's Pick for Best Picture)

Great Movie: Rushmore

It is a very special thing when you see yourself in a movie character. I see myself in Max Fisher, the teenage hero of "Rushmore." Max, played by the incomprable Jason Schwartzmann, is not the smartest student at his high school. But what he lacks in academic ability, he has in ambition and charisma. The movie chronicles his rise and fall and his realization of who he is. In the end, Max, like all of us, must come to terms with his natural gifts and limitations. He learns that ambition can only carry you so far. This profound insight breathed in the story written by Wes Anderson is one of the many reasons why I consider "Rushmore" to be original and provocative.

"Rushmore" is the second movie made by director/writer Wes Anderson and writer/actor Owen Wilson. Their first movie, "Bottle Rocket," is a cult favorite, but represents Anderson's formative stage. It was not until "Rushmore" that Wes Anderson really comes into his own as a director and finds his voice. His style includes gaudy dialogue, obsessive external detail of characters, the use of ambient but poignant music, and the juxtaposition of the sad with the funny and the genius with the fatal flaw. Anderson's movies are very much like a picture novel. The characters seem to be drawn in pastels while their words have the feel of a trendy literary work.

The plot is simple, yet strange. Max grows weary of starting clubs at his high school and of his dreams of being popular. He reevaluates his plans and decides to find and pursue a girl. However, a high school girlfriend his own age is not good enough for Max. He sets his sights on an odd, haunting teacher named Miss Cross. Max researches and begins to flirt with her. He finds out that she is recently widowed. In a series of scenes that transcends our traditional idea of what is age appropriate, Max persistently courts Miss Cross and, in my opinion, gets her to love him by the end of the movie. Still, the age difference is a limitation that Max must come to grips with by the end as well (Cut to the last scene and watch how Miss Cross looks at him when they are dancing). Miss Cross loves him but she will never say it out loud.

At the heart of "Rushmore" is the friendship between Max, the ambitious young student, and Herman Blume, a disaffected and depressed millionaire. Blume is played by the brilliant Bill Murray in his first serious role that has given rise to his new persona seen in movies like "Lost in Translation."Interestingly, both Blume and Max seem to be the same. They understand each other's motives and even fall in love with the same woman. The only difference between them is age. In fact, my interpretation is that Max represents Blume when he was younger while Blume represents what Max will become when he gets older. Blume is a warning to Max. He is the result of years of blind ambition: a cheating wife, 2 horrible kids, more money than he knows what to do with, and an empty, almost pointless life.

By the end of the movie, Max accepts his fate in the world. He is the son of a barber, not a neurosurgeon. His talent, which stems from his ambitious rise and fall, is putting on plays and sharing his views of life, not becoming President or a diplomat. His sweetheart is a smart, caring classmate named Margaret Yang, not a teacher twice his age.

"Rushmore" is a master work of mainstream independent film. In addition to being rich in life lessons, it is also very funny (imagine a kid talking on equal terms to adults). It is a must see for fans of Wes Anderson and for fans of good movies.

5.0

Strangers with Candy

My review for "Strangers with Candy" will sound like the answer to an LSAT problem: some but not all. The latest work of Amy Sedaris will leave some people in stitches and others madly confused. The movie has a bizarre sense of humor. After all, its main character, Jerri Blank, is a middle aged former prostitute who decides to go back to high school in an effort to cure her comatose father. Although I enjoyed this movie very much, I can see how many people would hate it. It is not for the average movie-goer. The movie is meant for fans of the cult TV show, seasoned verterans of gaudy movies, and those who like weird off-beat comedies. If you fit the above audience, you will enjoy Stephen Colbert as he plays a spinoff of his conservative character on the Colbert Report. You will enjoy the parody of a John Hughes rite to passage student body. You will enjoy an African American Principal named Mr. Blackman and his collection of weird phrases. Finally, you will enjoy Amy Sedaris' disturbed sense of humor. If you are not in the audience that I described above, you will be left vacillating in a sea of unbearable bordem.

4.0

Pirates of the Caribbean II: Dead Man's Chest

The Pirates of the Caribbean movies are the damnedest things. They have awful stories that sound as if they were written by a two year old. Most of the actors, particularly Orlando Bloom, exhibit less than stellar performances. Finally, the movie trudges along in almost an infantile atmosphere. Characters are chased around by skeletons or giant hermit crabs. Yet, I was still entertained by this movie. In fact, I was excited to see it and charmed when I left the theater. What accounts for the mixture of affable feelings and intellectual disgust? I think I have the answer. First, the movies have style. The sets are neat, the costumes are effective, and the childhood monsters have a feeling of whimsy and fun. Second, Johnny Depp, Johnny Deep, and Johnny Depp! The movie utilizes one of the best character actors (and indeed, one of the best all around actors) to its advantage. Johnny Depp has created the most interesting pirate in the history of cinema. Although Captain jack Sparrow is a grizzled veteran of the seas, he is also afeminant and has a penchant for trapping himself in compromising situations. No matter what Captain Sparrow does, the audience is enthralled by this reactions. In sum, if it were not for Depp, who commits so deeply to his character, and for a tiny bit of style, these pirate movies would be a joke.

The second installment of Pirates of the Caribbean (there will be three in the series) has an easy plot that seems more complicated than it really is. Orlando Bloom wants to get married to his anorexic bride, Kiera Knightly. However, a Lord (we have no idea who he is) stops the wedding and arrests them. The Lord strikes a deal. In order for Bloom and his bride to get freedom, they must chase down their old friend, Captain Jack Sparrow, and steal one of his possessions. The other half of the plot is that Jack Sparrow is searching for something called the Dead Man's Chest. In his way is the amphibious Davy Jones, who captains a ship of sea creatures. The movie ends on an unsure note, forcing us to see the third movie to find out what happens. That is plot. I am not kidding.

The most perplexing aspect of the movie is the fact that it manages to be entertaining despite the fact that almost everything in the movie is awful. First, Johnny Depp does not have nearly enough lines. In the first movie, Depp's character was embedded in our minds through witty phrases and insults. In the second movie, Johnny does more prancing than talking. Second, Orlando Bloom is a one dimensional character; we neither love nor hate him. We do not care whether he lives or dies. The third movie will need someone better to carry the second main character. Third, a question that continues to haunt me: why are all the pirates in these movies of a supernatural kind? Finally, I was really annoyed at the constant allusions to the pirates ride in Disney World (like the dog holding the prison guys). It is time to treat this adventure for what it is: a movie and not a novelty.

Despite the above problems, which included a dumb plot, I still enjoyed this movie. Somehow, perhaps through the charisma that radiates from Johnny Depp onto everyone else, the movie entertains and puts a smile on your face. You forget that the plot is witless. You forget that Johnny Deep is fighting big hermit crabs. The movie pulls you into its nonsensical corny world and does not let go. Where the plot lacks, two things step in to take its place. First, the audience wants to see what will happen to Captain Jack next and his reactions to it. Second, because the movie is so ridiculously over-the-top, it becomes a morality play between the forces of good and evil. Even though we do not care about Orlando Bloom, we know he's the good guy. Even more interestingly, within this working reality play, we have two gray characters, Captain Sparrow and Captain Barbossa (aptly played by the talented Geoffrey Rush). Are they good guys? Are they bad guys? Are they a mix of both? The movie coalesces everything bad and good into a very enjoyable experience.

Was Pirates 2 as good as the first one? Not quite. Was it enjoyable? Yes. Will we all scramble to see the third one next year? You bet!

4.0

The Devil Wears Prada

We have all been there: the miserable world of internships--making little money performing meaningless unwanted tasks. I think "The Devil Wears Prada" captures this world quite well. I must confess that I was worried when I decided to attend this movie. I have little or no interest in fashion; I am not an Anne Hathaway fan, especially if she is fully clothed; and the movie seemed to attract the kind of people that I despise. However, taking a chance at a time when there was nothing else in the theaters proved to be a good decision. In short, the movie is not great, it is not bad, but it is just right.

Anne Hathaway plays Andrea, a recent college graduate who applies for many jobs and internships in New York. After some disappointment, she finally lands an interview at Runway Magazine, which has Vogue as its real-world inspiration. Andrea shows up to the interview and confesses to the snobby receptionist, and later to the editor, that she has no interest in fashion and that her plan is actually to be a newspaper columnist. In a bold move, the editor, played by Meryl Streep, hires Andrea to give her a chance in fashion. To pause for a moment: I liked the story already. Being a recent college graduate, and a former slave to legal work, I understand fully how someone can apply to hundreds of jobs even if they have no interest in them. Furthermore, I liked how the editor applied cultural affirmative action to hire Andrea. A year in the working world will demonstrate that those who get coveted jobs often do not deserve them.

In a string of interesting plot developments and interesting characters, Andrea is sucked into the world of fashion and into a world of indentured servitude to the editor. I really liked how Andrea, who had no interest in fashion, becomes a fashion snob. Often times, our jobs force us to take an interest in what we are doing, even if we would not be otherwise interested in it. Andrea becomes what she despises, a shallow self-obsessed Barbie Doll. I also liked how Andrea's job slowly but surely took over her life. This "work becomes your life" mentality has been growing in popularity these days, especially at law firms and investment banks.

Until now, I have put off discussing the best part of the movie: Meryl Streep. She plays the ogress who represents the ultimate "work is my life" woman. Streep brilliantly plays the part with a dichotomy. On one hand, she is successful, famous, and respected. On the other hand, she is lonely, a failure in personal relationships, and just downright mean. Although Andrea was seduced by the success half of Streep's character, she finally sees the editor for who she is at the end.

I enjoyed this movie. It is about more than the fashion world. It is about internships and the cultural rise of successful yet empty people.

3.8

Nacho Libre

Let's get to the point: This movie was awful. It was fruitless, pointless, and tasteless. I really do not know who to point my finger at first: the producer for making it, the director, the actors, or the writers. Nacho Libre is about a fat monk, played by the mostly humorous Jack Black, who dreams of escaping his mundane life as a monastery cook to become a luchador (a professional wrestler). The movie was directed, written, and produced by the same clowns who brought us "Napoleon Dynamite." The style in "Napoleon Dynamite" was forcibly carried over to "Nacho Libre"; the audience is forced to meet a plethora of bizarre, over-the-top characters. Nacho meets an ape-like homeless man who becomes his tag team partner. Nacho wrestles angry dwarfs in the ring. Nacho wrestles admidst a stereotypically Spanish audience (greasy, dark skinned men with John Waters mustaches). While this type of cast worked in "Napoleon Dynamite" (Indeed, we all know the quiet weird nerds in high school), it failed miserably in "Nacho Libre" (We cannot empathize with weird Spanish people because most Americans have not traveled abroad).

Although the entire movie was a waste of time, money, and a movie screen, there are certain small parts that are worth mentioning. First, it was a shame to see Jack Black, who has performed well in other comedies, lower himself to the common denominator. Additionally, I wanted to punch him in the face for using that ridiculously annoying accent. Second, it was maddening but also laughable, that the director tried to shoot the film "legitimately" by borrowing many techniques from the esteemed Wes Anderson (close-ups on gaudy objects and details). Speaking as someone who loves Wes Anderson, and holds "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" in his pantheon of great movies, "Nacho Libre" was a petty attempt to be original and interesting when it was neither.

For those of you who liked "Napoleon Dynamite" (I did), Nacho Libre will be a huge disappointment. It is not as funny, original, or entertaining. In fact, it is flippin' terrible. Avoid this movie at all costs.

1.5

Classic Farmer

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

I am not going to hide the fact that I think Wes Anderson is a genius. His movies, which include "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" are among the wittiest, best directed, and most enjoyable films that I have ever seen. What is great about Anderson is not only his sense of comedy and tragedy, but also his attention to detail. Recently, I bought the Criterion Collection DVD of "The Royal Tenenbaums," which came with a small insert of Wes Anderson's drawings of his stage sets and costumes. Indeed, those of you who are fans can attest that every frame of film is color coordinated and meticiously crafted to convey a theme or idea. I awaited the release of "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" from the very day I read that it was in production. I mean, come on: Bill Murray stars in an epic sea adventure around the world!

Put simply, "The Life Aquatic" is a post-modern masterpiece. Ironically, it is a film that scoffs at other current films. More interestingly, it is a modern retelling of Herman Melville's Moby-Dick. Now, I know what you are thinking; I just said a mouthful. To say that this film is post-modern and connected to Moby-Dick evokes loaded, even cliched ideas. However, I have come prepared. To make sure that I understood the movie, and also just out of pure enjoyment, I saw the movie twice. I would like to examine each of my statements individually, and make some side comments in between about other parts of Anderson's achievement.

First, there is the post-modernism. When I read the reviews for "The Life Aquatic," specifically Roger Ebert's, I knew that the film was going to be highly experimental and artsy. Even though I find myself agreeing with Ebert on so many movies (Lost in Translation, etc) I know that he often misses the underlying beauty and commentary of some movies. With "The Life Aquatic," Ebert fails to see the mocking undertone of what Anderson was trying to do. Instead, the fat man judges the movie as if it were in a vacuum. That is the central problem Ebert makes; he overlooks the fact that the unifying principle in all Wes Anderson movies is that art mimicks life and life, in turn, mimicks art. Let's dive into what I mean (no pun intended).

"The Life Aquatic" centers around Steve Zissoun an aging, maybe evn washed up oceanographer. However, Zissou's character is more than that synopsis. He is an artist who documents his sea adventures on film in very colorful and contrived documentaries. This is key. Throughout the movie, Zissou acts as if he is in an ongoing drama both in his professional and personal life. That said, here is the basic plot: During one of his routine film projects, Steve and his friend Esteban are attacked by a huge unidentified animal known as a "jaguar shark." Esteban is eaten and Zissou, though tramuatized, lives to tell the tale. As his next project, Zissou plans to hunt down the shark that kills Esteban and kill it. To throw things into the mix, Zissou meets a guy that is probably his son (played by Owen Wilson). To take a required digression: one of Anderson's greates talents is his comedic eye for social ridiculousness, at least when it comes to social titles. In any case, the story develops as Zissou and his crew set out to find the elusive jaguar shark.

Zissou's quest is filled with stunning (and I mean stunning) visual scenes. The light blue shirts and red hats of the crew mix beautifully with backgrounds ranging from a ship to an island. Perhaps the most beautiful part of the visuals are the made up animals that Zissou encounters, such as colorful "sugar crabs" "rainbow jellyfish," and of course the "jaguar shark." To be sure, these fantastic creatures are worth at least a small amount of analysis. I found particularly interesting that Anderson chose to use cheesy stopmotion animation to bring the imaginative creatures to life. In fact, it was almost as if Anderson wanted you to know that they were "jerky" in their movements and that he could have used sleek and smooth computer graphics, but purposely did not. What the animals do in this film is create a wonderful and exciting outside world, which is then compared to the provincial and self pitying internal character of Zissou. Indeed, all of Wes Anderson's characters, whether they be the prococious children in "The Royal Tenenbaums," or my pesonal favorite, Max Fischer, have the outside world on the proverbial string, but ultimately fail to achieve true happiness because of their inability to deal with their own inner demons.

There is where the post-modernism comes in. Just as Zissou hides is demons under a shallow, sarcastic shell, Anderson comments on the demons of the movie industry, namely cliched plots and character development, by hiding his criticisms under a sarcastic and pretentious front. This profound parody comes in three forms. First, and foremost, there is the gaudy and random dialogue. I cannot even fathom the amount of hilarious and sprawling things said in this movie, but here are a few memorable examples:
"Where did you come from; you look pregnant?"
"No, pour it in my glass. He doesn't know anything about wine."
"Let's go to my island."
"Wanna go up in my balloon?"
"Jettison that stiff on the other side of the ship"
"I broke down your door because I just wanted to flirt...I'll have an intern fix it"
"She's a rich bitch, you know...raised by maids."
"He shoots blanks, you know."
"There is a little queer in me."
Any many, many more.

The plot also has elements of post-modernism in it. Aside from the obvious fact that the plot is weird and random, one must keep in mind the character of Zissou. Again, he acts on and off his documentaries as if he is involved in a stage drama. The best example of this is when is yelling at the character that is probably his son, and then yells "Cut," when the "naturally occuring" argument has been explored to his liking on camera. Indeed, Zissou's dramatic facade and his belief that real life should be contrived for the screen evokes a sense of familiarity. In other words, Zissou acts within cliched movie patterns that we all recognize in a stupor of bizarre cinematic deju vu. The movie moves from an elitist, genteel environment in the beginning, to one of a sea adventure, then to one of a silly action flick (Steve shoots pirates and tries to rescue his friends), and then ends with a heartfelt observation on life. The sum total of Anderon's message in the plot is that life is random and is also reminiscent of many complex genres in its events.

Perhaps Anderson's best plot device of post modern thought is the fact that he never answers the question of whether Owen Wilson is actually his biological son. However, we do find out that Steve "shoots blanks" (which means impotetnt for those of you who are not familiar with the lingo). Anderson's choice to leave this question unanswered highlights the fact that character sub-plot is not only random, but also irrelevant to Zissou's internal development. In other words, it does not really matter in any real sense if Wilson was his son. Zissou obviously becomes attached to him despite the vagueness and uncertainty of his social title as "son."

Finally, Anderson's use of David Bowie sung in Porteguese perfectly captures the elemnts of the movie. Anyone who knows Bowie can recall that most of his songs are about a strange, foreign life out in the stars (Ziggy Stardust, Life on Mars, Space Oddity, etc). This soundtrack is perfect for symbolizing the characters of Zissou and his crew. They are explorers who chart the unknown and discover strange new worlds. Moreover, throughout the movie, many of the characters, especially Zissou, find (or at least rediscover) strange things within themselves. For Zissou, he rediscovers his ability internally care about his external world, which includes the person who is probably his son. As far as post-modernism, the audience hears popular Bowie songs, but in a different context, specifically in Portegeuse. As seen in all of his movies, Anderson is brilliant in evoking music to make his emotional and thematic points.

Now for the controversial interpretation: Steve Zissou is Ahab from Moby-Dick placed in a different context and consequently makes different decisions when he meets the jaguar shark. For those of you who have braved the amount of pages and complex narration of Moby-Dick, you know the basic story and maybe even some of the symbolic imagery. Essentially, a huge white whale bites the leg off a sea captain named Ahab. To get revenge on the whale, Ahab sinks into a deep madness and hunts down the whale in order to kill it. In the end, Ahab finds the whale and while stabbing at it with a harpoon perishes into the ocean blue.

The most common interpretation of Moby-Dick is that the white whale represents God and Ahab humanity. Ahab is hurt in a random and unjust act and becomes so emotionally troubeled, that we wants to find the whale and ask him why he deserved such a cruel act? In other words, Ahab is a typical nineteenth century thinker; he wants to rationalize the events of the world into one cohesive and perhaps divine whole. The best imagery of this is when he is stabbing at the whale as if he is trying to puncture through temporal facades to see what is behind it.

There are obvious connections between Moby-Dick and "The Life Aquatic." Indeed, both protagonists chase a sea creature that hurt them in some way. However, there are more subtle one's going on that are worth a consderable mention. To begin, throughout Zissou's journey, there are small snippets when the characters try to puncture through the sarcastic tough skin that Anderson covered them with. Although Zissou is a failed middle aged man who wants nothing more than to kill the jaguar shark and forget his life's failures, he also wants love. He teeters on a failed relationship with his wife, he forges a bizarre and uncharted bond with his supposed son, and learns how to properly deal with his inner anger over the death of Esteban. When Steve finally meets the jaguar shark, the movie's sarcastic banter, and Steve's inner self comes to a head. The audience is presented with a beautiful dichotomy between the shallow nature of the first three-fourths of the film and the profound part at the end.

Whereas Ahab stabs the whale at the end of Moby-Dick to find the rational answers and inevitable hand of nature and reason behind life's triumphs and tragedies, Zissou sees his shark, sheds a tear, and humbly utter,"I wonder if it remember me?" In other words, Zissou finally embraces the post-modern view of life, and comes to relaize that the events of the world are random and have no malignant or positive intentions. Zissou comes to grip with the fact that the jaguar shark did not kill Esteban in an effort to hurt him. Instead, it was just a random act of nature that needs to be understood for its beauty, not its malice. This revelation deeply affects Zissou, so much so that he leaves the screen carrying a child, which acts as the symbol another concurrent revelation: that happiness and meaning is something you create for yourself internally.

4.8

Alexander

I apologize for my long absence from the art of movie reviewing, but rest assured, Oliver Stone's "Alexander" has irresistably brought me back with a vengeance to comment on the success or failure of certain filmakers. That said, where can I begin with my review of "Alexander." HMMMM. Well, imagine that the three epic Lord of the Rings movies (totaling almost 12 hours) were condensed into one pint-sized 3 hour flick. Would there be enough time to explain the intricate alliances and conspiracies between the fellowship and various kingdoms? No. Would there be enough time to depict the Ring's allure of ultimate power? No. Finally, would there have been enough time to build to an emotional and psychological climax when the Ring was finally destroyed at the end? No. Peter Jackson was intelligent enough to space the movie out into three sections, so that its suspense grew, all facets of the story were explored or explained, and by the last movie, you had a deep understanding of the trials and tribualtions that the fellowship went through to finally destroy that damned evil trinket.Alexander was like the hypothetical Lord of the Rings movie that explained nothing, did no justice to the main characters, and left you puzzled about what happened in the first place. Forgive me if the rest of my tirade seems disjointed, but I simply cannot concentrate or direct the litany of grievances I have against Oliver Stone.

When the previews for Alexander first began appearing in late summer, I, like many of my close friends (ie. Chaz and Paul) began having proverbial wet dreams about the premise of the movie. After all, Alexander the Great fucking conquered the known world; how could any director or screenwriter screw up his story? But as I watched "Alexander," I saw the impossible become a reality. The movie about one of the greatest leaders in the history of the world was awful. Actually, let me take that comment back; it is not fair to the other movies that I refered to as "awful." Oliver Stone's Alexander was a fucking travesty, a malicious blow to the heart of history, philosophy, and art of all sorts.

To begin my systematic condemnation of the movie, let us go to the opening dialogue uttered by one of the world's greatest actors, Anthony Hopkins. We are told by his character, Ptolemy, that Alexander is one of the greatest men to ever walk the earth. The Macedonian king conquered more land and unarguably changed the course of humanity more than any other historical person. While these statements are certainly true, they created a high expectation for Oliver Stone. In effect, the director had to both depict and prove all of Alexander's wonderous accomplishments for the movie to be a success. I wanted to see what Alexander did, how hard it was, and also what drove him to such god-like lengths. Instead, I got a measly and fast-paced introduction to the short life of Alexander; he was born, his father died, he became king, he conquered Persia, he took a barbarian wife, he got his ass kicked in India, he came home to Babylon, and he was mysteriously killed by some sort of poison. According to the movie, this is all that really happened, one damn event after another. There were no transitions, no analysis, or even fucking explanations of what happened.The plot of Alexander was very much like the maps in the movie. There were medallions where Oliver Stone gave a brief (and I mean brief) examination of a milestone or battle. Between the medallions were thin squigly lines that only track without explanation where Alexander went. The medallions were few and too brief to be of any artistic or historical merit. Indeed, it seemed as though the formation of Alexander's empire was dependent on two lone battles and maybe 2 other miscellaneous events.

When the audience was not trying to figure the meaning and circumstances surrounding the assorted large events, they received a meandering historical lecture from Ptolemy on what Alexander did between his hand picked adventures. Large events like the Macedonian campaign in Egypt or the murder of Alexander's father were dealt with by a sentence or two and a confusing map that looked like it was taken from a McDonald's placemat. If I wanted to hear oversimplified narrations of Alexander's life, I could have purchased a professorial lecture or history book on CD. For the love of God, I wanted to see the hardships that Alexander's army faced; I wanted to see his slow development as a person, and most importantly, I wanted to understand the complex political intrigue that surrounded many of the events. I know Oliver Stone has a gift for causation and explanation; for crying out loud, I saw it in JFK! But that same intelligence and mastery of causation was conspicuously absent from "Alexander."

Despite the movie's massive failure of plot , explanatory power, and suspense, I thought it had three unmitigated successes. First, Angelina Jolie was smokin' hot!!! She looked absolutely incredible and gave the best performance of the film. However, her dialect which seemed to be a mixture of Russian and Spanish left me confused. Then again, the entire state of Macedonia spoke with Irish accents, so the presence of linguistic integrity waved bye bye as soon as the first character spoke. Jolie's femininity and seductive persona was in stark contrast to the latent homosexuality in the film. As funny as it may sound, I was sick and tired of Alexander tettering on the edge of bisexuality; whether he wanted a man or a woman, Alexander should have made a decision and went with it! Second, I think Oliver Stone was headed in the right direction when it came to examining Alexander's character. Some of the bizarre events involving his parents and the symbolic imagery that was used to convey Alexander's mindset (particularly the soaring eagle) was very effective. Finally, even though it took forever to get to actual battle scenes, I thought they were all very interesting, realistic, and progressive in their technique. Needless to say, it was rather impressive to see Alexander on his horse challenging an Indian soldier on an elephant.In the end, despite Jolie's sex appeal and the masterful imagery used, I felt as though I did not experience or truly appreciate Alexander's accomplishments. In an ironic twist, the movie was actually Anti-Alexander because it tried to portray one of the most memorable men in history using confusing, shallow, and instantly forgettable scenes. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the movie was the fact that it could have been so much better. If Stone made two 3 hour movies and gave detailed accounts and developments of what happened to Alexander, it could have been a phenomenal picture.

After seeing the movie and asking myself how he could let it be so bad, I suspect that Oliver Stone was trying to liken himself to Alexander. Both men took on massive projects and ultimately succumbed to their own respective vices of destructive ambition and the overextension of his prowess. However, the only difference is that Alexander will be remembered for his many noble successes and failures, while Oliver Stone and his catastrophe of a movie will be forgotten either out of emotional necessity or through its absurd existential nature.

2.0 (and that's only for Angelina Jolie's two breasts!)

Fahrenheit 9/11

I became excited when I learned Michael Moore's new movie was being released in a nearby theater because I enjoy his controversial foibles. His last installment, "Bowling For Columbine," was a very entertaining film that sparked much debate about violence in the United States. To be sure, I disagree with Michael Moore's political agenda, but I respect him as an excellent muckraking filmmaker. Getting tickets to see Fahrenheit 9/11 was harder than expected. The movie sold out all of the shows on opening day. Despite the difficulty, I remembered those annoying talking bags from Fandango, so I got tickets online for $11 each, a price that screams ripoff.

When I arrived at the theater, I was shocked at the people waiting to see the movie. Michael Moore has officially moved up from "B-movie" maker to a major national icon. I felt like I was going to see the Rocky Horror Picture Show; people were dressed up in both pro and anti Bush garb, while others proudly displayed rainbows and butch haircuts. Frankly, even before I saw the movie, I was impressed with Moore's position in American culture, which is the resident political upstart. He has defintely succeeded in getting the public stirred up about important issues.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a masterful and effective work of political propoganda. If Moore is talented at one thing, it is arousing emotions in people so it clouds their judgement. The movie began in an artsy fashion with haunting music in the background showing various members of the Bush administration getting makeup applied to them in an effort to complete their fake persona for the public. I must hand it to Michael Moore; his techniques and style as a filmmaker have become excellent. Moore showed footage of the 2000 election and began his narration: "Was it all a dream? Did this really happen?" He discussed the confusion of the election and how the television networks predicted Gore and then chnaged to Bush shortly after Fox News began reporting Bush as the winner. By this Moore facetiously meant that Fox News is a conservative TV station that favored Bush, a Republican, and somehow that it changed the outcome of the election. Hmmm I guess our government has abolished the electoral college. Despite the apparent ridculousness of this assertion, Moore's point that 2000 election was fishy and divisive in this country was well taken.

Moore spent several minutes bashing the stupidity and ineptness of George W. Bush. He argued that before 9/11, Bush spent 46% of his time on vacation in Florida and Texas. Moore then beautifully portrayed the events of 9/11 by leaving only a blank screen with the sounds of airplanes crashing into buildings. I appreciated that Moore resisted showing the clips of 9/11 in an effort to buy cheap sympathy. In my favorite part of the film, Moore somehow obtained a video of George W. Bush reading a children's book to a Kindergarten class. As Bush was sitting in the classroom, an advisor came to tell him that two planes had just hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The look on Bush's face was one of terror and incomprehension.

Moore then narrated, "What must he have been thinking about? Maybe that I am not qualified to handle this grown-up situation? Maybe that I should have read my CIA briefs?" This hilarious part of the movie was worth the ticket price alone. However funny the situation with Bush, the inner conservative demon inside of me spewed forth and asked, "What would you have done in his situation Michael Moore, except exaclaim, "the world is ending" and run for the nearest Cinnabon for one last indulgence?" Moore then jumped to another interesting but semi-truthful fact that the Bush family are long time business associates with Saudis and even the Bin Laden Family. He also discussed how Bush flew the entire Bin laden family and about another 100 or so Saudis out of the country right after 9/11. According to Moore, this emphatically shows that Bush botched the investigation of 9/11 in an attempt to protect his Saudi business interests. OK Michael Moore, you made the connection between Bush and Saudi oil money, but the mere presence of a connection does not also mean that Bush is negatively affecting American interests. Moore defintely failed to establish exactly why Bush would favor his own interests over America's. By his own logic, I could infer that since Moore's film was released by Lions Gate Films, who has a stake in Lockheed Martin (the biggest weapons maker in the country), that Moore actually supports the war in Iraq. Sadly, the above assertion was the last part of this film that would be a somewhat fair and balanced argument.

Like many of Michael Moore's films, Fahrenheit 9/11 began with a useful and believable premise: that the war in Iraq was an ill-conceived and poorly fought war. However, true to his past flms, Moore slithers away from his premise and begins to insert his liberal agenda into the mix. The first abomination was Moore's assertion, or rather the assertion of his cutting room floor antics, that ALL soldiers in Iraq hate the war. Now come on!! Michael Moore can trick me into thinking Bush was influenced by Saudi money; he may even trick me with his ghastly appearance that I mistakingly went to see "Super Size Me," but he will not convince me that a majority, let alone all, troops are against the war. Moore showed scene after scene of gruesome war footage. You know the kind: bombs detonating, children screaming, corpses lying motionless. Thank you Michael Moore for changing my conceptions of what happens during a war. I always thought it was more a battle of chess where generals strategically place troops and missles in certain locations, but I never imagined people died or were hurt in wars!

After the above lesson in war, Michael Moore dropped the biggest bomb of the film. He argued that the Armed Forces consistently recruits people from lower class neighborhoods (like his home shitburg of Flint, Michigan), which clearly shows that the government is out to kill the poor. For the massive surface area that Michael Moore encompasses, one would think that some of it would include brain cells. First, it is not the government that causes poverty you fat fuck, it is the very structure of capitalism that creates haves and have nots. The system is imperfect, but it is alot better than being communists or Nazis. If socialist swine Michael Moore wants to talk about inequities, let us now be magically transported to Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany. Put simply, capitalism is the best and most fair economic system in the world today, so Michael Moore better get used to it and stop blaming everything else under the sun for poverty. Second, it is beyond me how Moore can bitch about the massive unemployment in this country, yet be against the military recruitment of the poor. News to Moore: the military employs hundreds of thousands of people! In addition, I for one think it is a good idea to get some of the hoodrats off the street and into tanks. The more lower class criminals we take off the street, the safer this country will be.

As if Moore's liberal bullshit-mongering were not enough, he also included, for a signifigant section of the film, a mother weeping uncontrollably over her son's death in Iraq. This, in a nutshell, is the bread and butter of Moore's films; he appeals to your emotions while clouding your rational judgement. Of course people are going to die in the war! What did the mother expect? If your job entails you getting shot at, dropping bombs, or flying helicopters, chances are considerable that you might die. One, or even a few deaths, is not enough to convince me that war is always unecessary.

By the end of the movie, I was exhausted by the amount of things that frustrated me. However, I can still respect Michael Moore's passionate filmaking, and his place as a political upstart to begin debates about important issues. Honestly, I am glad that someone is out there causing people to think about politics, and it is for that reason that this film, despite being ridiculous propoganda, deserves a modicum of respect.

4.9


The Day After Tomorrow

As I finished watching this movie on a blustery Tuesday, I could not help but wish, in retrospect, that in fact it was the day after tomorrow because then I would have not seen the movie at all. Against popular conceptions formed by Noam Chomsky, there is a liberal slant in the media. Nothing like a diaster movie brings out the liberal environmentalists from the woodwork to bitch and complain that this world is being destroyed for our children. In the words of the eminent George Carlin, "Fuck the Children."

The movie begins with three scientists conveniently positioned on a breaking iceberg. The weather begins to show massive shifts, the likes of which baffle conservative scientists, Anne Coultier, and people with sizable brains. The liberals begin almost immediately to train people in experimental meteorology and throw several buzz words out so that people could start to repeat them. What causes massive weather shifting you ask? Why global warming, tidal streams, and desalinization, of course! After all this bullshit was over, the only buzzword I could recall was deneuralization.

Before we are even introduced to the storms that will cause the next ice age, we are shown another diaster: the acting between a negligient father (the crazy scientist who predicts the problems)and his bohemian son. As if that emotional garbage were not enough, the son falls madly in love with a girl right before the weather shifts. Thus, the icebergs were not the only things to melt in this picture, as my heart was also warmed with every moment of true love.

Tempatures began dropping, seas began boiling, and tornados touched down in Los Angeles only to destroy the entire city, a section of the film I actually enjoyed. Now even though I thought the president, hell even the federal government, had expert advisors on weather conditions, this movie makes it seem like it's up to one lunatic scientist to convince the vice president, who is depicted as an asshole, that the seemingly mild weather conditions are in fact a modicum of the larger weather system liberals had predicted to destroy the world ions ago. Ladies and Gentlemen, I was wrong! Stop using hairspray and styrofoam! You bastards are leading to a massive ice age that will strangle the earth in a matter of hours.

Moving on to a progression of fucking ridiculous plot concepts, the crazy scientist warns his boy to stay in New York City, despite telling everyone else to move down South into their own deaths via the storm. See, I knew it. No matter how much anyone claims to be liberal, they always think of their lineage when it counts. In a matter of hours, a tidal wave crashes into New York City only to freeze over into icebergs shortly thereafter. Well, apparently two planes crashing into two buildings killing 3000 people was not entertaining enough for the Big Apple. As time goes on, the crazy scientist discovers that the eye of the storm, which is historically the most calm section in hurricanes, produces temperatures of 150 below zero. He explains that the air moves too quickly through the earth's atmosphere to warm up. But that notion is proven to be bullshit in a few moments as that very scientist "outruns" air that is too fast to warm up but too slow to catch a fatigued human being.

The story then picks up as escaped wolves, ravenously hungry after a long forty five minutes of not eating, attack a group of people. But wait liberals, I thought nature was our friend! I thought if we stopped polluting the environment, then we would live in perfect harmony with mother earth. Well, who knew nature operated by survival of the fittest?

Even though the screen was darkened by massive cloud cover, it was still illuminated with some great acting, such as the token atheist who refuses to burn books which act as his higher being. Holding a Guttenberg bible, the atheist explains, "Without books, civilzation would be lost." Bullshit. There are plenty of books this world could do without including the bible. The other character I also loved was the bum who had a dog. Now, let's just think for a second. Why the hell would a bum keep a dog, knowing that the dog would need to share some of his meager supplies of food? Is this really what liberals think bums are: happy-go-lucky fish out of water types? The bum also showed the group how to wrap themselves in newspaper to keep warm. Indeed, I was convinced by this movie that all people are useful, even if they are drug addicted or alcoholic. Despite the group's refusal to burn books, the crazy scientist's son and his cronies all survive the storm that killed everyone else. Not to be outdone, the father implausibly walked 200 miles on hundreds of feet of snow to meet his son in New York. Love can conquer all, even logical reasoning.

The ending of this movie was simply glorious. The United States moves most of its citizens to Mexico by making a deal to forgive Mexican debt, a huge hot button by this point. The President dies and the vice president, the same asshole that refused to listen to well thought out liberal ideas says to a candid world,"We thought we could adamantly burn our fossil fuels without consequence. We were wrong. Countries that we once looked down on as 'third world' are now hosting us... and we salute them." I almost fell over in my seat. Ok then, enjoy living in an "equal country" where you will have to fight off warlords, pick bananas, and kill dictators to ensure change. On the way out of the theater, I saw the poster for "The Day After Tomorrow." It asked, "Where will you be?" In the end, you can be on the highest of mountains or in the deepest of canyons, just make sure you are nowhere near the theater.

3.2 (because it had good special effects and made me laugh)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Like most people, I have been a fan of the Harry Potter movies starting with Sorcerer's Stone all the way to the Chamber of Secrets. What's not to like about these movies? They are about a collection of children who attend the most prestigious school imaginable. Rest assured, I have already submitted my application to Hogwarts for an MPhil in Dark Arts. I trust that since Hogwarts has affirmative action, I can still be admitted despite being a mudblood. There is one minor aspect of these movies that has irked me: People constantly blather to me that the books are better, and that I should read them. Let's get something straight, I may lower myself to watch children's movies, but I'll be damned if I will habitually read children's books. I can see myself now, sitting in a Starbucks with my mocha latte flirting with an attractive girl as I leaf through the "Cat in the Hat." She raises an eye at me and I make conversation by informing her that "in this one he comes back."

Despite my affinity for the Harry Potter movies, I was very disappointed with this third installment for a couple of reasons. First, and foremost, who the hell was the enemy in this movie? I cannot even communicate my disaapointment when I found out that Sirius Black was a good guy! I wanted him to slowly torment Harry psychologically, and then at the end have a final showdown. The dementors, although really entertaining to watch, were not all bad either. Sure they tried to suck the life out of Harry's soul, but they were looking for an escaped felon. By the end of the movie, right after that ill-conceived battle between two werewolves, I found myself longing for Lord Voldemort. The next Harry Potter movie better have a huge fucking climax where Harry and the one whose name we shant speak beat the shit out of each other.

Second, the acting in this movie was vomit inducing, When Harry, Ron, and Hermione were kids, their naive personalities were whimsical and enchanting. In the third movie, all of the kids have hit their awkward teenage years. Hermione is finding it difficult to run because of her new assets, Ron has discovered that his freakish facial contortions are not quite so cute anymore, and Harry has realized that it is not enough to look like Harry Potter; he actually has to act too. Worst of all, Malfoy has been transformed from my personal hero into a puddle of tears. In the first two movies, Malfoy utilized his power of wealth and patronage to undermine Harry along with unwanted mudbloods. In contrast, the third movie presents Malfoy as a weak sissy, a portryal that almost made me walk out of the theater. I know that Harry Potter is of the fantasy genre, but making old money ineffective is just too unbelievable. Finally, what the hell happened to Ron? I knew he is supposed to be poor, but he was like a fucking hippie walking around with his unkempt hair and berlap sacks he called clothes. I predict in the the next movie that Ron will discover weed, or the magical equivalant, and fail out of Hogwarts, so he has to live with Hagrid and make soap to support his meth addiction. Well, maybe thats wrong, perhaps he'll go right for the hardcore shit and start drinking unicorn blood. Whatever his poison, I see hemp necklaces, The Grateful Dead, and nonsensical political beliefs for Ron in the future.

Besides the lack of an interesting plot, I was also amazed at how the administrators at Hogwarts keep their positions. As I said in a review of the second movie, if the faculty at Hogwarts worked in the real world, they would be out on their fat, magical asses a long time ago. Hiding deadly sorcerer stones in an area with children, permitting garguantuan snakes to roam around the plumbing, and encouraging hormonal teens to go back in time to defeat dangerous enemies would have landed Dumbeldore and possibly the Dean of Students in jail. Hogwarts should start a law school and train someone to be the school's general counsel because the lawyers like werewolves are circling in the woods not far away.

The only thing that saved this movie from a dismal review was the directing. The new director made the third movie as dark as a Tim Burton film, which I enjoyed. In the end, I felt as if a dementor had approached me in the theater and began suckling on all my happiness. Indeed, the movie should have been called Harry Potter and the PRISONERS of Azkaban, as I felt confined by bordem and joyless indifference.

3.0

The Stepford Wives

After a long day of defending criminals, my heart desired nothing more then to relish in the fantastic and whimsical world of Shrek 2. However, Erin, who apparently like the Vatican holds a kind of unofficial political power over me, demanded that we see The Stepford Wives. Before I even get into the movie, allow me to comment on the pre-feature presentation events. Call me old fashioned, but I seem to remember when movies had no commercials. But now, a movie is preceeded by more than ten minutes of tasteless drivel that would make even the most basic carbon composed life form beg for heavenly mercy. My favorite one has to be the Coke commercial. Why in the hell does the Coca-Cola company insist on advertising in a movie theater that probably has a monopolistic contract with Coke anyway? Besides, I think I can safely say that my soft drink preference has been solidified. It is not as if one day I will break down the monkish doors of ignorance and proclaim to an awaiting crowd: "I have changed from Pepsi to Coke!" That piece of useless garbage was followed by the zany Six Flags commercial, which clearly depicts a woman adorned in a geriatric body suit. Last time I followed a dancing old man into a bus, I came out with several systematically placed cigar burns and a fear of bananas. Finally, to end the commerical tour-de-force, I was subjected, much like the main character in A Clockwork Orange, to a grueling spectacle involving the Fanta whores. I doubt that I will ever be able to erase the image of neon latinas dancing frantically and singing that damn Fanta song. To the marketing genius who wrote that Pavlovian nightmare: I want my fucking neurons back. On a brief side note, I was very excited to see a preview for Oliver Stone's "Alexander!"

On to the movie: The Stepford Wives is a remake of a 1975 film about husbands who mysteriously seem to manufacture perfect wives. The plot intrigued my raging misogyny, however, as I would quickly find out, the story of men plotting to squash overachieving women into lowly housewives would be a better social suggestion than it would a film. Moreover, the only true robots I witnessed were the one's in the audience who continued to sit and watch this shitfest of a film. After Nicole Kidman gets fired as CEO of a television network, she goes insane. The family moves to a Connecticut town called Stepford, where women are perfect, and the men are happy. Despite this town-wide bliss, there are three suprising outcasts: a woman with professional goals(Kidman), a writer played by the octagonally shaped Bette Midler, and a flaming, stereotypically portrayed homosexual. It is worth a momentary pause to reflect this film's conception of homosexuality. Apparently, all gay men love christmas ornaments, pastels, baked goods, and designer clothes. What makes the gay man an outcast in the movie is his flaming homosexuality. Silly me: Gay people don't want to be integrated into society, they want to be treated like commodities. Well thanks Stepford Wives, next time I see a gay man on the street, I won't treat him like an equal, I'll pinch his ass and yell like the dickens.

By the time all of these engineered misfits were introduced, I was concentrating on particles floating in the theater and silently bitching about my Erin-induced imprisonment. My ears did perk up, however, when Bette Midler said at a Christmas gathering "I could put a pine cone on the end of my vibrator and have a really Merry Chrristmas" Well screeenwriters, you have really outdone yourselves. Pat yourself on the back and have a Fanta on me.

All three of the women, excuse me, the two women and the gay man were eventually kidnapped and "enhanced" by a terrorist like group of jealous men who were sick of being second to their brilliant wives. Ok hold it. Since when have men, the creatures which control this world, ever bitched about overachieving women? See, this is what the feminist movement has produced: the illusion that somehow women have gotten so powerful that men have to gain power by modifying their ever so giant brains.

Speaking of brains, let us now be transported to the end where the plot really gets interesting. Apparently we find out that although Kidman's husband initially wanted her to become a robot, his testicles ascended up into his abdomen and he chickens out. The husband, played by the inoffensive and dickless Mathhew Broderick, somehow figures out a compliacted computer system and shuts down the mind control machinery. Oh but wait! Just when you thought you knew the point of this movie, you find out that it was a woman who created this town. As she explained, "I was once like you (that is an overachieving bitch). I was the world's foremost brain surgeon." WOW! Not only was she a surgeon, but a brain surgeon, the most complicated of all the medical fields! The woman laments about the dying aristocratic concept of housewivery, and proceeds to kiss her robot husband only to electrify herself. Keep in mind that brain surgeons have an intimate knowledge of computer technology and electrical engineering, but not the sense to keep away from a sparking live wire. Although I sympathized with the woman's cries for the way things were before feminism, I had to sink in my chair a little lower because this movie was no longer about a man's disbolical vision to put women in their rightful places, but a sorrowful parody of a dying breed.

1.0

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

Well, what can I say about this movie? It was so stupid, so ridiculous, and so childish that it actually was mildly entertaining. It was like those old Looney Tunes shorts where Wiley Coyote would dig a hole so far down that he would end up in China. Indeed, this movie was so bad, it was good. The basic plotline is even stupid. There's this guy played by Vince Vaughn who owns a gym called "Average Joes." He is a lazy businessman who doesn't even collect the membership fees from his customers. But, despite his failure in the gym business, he manages to be a good person. AWWW!

Anyway, he finds out from a banker, aptly played by the anorexic Christine Taylor from Nickolodeon's "Hey Dude," that his gym is in debt and will be sold to a competing gym owned by Ben Stiller. In a stroke of brilliance, the overweight dorks of Average Joes discover that they could win the necessary money to buy back the gym if they enter a dodgeball tournament. Ben Stiller's gym hears of the plan, and decides to comfound the aspirations of Average Joes by entering the tournament as well.

The aspect of this movie that made it tolerable was the excessiveness of the characters. Ben Stiller played the only character that he can play (or has ever played): an unbelievably stupid asshole that engages in a level of dialogue comparable to a first grader's. However stupid the idea, I did enjoy Stiller's stupid, circular one liners and handle-bar moustache. Also, as if taken from an acid trip, one character thought he was a pirate to the point where he dressed and talked like a swashbuckler throughout the film. This bizarre concept made me laugh just for its applied ridiculousness. In the end, if you want to go to the movies, not think, laugh at mindless physical comedy, giggle at nonsensical one-liners, and witness an experience of crude humor, this movie is for you!

3.2