The Prince and Me (2004)

Short: Eddie's (Luke Mably) the crown prince of Denmark, and Paige (Julia Stiles) is a simple country girl. They meet at a university where Eddie has mistakenly gone because he thinks it will be like the video "Girls gone wild", and Paige is working her way to medical school. She's studious, and he's not.

Can you guess where all this is going?

I confess - I am stuck in the land of perpetually crap movies. I watch them, and I think, "who are you kidding?"

1) While I have never been to either England or Denmark, I believe I can recognize the differences in their accents. Unfortunately, the movie industry panders to Americans, who, from what I have observed, can not only not tell the difference, but they also cannot understand any accents outside of their own. See, I've noticed that even English speakers now come with English subtitles on American television and in American movies, and that disappoints/confuses me.

2) The more movies Julia Stiles makes the worse they are. The mainstream is bad for people like Stiles. I don't know why, but I haven't seen anything worthwhile from her in nearly four years. Now that I think about it, even when she was in stuff I liked, it was never that she was particularly that good. She was just surrounded by people who didn't make her look worse by comparison, which is more of a credit to them than to her.

3) After you break up with someone, then go find them, you can leave them again at their coronation to pursue your own interests, and this action is forgivable because, of course, you two cannot possibly work these things out together. Jack Amiel, Michael Begler, and Katherine Fugate ("writers") don't seem to understand that you can't have the narrative take a turn for the sole purpose of having the narrative take a turn. If you aren't going to use this opportunity to develop the characters or push the storyline, then you might as well leave that scene on the cutting room floor.

This movie, if you can call it that, was written by two people who have worked together before and one person who had never worked with either one of them. And that's how the movie feels. There is the formulaic first, second, and third acts, all of which the audience is willing to suffer through to get the happy ending. But, for some unknown reason, a cheap fourth act is tacked on the end that just doesn't vibe with the rest of it.

Put that together with an inept director who can't tell the difference between what is and it not worthwhile, and you've got this pathetic excuse.

It's enough to drive a person to drink, as my mom would put it.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

Idea: Barry Egan (Adam Sandler) became very introverted and secretive to survive growing up with his eight sisters. Almost simultaneously, he discovers a way to win 1 million frequent flyer miles, and he meets and falls in love with a mysterious woman named Lena (Emily Watson). Both of these occurrences cause Barry to start and stop actions that he never thought possible to control.

I was going to post about the last Adam Sandler movie I saw, 50 First Dates, and I was sitting here thinking about how boring it was and how similar to the rest of his movies.

And then I thought . . . you know what was different? Punch-Drunk Love. And it was like a little wash of joy came over me.

Not joy for the movie, which I will get to in a moment, but joy for Sandler's sake. Good for him, I say, for taking on this role. He didn't make any voices, Rob Schneider didn't appear at any point, and it didn't seem like a woman who was way too good for him was going to fall for him.

It almost, if you can imagine, seemed a bit more . . . real. While I'm certain that the real Sandler is closer to the guy he portrays in the majority of his movies, the fact that this character wasn't outright obnoxious was a welcome change that he really worked hard for, it seems.

Back to the film itself.

I've been trying to find a way to express how P.T Anderson writes and directs. Basically, I think he's a raging egomaniac. We all are, I know, but Anderson's a little bit more so. He must sit there in front of his word processor or whatever he uses, thinking, "I am so much more innovative/irreverant/wild/interesting/edgey/intelligent/talented than anyone else working in Hollywood today." Do you know how I can tell? He looks genuinely crestfallen when he doesn't win at awards shows.

I know that sounds terrible, but I wouldn't think that I deserved to win if I were there. What happened to the honour in being nominated? Clichéd, fine, but still true.

That said, despite the fact that the movie is annoying, it's also funny and little bit sweet. Of course, anything with Philip Seymour Hoffman and Luis Guzman is off to a good start, but this film achieves more than that.

Months later, I'm still thinking about it. I no longer have that horribly annoying song in my head, and I still don't know what it exactly is about this film. It's one of those things that it's hard to pinpoint exactly what it does for you.

To call it odd would be an understatement of near-epic proportions, and it's definitely not for everyone. In fact, I'm not certain it's anyone.

Mean Creek (2004)

Premise: After George (Josh Peck) beats up Sam (Rory Caulkin), Sam's older brother, Rocky (Trevor Morgan) plans with his friends Marty (Scott Mechlowicz) and Clyde (Ryan Kelley) to humiliate George, so he can know what it feels like to be bullied. Sam invites his friend, Millie (Carly Schroeder), along, and the six of them head out on a boat trip down a quiet river on a Saturday afternoon.

So, I'm not going to lie: I went to see this movie because it's Caulkin's latest. Call it what you will, but that kid can act. As I have mentioned in the past, he has a preternatural talent that is alternately uplifting and bone-chilling. As a child he was best described as precocious, but, now that he's a teenager, it's so much more.

I got a lot more than I bargained for with this film.

Have you ever watched a film that made you pull at your hair it was so intense? I don't think I could find a better word to describe this experience than intense. It was funny, it was sweet, it was terrifying, it was sickening. It was everything you expect from a winter movie, only you were blessed to find it in the summer heat.

The power of this ensemble cast was what really took me by storm. Each of the kids I knew from somewhere or other, but I didn't really think of about any of them outside of Caulkin.

Peck played the best drawn bully I have seen to date. He never suffered from the magic that bullies seem to fall under in films. He never repented, and he never relented. His sweetness could turn on a dime, and you never saw it coming. He was a one man thunder cloud.

Morgan, in addition to being near jail-bait, Mechlowicz, and Kelley brought definition, warmth, and darkness to a trio of teenage boys in a small Oregon town. Their closeness was compelling, but it was the flaws in their individual natures that ripped your heart out.

Schroeder was the key to this whole abyss of emotion and power. Her platinum hair and pale good looks that would soon fade into teenage beauty possessed a certain sorrow in their boldness. She was sweet, naive, and dangerous.

I feel like I couldn't congratulate Jacob Aaron Estes (writer/director) enough for his sophomore offering. He never fell prey to stereotypes, and he kept the plot going long after a weaker author would have headed for the hills. What was truly remarkable as a writer and a director was that he gave each of his cast members a chance to shine when so many others would have forced the responsibility on one and wasted the rest.

Perhaps his genius lies in his ability to recognize that in his cast and in his characters.

Mean Girls (2004)

Summary: After being home schooled in Africa for years, Cady Heron (Lindsay Lohan) joins the junior class of North Shore public high school. She initially makes friends with two outsiders, Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damien (Daniel Franzese), but, when she picked up by the Plastics, the most popular girls in school, they convince her to join them in order to make fun of them. When the Queen Bee, Regina (Rachel McAdams), gets back together with her ex just to spite Cady, the three of them plot to take the Plastics down.

To be honest, I never chalked this movie up to the lame excuses for flicks that people like Hilary Duff and the Olsen twins try to pander off on unsuspecting 12 year-olds who don't know the difference between good and truly crap.

Mind you, Lohan was pretty much the deciding factor. Of all the reigning teen queens, Lohan appears to be the only one with any talent or actual box office pull. Basically, she's the only one worth watching.

And I did enjoy watching her. She's such a comical little sweetheart. Plus, she looks and acts like a teen, which makes her movies all the more credible.

Credibility was needed for such an obvious plot. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Tina Fey's screenplay from start to finish, but it was clear what was going to happen and when from the get-go. I must tell you, though, that I found many of the commercials and other descriptions that I read about this film somewhat misleading.

Nonetheless, it was laugh-out-loud funny and nice mental distraction at that.

Most of all, I'd have to say that I enjoyed McAdams and Tim Meadows as the principle the most. McAdams is crazy talented, even if she doesn't always make the right filmatic choices, and I'd watch it all again for Meadows to announce that he "didn't leave the south side for this", his reaction to the riot in progress in his hallways.

I'd have to agree with some critics who were hailing this movie as the Heathers of the next generation. Surely with the biting satirical edge of Heathers (and death), Mean Girls presents high school girls is the truly evil vixens we all know them to be without the slightest hint of remorse.

Gunpowder, Treason and Plot (2004)

Plot 1: Mary (Clémence Poésy), Queen of Scots, returns from France to her throne at 16. A Catholic queen on a protestant throne, Mary faces great dissent as her attempts to unify her country, much to the chagrin of her half brother, Lord James (Steven Duffy), and her cousin, Elizabeth I (Catherine McCormack). She is protected by Bothwell (Kevin McKidd), a protestant peasant who grows to love her.

Plot 2: After he has his mother murdered so that he may ascend the throne, James (Robert Carlyle) bides his time until Elizabeth dies, and he can inherit both thrones. A staunch protestant, he promises clemency to the Catholics but breaks his promise when he realizes how much money can be gained from their persecution. Knowing that he lost his honour for naught, Thomas Percy (Richard Harrington) seeks out Guy Fawkes (Michael Fassbender), and the infamous "Gunpowder Plot" is set in motion.

Why two plots, you might ask? Well, it's a two part mini-series. I decided that if a mini-series limits itself to two-parts, it's closer to a long movie than a series.

In this case it's closer to two completely different movies, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Gillies MacKinnon directed both, and Jimmy McGovern penned both. Why, then, would he make one good and one almost un-watchable?

The first part, which focuses on Mary, deals largely with Mary's love life, juxtaposing it with her brother's plot to take her throne. Poésy makes Mary a certain contradiction in terms, a strong victim if you will. Mary herself is a strong-willed and powerful woman, but she is victimized by a combination of circumstance and naivete.

McKidd stands out as the star performer in the first half. His Bothwell is alive with passion, and I couldn't understand for the life of me why Mary would choose to marry anyone else.

There is one thing that confuses me though. In fact, it's something that's been confusing me for some time now in movies. The audience is convinced of how much one man loves a particular woman who, for whatever reason, is not in a position to return his affection, only to see him in bed with another. What am I supposed to think? He loves her so much that hopped into bed with this other lady? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Alright, on to the second half.

For some rather dimwitted reason, McGovern has the characters address the camera. Okay, so it's for an expositional reason. Even so, there are other ways of letting the audience know what characters are up to without telling them directly. In any case, it was largely distracting and did little to add to the movie.

Also, this half is a lot more graphically sexual and violent than the first half, which I also did not enjoy.

Carlyle remains one of the top actors in films today, and his performance here is nothing short of remarkable. The way that man can transform himself into anyone borders on breathtaking. Sometimes I feel like I could watch him all day.

Preferably, though, not playing a character as pervy as James VI of Scotland/I of England.

Maverick (1994)

Plan: Brett Maverick (Mel Gibson) plans to enter the "All Rivers poker" challenge, at a $25 000 buy-in. He visits old friends to collect debts in order to raise the necessary capital, and along the way he meets the irresistible Mrs. Bransford (Jodie Foster), crosses paths with Marshall Zane Cooper (James Garner), and makes an enemy of Angel (Alfred Molina) before he even gets on the riverboat.

Did you ever like a movie just because it was fun? It didn't have a particular message that resonated with you, it wasn't the best you've ever seen (not even close), it's wasn't that funny, that dramatic, or that moving. It's just plain old fun.

That's how I feel about Maverick. I'm pretty sure I first watched this movie because my mom's a big Gibson fan (or at least she was at the time). Just to make sure I wasn't remembering it with the waxy glow of childhood, I recently caught it again - and it's still a good catch.

Although, I must remark, Garner has aged a lot in the last ten years, while James Coburn appeared to age very little until his death in 2002. What a loss that was - he had such an affable, charming way about him that made his leading men all the more desirable and his villains all the more dastardly.

Alright, I'll come right out and say it: Richard Donner is not among my fav directors, and I generally find William Goldman's screenplays to contain over-the-top dialogue that makes my eyes roll. Here, though, it works. Part of the point is to poke fun at the show the movie is based on, another part still to poke fun at the actors, and everyone seems willing to take their turn with a grain of salt.

Gibson and Foster work splendidly together, but the scenes they share with Garner are truly priceless. It's great to watch the two of them, both old hands by the time this film came out, still learning from a master like Garner.

Plus you get the crafty Molina, Graham Greene, Geoffrey Lewis, Dan Hedaya, and Danny Glover in an amusing cameo along for the ride.

Basically speaking, it's all just good fun. Good fun is a good thing in a movie, my friends.

Fargo (1996)

Plot: Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy) plans to have his wife kidnapped by Carl (Steve Buscemi) and Gaear (Peter Stormare) in order to ransom her to her rich father, Wade (Harve Presnell). Due to a misunderstanding with a highway patrolman, Gaear commits a triple homicide, which puts the very pregnant but very savvy Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand) hot on their trail.

I don't know why, but I found it really difficult to sum this movie up.

Alright, I'll just come right out and say it: I don't see what the big deal is about this movie. You know I love the Coens (writers/directors/producers/editors, blah, blah, blah), but I felt like this movie was made before they really found their collective voice.

You also know that I love Joel's fantastically talented and largely under-appreciated wife (although she did win the Oscar for this one). I'd watch this movie all over again just for the scene where Marge almost throws up not from the gruesome sight of the murder victims but from her morning sickness. That stuff kills.

And Macy is definitely at the top of my underrated American actors of the 20th and 21st centuries. He just seems so sweet, and it's almost pitiable when he realizes that his actions might have an adverse effect on his son.

I don't want you to think that I went into this one thinking that it was going to be in the comedic vein of their other films - I knew it was a straight forward thriller. As such, I was pretty disappointed that they let you know what was going to happen in the first, oh, 20 minutes.

Whether or not this is true, we are told that the events are based on a true story. As such, is the audience supposed to believe that the facts allowed the Coens no room to speculate? I just kept wondering why Jerry could possibly need that much money, and his reasoning was never addressed.

Basically, the whole thing felt so full of unexplored potential, which wasn't what I was looking for.

8 Mile (2002)

Idea: Jimmy "B-Rabbit" Smith, Jr. (Eminem) moves out of his girlfriend's apartment and back into his unemployed mother's (Kim Basinger) trailer. He gets a job at a factory, but his real passion is rap. His best friend, Future (Mekhi Phifer), emcees rap battles - basically rhyming insult fests - and insists that Rabbit join in, but he always chokes. Oh, and he meets a hottie named Alex (Brittany Murphy), who believes that Wink (Eugene Byrd) will help her get a modeling contract, and Jimmy thinks will get him studio time to record his demo.

So let me start by saying saints be praised for Phifer. He is the only thing worth paying attention to in this inanely boring docudrama.

I watched it because someone, at some point, told me that it was good. Or possibly, "not that bad."

Oh, I guess I should throw out some forewarning: Spoilers ahead!

They lied. It is that bad. It's that bad.

Scott Silver's plot/character development is practically non-existent: A girl everyone says is a slut turns out to be a slut. A guy everyone says is a liar lies. My word, how I am taken aback!

And then, nothing really beats the conclusion - Basinger's character wins a tidy sum at bingo, solving their latest eviction crisis. Rabbit finally raps, and he wins the battle by turning the tables on the "Free World" crew.

I was shocked to my very core by that one!

Of course, what can we really expect from the moronic writer-director who thought that remaking The Mod Squad would be wise?

What really hurts is the idea of Curtis Hanson (director) at the helm of this sinking ship. He makes L.A. Confidential, he makes Wonder Boys, then he makes this trite piece of slightly perverted garbage.

Why do good directors go bad?

we don't live here anymore (2004)

Premise: Jack (Mark Ruffalo) and Terry (Laura Dern) are best friends with Hank (Peter Krause) and Edith (Naomi Watts). Jack and Hank are professors at the local university, and Terry and Edith are house wives. Jack and Edith are having an affair, and Hank decides to seduce Terry.

The film is based on two short stories by Andre Dubus, the same guy who brought us the explosive In the Bedroom a few years back. Like In the Bedroom, the film is set in some quiet New England town. Without the washed out sea-tones of the previous work, it's quite obviously filmed in British Columbia.

That's hardly the point.

Ruffalo steals the show as an emotional heavyweight, presenting the kind of work that we haven't seen from him since You Can Count of Me. Watching the way Dern systematically picks him apart, it's no wonder why Jack runs for comfort in Edith's waiting arms. Listening to his voice thicken the louder he yells can take you by surprise, but it's when he says nothing that he's at his most powerful.

Without giving too much away, there's a scene where Ruffalo is crying, and Dern reaches out her hand. Ruffalo slow creeps out his fingers and takes it, and I can tell you that I just wanted to sob.

Dern's quite powerful herself. Right before Terry starts in on Jack (which she does a lot), there's a flicker in her eyes as her picks the crack she'll hit first. Terry emasculates Jack every chance she gets, seemingly without reason (in the stories she's a talented writer who gave it up to raise their kids, but that's never mentioned in the film), yet she manages to do it in such a way that you never hate her for it.

All the hoopla about Watts finally makes sense. Her Edith is as pained as the rest of them, but Watts fills her with a gnawing emptiness that the rest of the characters don't come close to. Edith has accepted Hank's chronic infidelity, but what really hurts her is the knowledge that her infidelity will have no effect on him.

Krause is pretty much just there. He makes Hank as lecherous as he needs to be but nothing more. Luckily he has a relatively minor part in the foursome, so we don't have to witness how hollow some of his delivery is.

John Curran (director) and Larry Gross (writer) work seamlessly together to put together a story that constantly contrasted two very different couples. Everything is up for grabs: teaching styles, housekeeping abilities, cooking, spending, drinking, even sex. They also make it very difficult to think that one life is better than the other.

I know which one I would rather live, but both are abysmal choices.

Gerry (2002)

Brief: Two Gerrys (Casey Affleck and Matt Damon) veer off a wilderness trail and become lost in the desert without any food or water.

Don't ask me why they are both named Gerry or if Gerry is merely a bizarre nickname they have for each other because I don't know the answer to either query.

I do, however, know that this is the best Gus Van Sant (director and co-writer) film I have seen to date.

I wanted to rent this movie because I thought it was an ingenious (and savvy low-budget) concept. Unfortunately, everytime I went to get it either it was out (who besides me would rent such a film?) or the party I was with didn't want to see it.

Luckily it appeared one afternoon on the Sundance channel while I was home, so I quite literally leapt at the opportunity.

After the first few minutes I regretted my choice. There was silence, and nothing to watch but a car going down an empty desert highway. I was going to quit, but I decided to stick it out.

Decision well made.

The film was co-scripted by Affleck, Damon, and Van Sant. They filled the dialogue with personalized slang, making it all the more real. Also, they never fell prey to making either character a hero or a villain, simply equal partners in the most difficult situation they had ever faced.

Truly chilling was how calm they were for the first couple of days, laughing and telling stories to fill the time.

Although much of the film is silent save the gravelly sounding steps across the hinterland, it becomes impossible to feel bored. Harris Savides' cinematography and the aforementioned trio's editing force you into an unsettling balance between panic and peace. It's so weird - you're nervous, but you feel almost apathetic about the source of that nervousness.

And that ending. I don't want to give it away because you definitely feel it coming anyway. Even so, it's breathtaking.

Affleck, while he has yet to eclipse his brother in terms of star power, has lapped him many times over in terms of talent. Every emotion he goes through in this film - and he runs the gamut - seems as natural as breathing.

Damon, who annoys me more and more with every passing movie he makes, actually works well here. His Gerry possesses clarity in crisis without the heavy-handed movie burden of leader, making his efforts all the more agonizing to watch.

It's been a few days now, but I just can seem to shake this movie, which is a triumph in my opinion.

Mind you, it also made me want to buy a compass.

The Safety of Objects (2001)

Story: The overlapping problems of four suburban families come to a boiling point over the course of a few days. The Golds - Julie (Jessica Campbell) believes her mother, Esther (Glenn Close), loves her comatose brother, Paul (Joshua Jackson), more, so Esther enters a contest to win Julie a car. The Trains - Jim (Dermot Mulroney) has a few days off due to a bomb threat, but he walks out on his family when he becomes obsessed with helping Esther win the car, despite his son Jake's (Alex House) odd behaviour. The Jenningses - When Sam (Kristen Stewart) goes missing, Annette (Patricia Clarkson) blames her ex husband instead of calling the police. The Christiansons - Helen (Mary Kay Place) concentrates on her looks, her husband's waning interest, and her daughter Sally's (Charlotte Arnold) eating habits. And Randy (Timothy Olyphant) is around.

Trust me when I tell you that I was trying to be brief. The movie isn't too complex to watch, but that fact that in involves 4+ families can make it seem difficult.

I enjoyed the movie for the most part. Figuring out what role each person played or didn't play in Paul's accident was pretty intriguing, but the truth sort of hung me out to dry. If I may venture to say so, though, Rose Troche (writer/director) opted for a great conclusion, even if her screenplay was lack luster at most points and bewildering at others.

For example, we are supposed to believe that although everyone seems to be able to see into everyone else's house, no one bothers to close their expensive window coverings.

Also, apparently parents no longer tell their children not to get into cars with strangers. I don't know about you, but my parents took a pretty hard line on that sort of thing.

Clarkson, Close, and Mulroney do their best to elevate what ends up being little more than a less affecting American Beauty. Campbell shines in the cliched role of a disenfranchised teen, but House steals the show as a confused little boy on the cusp of puberty.

I guess you could say that something just felt off the whole time I was watching this movie. I kept being shocked at the way people were treating each other, even if it was plausible behaviour.

The movie had its moments, but I wouldn't say it had enough to bother with it yourself.

The Singing Detective (2003)

Short: Dan Dark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a detective novelist suffering from a powerful skin disease. In his hospital bed, he hallucinates convoluted plots and bizarre musical numbers involving his wife, Nicola (Robin Wright Penn); his psychotherapist, Dr. Gibbon (Mel Gibson); a murderous lothario, Mark Binney (Jeremy Northam); his mother (Carla Gugino); his nurse (Katie Holmes); and two hoods (Adrien Brody and Jon Polito).

In sharp contrast to yesterday's review, I'm not sure I have much to say about this film. I knew that it opened to mixed, mostly disappointed, reviews, and I decided to wait until it was available on video.

Now I'm not entirely convinced that I should have done even that. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that I regret renting this movie, I wouldn't say that I would have missed out by not seeing it.

So, by my own standards, this movie failed because it won't leave a lasting impression. Dennis Potter (writer) and Keith Gordon (director) didn't do their jobs.

Mind you, I find the Potter bit confusing since he died it 1994. I understand that he must have written the screenplay before he died, but no other writer is credited, which makes me wonder how any rewriting was accomplished.

Basically, the story is jarringly sexual. If you watch the entire movie, then you know why things take on a hypersexuality in Dark's mind, but I still didn't appreciate watching half the things that I saw.

Downey Jr. is still one of the best actors of his generation, and I am always so glad to be reminded that he has yet to slip into a drug induced coma. This role must have taken incredible dedication on his part (the make-up alone must have taken 4 hours to put on).

The end is what really gets me, though. It's shocking, yes, but so dissatisfying on a psychological level.

Equilibrium (2002)

Premise: In the future, the masses anethetize their emotions in order to put an end to hate, jealousy, rage, sorrow and their destructive criminal counterparts, creating a sedated version of peace. There exists an elite task force, the Grammaton Clerics, to round up and destroy "sense offenders", those who do not dose. John Preston (Christian Bale) is the highest-ranking cleric, renowned for both his mastery of the gun katas and his highly developed intuition. After he kills his partner, Partridge (Sean Bean), Preston somewhat accidentally goes off the dose. His behaviour raises the suspicions of his new partner, Brandt (Taye Diggs), but not those of the vice-president, Dupont (Angus Macfayden). Preston develops a connection with Mary O'Brien (Emily Watson), whom he arrested and who is sentenced to summary combustion.

Okay, so the plot's as predictable as they come:
He's their greatest weapon, so all their training is obviously going to backfire when he realizes how wrong "Father" (their version of Big Brother) has been to keep them from feeling. But who really watches an action/sci-fi movie for the plot, anyway?

So, in case it isn't clear: Caution! Spoilers Ahead!

And, as I have always said about children in movies, Preston's son Robbie (Matthew Harbour) is the scariest character of all. I mean, what could be more terrifying to watch than an emotionless little kid? Very little is the correct answer.

So, unoriginal plot aside, I would like to point out that Bale is the Matrix. For those of you don't know, referring to someone as the Matrix doesn't mean that I think they are computer generated, it means that they can do something astounding that seemingly defies concepts like physics, gravity, and reality.

In Equilibrium’s case, I'm referring to Bale doing those gun katas. Dupont explains that thorough analysis has proven enemy fire statistically predictable, which has allowed the Cleric to develop katas that keep them out of harm's way while pretty much killing everyone else.

And they are something else to watch. I know because I had to watch this movie twice just to take it all in. Instead of relying on the more prevalent CGI (ahem, actual Matrix movies), Kurt Wimmer (writer/director) treats the audience to a combination of camera work, film speed, and crafty editing. I paid close attention the second time around, I think I spotted only three short instances of CGI. This sum, of course, refers to fight sequences and not, for example, the digital sky scrapes.

Now that I think about it, what Wimmer's story lacks, his direction more than makes up for. He knows how to pace everything just right for maximum emotional effect. In the film, art, music, movies, television, books, colours, textures, and pets have all been outlawed because of their "emotional content", creating a visually grim world.

One of the most exquisite scenes in the movie occurs when Preston finds a room full of contraband after they take a house full of rebels. He runs his fingers over everything that surrounds him, then pauses to put on a Beethoven LP. As the music fills the room, the snow globe in his hands crashes to the ground, and Preston bursts into tears. It made me wish I could see someone react Beethoven for the first time every day for the rest of my life.

Of course, Klaus Badelt's alternatively pulsing, chilling, and uplifting score is nothing to thumb your nose at. I have a confession to make: a month ago, I had no idea who Badelt was. Since then I have seen two movies where I deliberately paid attention to his score, and that extra listening has paid off. I am 100% on the Badelt bandwagon now.

In fact, I would venture to say that between Badelt's score, Wimmer's direction, and Dion Beebe's cinematography, dialogue isn't necessary. Those three and maybe Jan de Bont as the producer. I can honestly tell you that as soon as I saw that I thought, "Well, I'm not surprised." This movie has his fingerprints all over it.

Macfayden made a pretty good villain, and I very much believed that Diggs is an arrogant, backstabbing prick. I was confused as to how his obvious pride and jealous weren't feelings, but I don't think I was supposed to notice/care about that.

If this is any explanation of Bale's performance, I just kept thinking about what a kick Batman he's going to make.

Watson, lovely as ever, possesses a sort of ethereal beauty and wisdom in this movie. It's a more than little disarming.

And who doesn't love Bean? He is, in my humble opinion, one of Britain's premiere actors, and I am always glad to see him. It's funny, though, that he maintains his accent while the rest try to stifle theirs.

As long as you respect that plots aren’t necessarily important in action movies, I can easily recommend this one to you. It was so stunning to watch that I didn't let a day pass before seeing it again.

The Hole (2001)

Summary: Seeking to avoid a school trip to Wales, Liz (Thora Birch), Mike (Desmond Harrington), Frankie (Keira Knightley), and Geoff (Laurence Fox) take a secret vacation in an abandoned bunker. When only Liz returns after 18 days, the police suspect foul play from a fellow student, Martyn (Daniel Brocklebank). Unfortunately, it quickly becomes clear that Liz is no longer able to separate fiction from reality after her ordeal, leaving Dr. Philippa Horwood (Embeth Davidtz) to sort it out.

Okay, so I basically rented this movie because . . . wait, I should preface this:

Caution: Spoilers Ahead!

That said, I basically rented this movie because I knew Knightley's character would end up dead, and I was hoping Birch's would kill her. There would be certain poetic, filmic (if you will) justice in that, don't you think?

Dreams come true!

But that also makes it a flawed movie. If I could divine all of that from the cover, imagine how paper thin the rest of plot was. Even if I bear in mind that this is the first (and seemingly only) offering from Ben Court and Caroline Ip (writers), that doesn't excuse the transparent plot and characters.

I mean, don't the words soul survivor mean anything to you? They mean killer to me. How else would someone survive being locked in somewhere for that long and be the only one to escape? Only one person on the outside knew where they were, and he was so obviously not a killer.

Also, right at the beginning, Birch doesn't escape running. She walks. I'm sure she's tired and all, but, if she were afraid, she would have ran. In fact, her lumber suggests not only dehydration but also boredom.

The worst bit is her incapability to come up with plausible lies for what happened. I mean, honestly, how hard could it be? I'm fairly certain that Emily and I came up with two more believable options each than Birch's clear drivel.

Not that I'm blaming Birch. She does her very best and almost nails her British accent.

I'm not too sure what Nick Hamm (director) is up to here. He obviously doesn't care if you figure out what's going on from the get-go, nor does he seem interested in inspiring believable performances from his actors.

So overall - definitely not worth the rental fee. Unless you pay people to annoy you, which I find many, many people happily do for free.

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

Outline: As soon as Edmund Dantes' (Jim Caviezel) life seemingly falls into place, his best friend, Fernand Mondego (Guy Pearce), has him imprisoned for treason and marries Edmund's fiancee, Mercedes (Dagmara Dominczyk). Imprisoned on a isolated island, Edmund begins to formulate a plan for escape and revenge with the help of a fellow inmate (Richard Harris). That inmate gives him a map to the isle of Monte Cristo, where a fortune awaits. With it and the help of a smuggler, Jacopo (Luis Guzman), Edmund becomes the Count of Monte Cristo and moves to Paris to exact his revenge.

I caught a bit of this movie on TV the other day, and I began to laugh it as a classic example of allowing attractive leads to lead you astray at the box office.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan of Alexandre Dumas' tale of passion and revenge, but that's not what drew me in in the end.

Yet, as I was watching it, I was subtly seduced into enjoying it. It wasn't even a guilty pleasure sort of enjoying. It was the camera work!

I actually forgot how exciting this movie is! It's the same excitement that Kevin Reynolds (director) mustered at the helm of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, without having to subject yourself to Kevin Costner or Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio.

Instead, you are treated to what is easily in the Top 5 great movie entrances of all time, as well as Harris for a touch of plucky class.

On the other hand, for reasons beyond my comprehension, Pearce's teeth get progressively worse and worse the more cruelly his character behaves. Apparently someone wants you to believe that evil causes tooth decay.

I can't remember whether or not Jay Wolpert (screenwriter) spoils the story by giving us the Hollywood ending. I don't mean that I can't remember the movie; I mean that I can't remember the book.

Dominczyk's acting is probably the least compelling part of the entire movie. Reynolds works hard to convince you that a heaving bosom and wet eyes can be exchanged for talent, but I know better.

The movie's a swashbuckling adventure, to be sure, but it's not the best of its type. Regardless, if you are looking for a bit of sport (and one helluva entrance), you needn't look any further.

Buffalo Soldiers (2001)

Plan: Toward the end of the cold war, the U.S government offered criminals a choice: jail or the army. Ray Elwood (Joaquin Phoenix) chose the army. Stationed outside Berlin shortly before the fall of wall, Elwood is making a killing trading anything he can get his hands on the black market, while his commander, Colonel Berman (Ed Harris), is none the wiser. Elwood sees opportunity in an accident to make millions, but his new top, Sergeant Lee (Scott Glenn), grows suspicious and decides to take Elwood down. As pay back, Elwood decides to start dating Lee's only daughter, Robyn (Anna Paquin).

The back of the box claims that this movie is a comedy in the tradition of Pulp Fiction. As you well know, I've never seen Pulp Fiction, so I make no such similar claims.

I can tell you that this is a macabre comedy that only the truly independent can produce and only the truly morbid (i.e. me) can enjoy.

So, if you are morbid enough to find comedy in the macabre, then I can say that this is the movie for you.

When I saw Ned Kelly, I thought Gregor Jordan (director) was good with drama. Surprisingly, he has shown me that he is much better with comedy. While the camera seems to sit idly in some shots, Jordan is setting you up for bigger and bigger laughs. He always takes his time walking into a joke, and you almost feel like you get more out of them for that reason.

He collaborated with Nora Maccoby and one of the book's authors, Eric Axel Weiss, on the screenplay. While the plot, and even some of the jokes, are obvious, they manage to craft genuine characters and caricatures that they milk for all their worth.

Phoenix plays his lovable rascal close to his sleeve, largely depending on dead pan delivery and a smirk to get him through. The script makes falling in love with Paquin an easy requirement, and Phoenix gives Elwood just the right amount of shock, courage, and fear.

Can I just say that I really like Paquin? Every time I see her, I think, "Hey, it's Anna Paquin", and I nod my head with satisfaction. That phrase and action is some of the highest praise I can give an actor. I'm always glad to see her, and she hasn't disappointed me in the last four years.

Harris plays something of a lovable doufus here, a sort of Colonel Klink of the American side. I can tell he enjoys taking a poke at himself, but there's something about his handsome, masculine face that makes it difficult to truly believe that someone could so deftly pull the wool over his eyes. I mean, Harris? Cuckholded? That just doesn't seem right, but I laughed nonetheless.

Glenn is one scary mother. I think would be afraid of him if I ever met him in real life. His features seem so harsh, and then he breaks into a sadistic grin. It's sick.

You know what? I think I'm going to have to give this movie one satisfied head nod. It was funny, not hilarious or hysterical. Just funny.

And I liked that.

Signs (2002)

Plot: Six months ago, Graham Hess' (Mel Gibson) wife died, prompting Graham to leave the church and care for their two children, Morgan (Rory Caulkin) and Bo (Abigail Breslin) and their farm. Graham's younger brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix) moved in with them to help out, although he feels useless to his brother. The Hesses become interested in the supernatural activities around their Pennsylvania farm after they discover crop circles too perfect to be made by human hands.

April takes requests: part 3!

Alright, Signs isn't so much a request as it is a discrepancy, but you get the idea. As you may recall, when I referred to The Village as M. Night Shyamalan's best, Carol quickly pointed out that I hadn't, in fact, seen all of his films. Signs was missing from my critic's collector's edition.

Now, I have seen it. I maintain my earlier statement. The Village is his best work to date.

As such, I don't particularly feel it necessary to enter into another discussion about his work as a writer/director/producer. I've mentioned it in the past, and I am happy to say it again: Shyamalan understands that what you don't see is far more terrifying than what you do.

As always, half the film seems to go by before you glimpse anything. There's nothing there, then something suddenly walks out and James Newton Howard's score goes, "DUNNNN!!!!!" when whatever it is appears.

What I didn't know was that Shyamalan had a little comedy in him! I definitely did not see that coming, which made those few laughs all the more enjoyable for me. Gibson trying to act scary by screaming, "I AM INSANE WITH ANGER!" was almost too much. And he didn't kill anybody or anything! He wasn't violent at all. I liked that.

Or Phoenix telling the Brazilian children to vamanos through the TV screen, only to be so frightened that he went flying off his chair. I liked that as well.

Of course, grown male leads aside, it's the children who steal the show. For all that's made about Dakota Fanning being an adult in a child's body, I believe that's a title that rightly belongs Caulkin. There's a scene right at the beginning where Gibson turns Caulkin's head so that he looks into his father's eyes, and Caulkin turns Gibson's head back by the chin to see the crop circle. That one gesture was possibly the most chilling for me in the entire movie.

Mind you, he's also quite endearing. At one point he's walking away to a bookstore, and it kills me when he just reaches his hand out behind him as he goes, waiting for Breslin/Bo join him with being told or asked.

Breslin steals your heart with her huge eyes and strangely steady delivery. The role that she plays in their eerily connected family is possibly the most significant, and she manages to convey an understanding beyond her years through little dialogue.

Like all of Shyamalan's films, this movie deals with a belief in the interconnectedness of all things. I'm not sure where he comes down in terms of religious belief himself, but it's clear that he doesn't want us to take anything for granted.

Perhaps that's the real point of all his movies.

Perhaps that's what I'll discover when I make them talk to each other.