Transformers

What a bizarre, mess of a movie. Transformers is perhaps the most unusual film of the year (or any year for that matter); a sci-fi epic that is gloriously over-the-top, hardly makes a lick of sense (I doubt even the human characters are from Planet Earth), and ends with the most bombastic and chaotic action scene I have ever seen.

As the final credit rolled I couldn't tell if Michael Bay had just directed the most brilliant B-movie of all time, or a colossally misguided clunker. Regardless, or perhaps because of its schizophrenic nature, I enjoyed the film, although often for reasons that I'm sure were unintentional.

Everything actually starts out quite well. There's an impressive action scene involving a group of American soldiers in Qatar who are attacked by a helicopter Transformer. Then, the action cuts to the story of Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), a nerdy teen, who is looking forward to buying his first car so he'll have better luck with the ladies. LaBeouf is surprisingly good in the role, and the early scenes involving the purchase of his Transformer car are pretty funny.

Then Bay introduces the female love interest played by Megan Fox, and the warning light starts flashing. I get that the movie is made for teenage boys, so I'm not expecting a deep relationship, but Fox is clearly window dressing, a complete and utter male fantasy who Michael Bay shoots with a fetishistic glee that would be more at home on Skinemax. You see, she's hot, but deep down she just wants to be around guys who appreciate her true talents, like the fact that she knows everything about cars (clearly something most guys would find unattractive and repulsive).

Then the movie just starts introducing an abundance of random characters on top of Sam, and the soldiers we met in the opening scene. Jon Voight shows up as the defense secretary, and there's a whole bunch of attractive code breakers. Suddenly, the script's subplots start mounting, and it becomes painfully clear that the movie is turning into a jumbled mess.

The central concept of a boy buying a car with special powers, while potentially interesting, is never really developed. Bay is too interested getting into the meaty robot action scenes to spend any considerable time with the characters.

At this point I have to admit I was worried. I didn't really care about anyone in the movie, aside from Sam (LaBeouf really should be commended for his gusto), too much was happening that I could care less about (those code breakers kept coming back with other, wackier code breakers), and the humour was becoming stale. But, just as I was giving up hope, an interesting thing started to happen. The heroic Transformers arrived from outer space and suddenly the movie decided that logic, and tone were unimportant.

There is a sequence halfway through the movie where the Transformers want to get some historical eye-glasses from Sam (long story) and they hide out in his yard, while Sam's parents start to become suspicious that something weird is going on. This section of the movie could quite literally be from an episode of Three's Company with Sam's parents as the Ropers, and the Transformers as the beautiful women Jack Tripper (Sam) is trying to prevent them from seeing. The fifty foot Transformers hide behind trees, under trellises, and in the bushes, all while Sam's parents (who must have lost their vision and hearing since the beginning of the movie) believe Sam is up to some independent sexual exploration in his room. The scene goes on and on, getting worse and worse, yet oddly hilarious, with each passing second. It's a train wreck of a scene, and just when I didn't think it could get any more ridiculous, John Turturro knocks on Sam's front door.

Now I like John Turturro, but someone seems to have forgotten to tell him that Transformers was not being directed by the Coen Brothers. Turturro enters the movie in full-on Barton Fink bat-ass crazy mode.

All of the plot threads converge oh so conveniently at the Hoover Dam subterranean alien laboratory (where it is finally revealed that aside from Sam's story, the other plots are utterly useless and were indeed just a waste of time), and it doesn't take long for Megatron, the evil alien robot, to cause some havoc with the heroic Transformers, who pass time by sitting on top of Griffith Observatory like it's a park bench.

The grand finale; a half hour robot smackdown in the streets of Los Angeles is, unfortunately not very imaginative (although there are some clever moments), but Bay seems to cover up his lack of ideas by blowing up every single thing known to mankind. It's messy chaos. Half the time I couldn't tell which robots were fighting, and the action is so busy, that it is difficult to follow what is even happening. The army guys yell a lot and shoot their guns. Sam runs a lot. Sam's hot girlfriend finally does something useful involving a tow truck (remember she's really knowledgeable about cars). Basically, it's just a whole lot of insanity, with an ending that I still don't really understand.

Yet, despite how bad it all is, it's so goofy, and entertaining that I couldn't stop laughing. Every year I usually nominate a tongue-in-cheek B-movie that is ten times more fun than it has every right to be (movies like Deep Blue Sea or The Core). I have to say that despite it's huge budget, big name pedigree, and the fact that I'm not sure if it was trying to be tongue-in-cheek, Transformers is my top nomination for the year. For those still on the fence I will refer you to the scene where Turturro takes on a mini-transformer with a flame thrower while Jon Voight dutifully backs him up with a shotgun. It may not be high art, but a moment like that is some form of cinematic bliss.

Star Rating **1/2 out of 4

Ratatouille

Thank goodness for Pixar!

After a disappointing start to the summer movie season (with no real stand out films), Ratatouille is a beacon of hope, proudly declaring that good, entertaining movies with interesting characters and exciting action still exist. It may be marketed as a children's film, but don't let that fool you. This is quite simply the smartest, most mature popcorn flick of the year, not mention the most fun.

It's not that I should be overly surprised. Pixar has consistently put out movies that are so creative and refreshing, that they have become somewhat of a Godsend in the often soulless pit of Hollywood blockbuster filmmaking. Even their last film Cars, which I will admit is my least favourite of their movies, managed to show last year's onslaught of hyperactive cartoons that you don't need screaming characters, constant action, hip comedy, and a script that talks down to its audience in order to make a heartfelt children's film.

Simply put, they know what they're doing, and Ratatouille is wonderful. It's about a rat, Remy, who wants to be the finest chef in all of Paris, and is given his chance when he teams up with a bumbling dishboy, Linguini, at a legendary (albeit past its prime) restaurant. When Remy's meals start winning over new customers, it's Linguini who takes the credit, but head chef Skinner isn't about to let the upstart cook take over his kitchen.

Ratatouille succeeds on three major levels. It provides interesting characters and allows them to grow, it manages to create a rat's eye view of the world that hilariously comments on human nature, and it unifies everything with a heart warming theme that is instantly relatable to every audience member. It's the Pixar model of success - Character, Point of View, and Theme.

Aside from Remy and Linguini, our leading duo, Ratatouille is filled with wonderful characters. My favourite being Anton Ego, the harshest food critic in Paris voiced to perfection by Peter O'Toole. Ego lives for food, but has forgotten how to enjoy the simple pleasures in life. He writes in a coffin shaped room, hoping that his scathing criticisms will doom mediocre restaurants. Ego has very little screen time, but the Pixar team manages to use every second to create a fleshed out monster. As the story nears it's conclusion, Ego has a monologue, so well written and delivered, that I found myself more emotionally involved with his supporting character than I have been with most film's lead characters.

As for the point of view, it's difficult to make a movie that refreshingly looks through the eyes of an animal species, but Ratatouille manages to make almost everything fresh. Sure there are a few scenes where the "humans are bad" symbolism is a bit heavy, but for the most part Remy's conflict between following his outlandish humanized dream or appeasing his garbage-loving rat family is unique. I also particularly enjoy how Remy is merely a bystander to a world he vaguely understands. He has no control, and at times is caught up in a whirlwind of human activity in order to survive. A thrilling sequence early on has Remy trying to escape the kitchen while avoiding detection. It's an exceptionally exciting set piece, and it's hiliarious to see how a common kitchen can be a series of death traps.

But it wouldn't mean anything if there wasn't a theme to connect all the dots. This time, it's broadly stated in the title of the book Remy adores called Anyone Can Cook. While the follow you dreams theme has been excessively used in past movies, it has rarely felt more suitable or original than in Ratatouille. As the multiple plot threads weave toward the finale, everything connects in an emotionally fulfilling way. I will admit to even being a bit choked up by the film.

Ratatouille is easily one of my favourite films of the year. It's brilliant, and further cements Pixar's repuation as the best animation studio, or film studio for that matter, in North America. Not since the early days of Walt Disney has there been such a consistent outpouring of excellence by a group of dedicated artists. It's a shame I have to wait another year for their next movie.

Star Rating - **** out of 4

Ocean's 13

I'm pleased to say that Ocean's 13 is definitely an improvement over the far too lazy Ocean's 12. The plot is more coherent this time around, the heist has lots of different parts that need to connect at just the right moments, and the actors all have a role to play (unlike Ocean's 12 where half the cast seemed to be along just for a trip to Europe).

But, the film still suffers from a case of sequelitis, a not so rare disease in which subsequent films, in an attempt to capture the magic of the first film, essentially gives us the first film all over again with a few changes here and there (see Home Alone 2 and Ghostbusters 2 for other examples of sequelitis).

There's no reason for this movie to exist, and while I was entertained by it, I was also annoyed by its lack of novelty. The characters are the same at the end of the movie as they are at the beginning (only they have a far greater appreciation of Oprah).

Since the formula hasn't changed all that much, the audience waits for the plan's different elements to click into place, is given a few scenes where the plan looks like it's in danger of failing, and then watches as Danny Ocean's crew cleverly sidesteps each small hurtle. At no point is there any doubt that the plan won't work, and as the movie winds down, I found myself checking off the inevitable twists and turns. There are no surprises.

The movie also rushes by at a breakneck pace, speeding through plot points at such a ferocious speed that many important elements are glossed over. I'm still trying to figure out what the deal was with the slot machines...I know it's in the movie, but everything was coming at me so fast that I missed it.

What there is, is a talented cast having fun, and the movie does provide some humourous scenes. I liked how their infiltration of a Mexican dice factory (in order to fix the craps dice) leads to a worker's strike. Matt Damon's seduction of Ellen Barkin provides some great moments, and Pitt and Clooney certainly have a natural chemistry together.

It's an entertaining flick, but even the laughs are somewhat hollow since the jokes are basically recycled from the first two movies.

I guess I'm moderately recommending the movie. It's certainly fun, but fleeting. I can only hope this is the last in the series - these folks are far too talented to regurgitate another caper flick.

Star Rating - **1/2 out of 4

Tv Shows I'm Watching - The Sopranos Series Finale

Don't read this article if you haven't seen the second half of Sopranos season 6, the series finale or care about the series finale. I'm giving you time to turn back now.....

Still time.....

Okay, you've been warned, here we go.

After six and a half seasons, The Sopranos has finally ended, and in the final episode....well....nothing really happened.

I have my thoughts, and I'll share them in a bit. First though, I just want to state that for the most part, I loved the last nine episodes of the show which finally seemed to embrace David Chase's mid-series change of pace. It appeared that Chase grew quickly bored of the ultra-violent, tightly paced, comic mob drama after season three and slowly transformed it into a slow, pondering, often brilliant, often frustrating meditation on violence and family in its last three seasons.

I felt like seasons four, five, and 6.1 were tonally inconsistent, abandoning the clear, suspense laden storytelling of the first three seasons by adding multiple open ended plot threads (that were often never resolved or wrapped up so quickly there was little time to develop any tension), a growing labrynth of paper thin mob associates (who were instantly forgettable, especially considering the show's year long breaks), and occasionally diving headfirst into the bizarre realm of esoteric psychobabble through elaborate, often baffling dream sequences.

It became clear by the second half of season six, that the transition was complete, and the final nine episodes were the mournful cries of a show exploring abandonment, loneliness, and the sad truth of the world these mobsters live in. Each episode provided closure to a particular character, sometimes shockingly, sometimes inevitably.

Perhaps the key scene of the last episode involved a conversation that took place in Little Italy. As a tour guide explains at the beginning of the scene, Little Italy, at its height spanned forty blocks of New York City. Today, it is a fraction of the size, and as one mobster finishes his short phone conversation he finds that he has traversed the entire breadth of the neighbourhood in a matter of seconds.

These final episodes, taken as a whole, depict the death of the mob.

As the older mobsters succumb to health issues (Johnny Sack, Junior), the young ones succumb to greed and addiction (Christopher). The next generation, having lived a life of wealth and abundance, doesn't have what it takes to move into the business.

And as the final episode wraps up, with half of Tony's associates dead or dying, with Paulie, in his own mind, signing a death warrant, and with Junior losing himself completely to dementia, Tony decides to have a family meal at a diner.

He sits down, and turns on the jukebox - Journey's Don't Stop Believing. As the tune starts, Carmela sits down and talks family matters, then A.J. shows up and talks about focusing on the good times (clearly a step away from the depressing thoughts he has recently had). Meadow has trouble parallel parking outside. A shady figure at the end of the bar heads to the bathroom. Meadow parks and runs toward the diner. The door clangs. Tony looks up, the song says "Don't stop"....complete cut to black. The Sopranos is over.

Theories have been popping up all over the place from - "the last episode was all a dream" to "Tony was killed by the man in the washroom", but personally I think it's much simpler.

The show just ends.

Yep.

That's it. No bang, no whimper, just a quick cut to black midway through a perfectly normal moment in Tony's life.

Journey's song claims, "Oh the movie never ends. It goes on and on and on and on", and that incapsulates the feeling of the finale; knowing that despite that cut, things go on. Tony's life continues, but Chase's cut kills the relationship between the viewer and the characters.

David Chase doesn't try to hide this. The final line of the previous episode reiterates Bobby's assertion that "you don't even hear it when it (death) happens." And like that, The Sopranos is over, dead, a complete unexpected surprise. For us, Tony's story is finished, the mob's story is finished.

At first, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I thought the final seconds had been mistakenly broadcast. Then I was angry, pissed off at David Chase for taking me through six seasons of a show only to end it like THAT!!! Then I went on the Internet and tried to see what people were saying...everyone was trying to say...it's not over, it's just making room for the movie. Then people were sad....and then the reports started coming in from the major publications about how brilliant the ending was.

At this point I realized the brilliance of the ending. Chase had created an ending so shockingly similar to death, that I, and most of the viewing population, was experiencing the five stages of grief used in the Kubler-Ross model.

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

What better way to depict the death of the mob than to actually kill the entire show.

Another key to understanding the ending seems to lie in Goodfellas, the Scorcese film referenced frequently, and admired by every single character in The Sopranos universe. In Goodfellas the final shot shows Joe Pesci's character firing a gun directly at the audience. It's a direct homage to The Great Train Robbery, a 1903 silent film, that used a similar final shot. There a man pointed his gun to the audience and fired. Because movies were so new, legend has it that audiences were scared out of their minds thinking that somehow they were going to be shot.

So, Goodfellas apes a technique originally designed to make an audience think they were about to be shot. And The Sopranos, never one to shy away from Scorcese references, playfully throws in its own technique to simulate murder.

I can certainly understand why the ending is so frustrating, but in recent years, The Sopranos has trusted its audience to work through some complex, often difficult-to-understand moments. The ending is certainly no more difficult to analyze than the bizarre episode, The Test Dream, where Tony had a twenty minute dream sequence, or the episodes after Tony is shot where, in his camatose state, he imagines that he is living the life of another person.

Chase provides an ending that is open for interpretation, and I think it's fair to say that The Sopranos will be analyzed and discussed far more because of its final moments, than if the show had ended with a typical bloodbath.

What I Rented - Tideland

Terry Gilliam's Tideland is a colossal failure, a movie so misguided and ugly that it is a chore to sit through the first ten minutes let alone the entire two hours. There is the hope that some of Gilliam's enormous talent will shine through later on, but aside from the occasional fantasy scene he seems more interested in surrounding his lead character with bizarre whackos who engage in acts more at home in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

The story, or what little story there is, follows Jeliza Rose (Jodelle Ferland), who moves with her father to a deserted house in the middle of the prairies after her mother dies from a drug overdose. Soon after, dad follows suit, and Jeliza is left to fend for herself, communicating solely with four severed doll's heads. Eventually she meets up with some more characters and they form a disfunctional family unit. Lots of bizarre sexual situations, violence, and depravity follows.

Tideland is first and foremost an exercise in excess. Without any restraints, it appears that Gilliam was allowed to do whatever he wanted, and while there is certainly an abundance of ideas, there is no sense of pacing, story, or even visual grace. A little girl simply walks around and finds herself in troubling situations, but unlike Alice in Wonderland (a story Gilliam repeatedly references), Jeliza's journey is witless, satire-free, and dull.

One of the main problems is that the Gilliam never allows the audience to truly get inside Jeliza's head. According to Gilliam's bizarre intro, he claims that he wants the viewer to see the world through the innocence of a child. Fair enough, but why then does he constantly show the reality of the scene?

For example, in Jeliza's world, Dickens, her neighbour, is a heroic submarines captain who hunts and kills sharks. Yet, aside from one extremely over-the-top fantasy scene, the camera consistently shows the grim reality of the situation. Dickens is a mentally disabled boy who spends most of his time in a tent where he plans to blow up trains and other moving vehicles. Jeliza simply wanders into his world, mumbles a lot of childish nonsense, and we're supposed to accept that Jeliza's imagination is working overtime to create a wondrous fantasy.

Every scene in the movie is essentially the same. Jeliza is innocently placed in a potentially traumatic experience, and instead of watching her interpretation of the event, the audience is treated to the gritty, hard-to-stomach reality. Because she is a child, and the plot would disintegrate if she actively tried to improve her lot in life, she is essentially reduced to a powerless protagonist, and the movie never lets her be anything more than a passive observer. Sure she occasionally takes action; freeing a squirrel, or putting two doll's heads inside her dead father's open carcass (yep that's the kind of movie this is), but more often than not Jeliza simply is in the right place at the right time and has an "encounter". Over the course of two hours, Jeliza's inaction becomes downright annoying. I know she's a child, but Gilliam spends so long trying to prove that she is a bright child, so it's thoroughly unconvincing when Jeliza is unable to sense that the people around her are downright insane.

Tideland is a terrible, terrible movie, made even worse by the fact that this is potentially fascinating material, placed in the hands of the one man who could have actually made it work. Gilliam's film is a depressing slog, an unrestrained mess, and one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to sit through.

Star Rating - O out of 4

TV Shows I'm Watching - Heroes (Episode 23)

Episode 23 - How To Stop An Exploding Man - ** out of 4

(Only read if you have seen the episode, cause I'm getting into some specifics)

That's it?

That's what we've been waiting an entire season for?

UGH!!! That has to be the most anticlimactic season finale I've ever seen (and moments before I just finished watching the lackluster season six finale to 24). After months of slow buildup all of our storylines converge in what should have been an epic battle with Sylar. Instead, the writers throw logic aside and provide some utterly ridiculous moments that I will get to in a second.

The steps leading to the end were fine, picking up exactly where last weeks action packed episode ended. Parkman stops Bennett from shooting a ten year old girl, Niki finds Micah in a scene that finds a way to include THREE Ali Larters, Hiro saves Ando from Sylar, Peter somehow talks to that sick guy who died like twelve episodes back and realizes his mom is evil, Nathan decides to let the bomb explode, and Claire jumps out a window to save Peter.

So, after all this teasing the big moment arrives - all the heroes meet up to do battle with Sylar!

AND THEN............

poof...the writers reveal that they have no clue what is going on. They can't even keep track of what powers the characters have.

Let me count the ways this final sequence frustrated me.

1. Parkman has fought Sylar before and seen how powerful he is, so it doesn't take a mind reader (zing) to realize that you can't just run at the guy and put four bullets in the back of his head. But, that's exactly what he does....and finds himself in coma-ville.

2. Peter has how many powers? And yet, he decides to just punch Sylar.

3. Niki all of a sudden decides to join a fight that she has absolutely no stake in. She doesn't know Peter, doesn't know Sylar, has no idea about the exploding man, and has never shown any feelings for somebody who wasn't Micah or DL.

4. Claire doesn't shoot Peter!!!!!!! The exlamation points are for how stupid this moment is. It is the most infuriating moment Heroes has ever thrown at the screen. All Claire has to do is pull the trigger and Peter stops going radioactive....but instead she can't bring herself to do it. Why? Claire knows that Peter has regenerative powers. All she has to do is fish the bullet out of his carcass and Peter will be fine. But no....cause....

5. Nathan has a last minute change of heart, and suddenly, despite the fact there are five hundred better options, gets all sacrificey. I hope the writers do an awful lot of explaining in season two because I have no clue why Nathan would fly away to his doom when all anyone has to do is put a bullet in Peter's brain! Plus...can't Peter fly himself? And isn't Peter going to die anyway if he explodes? Wouldn't the bullet be a bit more humane?

I was stunned by how incredibly terrible this last section of the story turned out to be. The only thing they got right was Hiro finally stabbing Sylar (although....remind me again....why is it Hiro seems to have forgotten that HE CAN STOP TIME!!!!????)

It's a shame that Heroes ended on such a mediocre, rushed note. Even the coda, where Hiro wakes up in the past seemed tired. I think the worst thing I can say about this finale is that I'm actually not all that upset that I have to wait until fall for more episodes. Maybe the summer will give the creative team some time to come up with a strong second season storyline!

What I Rented - Deja Vu

Dear Tony Scott

It's time to come clean.

You and I have had a rocky relationship. At times, yes, I have called you the "destroyer of all things cinematic", but remember at times you have made me physically ill with your endless barrage of swishes, zooms, and insane editing tricks.

In the nineties you and I were tight - True Romance, Crimson Tide, heck even The Last Boyscout all have spots in my VHS library, but lately....well....

I strongly disliked your last few movies. Domino gave me a headache, Man on Fire (after a good start) degenerated into a pointless series of stalks and kills more reminiscent of Friday the Thirteenth than a Denzel Washington action flick, and Spy Game is instantly forgettable - in fact aside from starring Robert Redford and Brad Pitt I really don't remember that one at all.

You love "style". I get it. I love "character". You don't get it.

But, I'm hoping with Deja Vu we can develop somewhat of a truce. I'm not saying you've made a great film, but it does seem like you are at least making movies again, and not just glorified music videos.

I liked the plot of Deja Vu. A terrorist bombing aboard a ferry kills hundreds of people. Detective Denzel tracks down clues, only to discover that the FBI actually has a time portal that allows them to see four days into the past. So, he tries to track down the killer by looking into the past. That's pretty cool stuff.

Heck, I even liked it when the film went into Back to the Future territory and the plot started folding in on itself. There are some fun, time twisty moments here.

But once again, you don't really provide characters worth knowing. Denzel plays Denzel giving the same performance he gives whenever he plays thinly written characters. You know what I'm talking about? The "I'm smarter than you are" smile mixed with the cold clinical "investigative" mode Denzel. Val Kilmer shows up, looks like he's going to be important to the story, and then disappears. Paula Patton is nice as the girl at the center of the mystery, but she never really comes across as more than just The Victim.

Alright, I know...it sounds like I'm being really negative. I'm not trying to be, but I was frustrated at the end of Deja Vu. I was enjoying the movie all the way through, saying to myself...gee that Tony Scott sure proved me wrong....but then the final moments left me cold.

Maybe it was the plot holes. Maybe it was the undercooked characters. Regardless, this is better than your recent movies, and that's the point I should focus on.

So, truce?

You continue to make movies, using Deja Vu as a starting point, and I will stop calling you names behind your back.

I'm giving you a weary *** out of 4. We'll talk later....

TV Shows I'm Watching - Heroes (Episodes 21 and 22)

Episode 21 - The Hard Part - ** out of 4

Major plot points discussed below...

Sorry it's taken me a while to write up this review, but frankly, after watching episode 21 I really didn't feel like saying too much about it. After the great time travelling episode, Five Years Gone, this should have really pushed the story further, built up the momentum, and tripled the suspense. Instead, The Hard Part fizzles, spending time on boring subplots that feel completely rushed.

Hiro and Ando return from the future knowing that Sylar has to die. Conveniently it's not too hard to find him (he's just cleaning up in the bathroom), and after a near miss, they follow him to his mother's place. While there, Sylar becomes the star of his very own After School Special when he realizes that no matter what he does his mother can't be happy unless he's the best. In other stories......Claire and Peter talk a lot, Matt and the gang (Sprague and Bennett) head to New York, Nikki/Jessica finds out Micah is in New York, and Micah waits around for Linderman (presumably because Malcom McDowell couldn't make a guest appearance this week).

The only somewhat interesting subplot involves Mohinder and the little girl Matt Parkman rescued way back in like episode two. Turns out the little girl has SUPER POWERS!!! (which marks the fiftieth time a character we didn't think had any powers turned out to....have SUPER POWERS!!!) Regardless, the little girl can locate anyone in the world by just thinking about them, but she's dying from the same disease that took Mohinder's sister. So, Mohinder, under the supervision of Eric Roberts, makes it his goal to find a cure!

My biggest problem with this episode is that it's just too much in one episode. I know that Heroes prides itself on not being like Lost, and that the writers promise to constantly move the plot along (which.....despite their claims...they do even less than Lost, but that's another rant for another time), but there's such a thing as suspense! In this episode two major stories are introduced and solved by the end of the episode (Sylar and his mom, Mohinder and the disease). There's no suspense, and no chance to become emotionally invested in either story because they're over and done with just when they start to get interesting.

Sylar suffers the worst. He starts to develop a moral crisis about killing off most of New York,
and visits his mom. I know you have to see the human beneath the monster, but this whole subplot just grated on me. Having never seen Sylar's mom before the poor actress has to try and go from sweet woman, to overly critical mama, to awe inspired proud mother, to terrified ma, to violent mom in the span of maybe fifteen minutes. When the end of this storyline finally hits home, there's no emotional impact because the woman we are supposed to care about was nothing more than a plot device so that Hiro would feel bad about killing Sylar right away. Argh!

The Mohinder story is a little better. At least we've seen the little girl before (if only for a minute), and there is some nice dialogue between the two, but there's not a single moment where the audience is allowed to believe she will die. One minute she's sick and Mohinder is frustrated, the next minute he found the cure! It's not a last minute cure either. He just comes up and says, "hey, by the way, I found the cure". Hurrah?! ? Why introduce a dying child if said child doesn't at least flatline once?

It's sad to say, but this third last episode really is filler.

Episode 22 - Landslide - ***1/2 out of 4

So....in order to combat last episode's filler status, Landslide throws in at least four or five major plot developments.

By my calculations three characters are dead, or dying. One character, Sulu, made a grand return. Nathan's wife managed to walk again. Nathan won the election. Lots of people pointed guns at each other. And Sylar menacingly stood over New York.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but shouldn't at least one of the events in this episode happened a whole lot earlier? In these 42 minutes there's at least four episodes worth of material. It's more frustrating because the last episode was so terrible.

Regardless, this one is good, and once again my love/hate relationship with Heroes crosses over into love territory.

I think what works best is that we're finally seeing all of the storylines collide as the entire cast arrives in New York. Even though this episode is busy, the fact that all of the characters are together at least makes the overall story feel like it's moving somewhere. In previous episodes, there was a feeling that things were jumping around too much because the characters were connected only by the thinnest of threads. Here, it starts to feel like the plot is taking shape. One character's actions now directly affects anothers'. Parkman and Bennett help out DL and Niki, moments after talking to Claire and Peter.

And it's fun seeing how these threads connect. Everyone now has a purpose (even good ole Niki!), and the show feels like it has stopped wandering aimlessly. The deaths at the end are shocking, and should shake things up in the next episode.

Hopefully now that Nathan has won the election his character will be in a position where we will be able to do things. It's an exciting development that should put his character into more dramatic situations than he has been in.

I still have a few gripes. Apparently, Sulu is such an amazing teacher that he can turn his son Hiro into a killing machine over the course of an afternoon. Although, because it's Sulu and he's wielding a samurai sword I wasn't too upset. And is there a sale on psychic car flipping stunts that I just haven't noticed? While it was thrilling to see Sylar take on the police to get to Radioactive Man, did it have to be exactly the same way Magneto took out the police in the last X-Men movie?

One episode is left!

What I Rented - Dreamgirls

Dreamgirls has a lot of flash, energy, great music, and riveting scenes. It's an entertaining, fun musical, made with a lot of passion, but by the end, aside from a couple of incredible moments, it makes as much impact as a big budget music video.

It's a simple story, one that has been told many times before. Three girls get their chance to make it big in the music world, but cutthroat business strategies soon have them fighting each other for a shot at fame. As their careers skyrocket, their personal relationships deteriorate and each girl finds that what they truly wanted, they had before all the glitz and glam entered their lives.

Now, much has been written about the star making performance by Jennifer Hudson, as Effie, the slightly overweight lead singer who is tossed aside in favour of the slimmer, but vocally inferior Deena Jones (Beyonce). Hudson is fantastic, and puts everyone in the cast to shame. Everyone else knows the poses, and knows how to look cool while singing, but Hudson loses herself in the music, connecting to the emotion behind the words. There is a ten minute section in the middle of the film, where Effie's life reaches absolute rock bottom, and Hudson belts out And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going with such a wounded passion that it's easy to see why she won the Academy Award. It's an electrifying scene because you know you are watching that old Hollywood cliche moment where the unknown starlet becomes an overnight sensation.

Hudson is the reason this movie works at all.

Eddie Murphy, in his defence, also finds a way to make his one note character seem much deeper than he truly is (which is essentially a womanizing drug addict), but the rest of the cast just gets lost...

Sure, they all have their moments, but Beyonce doesn't even register until 45 minutes in, and the other girl is simply "girl who loves Eddie Murphy's character". Jamie Foxx, while adding a lot of charm early on the film, ends up becoming "rich guy who scowls all the time".

What keeps the film afloat, when Hudson isn't on screen, is the tremendous music which really does provide a thrilling pace and energy level. Dreamgirls also makes some interesting comments about the music industry and the business' preference for catchy tunes rather than songs that truly comment on world issues (a topic that seems particularly relevant in today's superficial marketplace).

It's a solid film, but not a great one, and although Hudson's big scene is an incredible moment, it almost points a finger at everything else that is wrong with the movie. Her performance shows what Dreamgirls could have been had more emphasis been placed on fleshing out the characters, and pushing a game cast to take their musical talents to a new level. It's entertaining, but it should have been unforgettable.

Star Rating *** out of 4

Severance

At the beginning of Severance seven employees of an international weapons manufacturing company head off to the Eastern European woods for a fun corporate team building session. When they get there, the lodge is less than ideal, the food isn't plentiful, and the surrounding woods are inhabited by a vicious killer. As the group struggles to survive, they begin to realize that even though they make the weapons, that doesn't count for anything when the blood starts to flow.

Severance is a nice find; a jet black comic horror film with interesting characters, seat squirming situations (oh bear traps!), unexpected laughs, and plenty of suspense. Director Christopher Smith has a nice grasp on the horror genre and finds simple, but effective ways to amp up the tension. There's a nice sequence in the opening act involving cleverly timed sound effects that turns potentially boring moments into hilariously tense teases. Smith is playing with the audience, and having a great time doing so.

When the killer finally strikes, the movie doesn't just settle at being a series of stalks and kills; it finds unique ways to surprise the audience. One of my favourite moments occurs during a "safe" scene, one of those moments in horror films where characters let down their guards so the film can offer up some much needed character development. In Severance, Smith lets the "safe" scene occur in the foreground, while the killer silently strikes in the background.

Even more refreshing is the level of satire at work here. It's not brilliant, but this is a pointed horror film, obviously unleashing some frustration on weapon's manufacturers. Some of the funniest scenes have to do with just how inept these people are when it comes to actually using the weapons they have marketed and created. The introduction of a life saving rocket launcher quickly turns a moment of celebration into a moment of true horror.

Severance is also anchored by incredibly likable performers. Laura Harris combines her genuine sweetness with a violent, primal urge to survive, while Danny Dyer manages to turn the stereotypical "stoner" character into a hilarious shlub on the verge of manhood. Unlike many horror films, I was rooting for these characters to survive.

Severance is a fun, scary movie that uses the slasher film conventions in order to make sly comments on our weapons obsessed culture.

*** out of 4

What I Rented - Epic Movie

Sometimes I don't know what compels me to watch certain movies. I knew Epic Movie wasn't going to be very good. In fact, based on the recent onslaught of horrible spoof films like Scary Movie 3 and Scary Movie 4, I knew it was going to be downright awful. Yet, still, somehow; maybe it was the promise of at least one cheap laugh; maybe it was some of the more interesting casting choices like Crispin Glover as Willy Wonka, I decided to give it a chance.

Giving Epic Movie a chance will go down as one of the worst mistakes I will ever make in my life.

I am including all potential mistakes I may make in the future as well; like getting involved in bad relationships, finding myself on the wrong side of the law, or inadvertently bringing about the end of civilization. Those mistakes will pale in comparison to the experience of watching all 86 mind numbing moments of Epic Movie.

This is the anti-comedy, sent forth by some demonic figure to destroy all that is good and mighty in the world. Here is a project that doesn't make a lick of sense on a conceptual level, but people decided to say, "screw it" we kinda have a script, so let's shoot something. What is it trying to spoof? It spends most of the time tackling big Hollywood fantasy films like Narnia or Harry Potter, but then decides to throw in jokes based on Pirates of the Carribean, Snakes on a Plane, Nacho Libre, and Click. Huh? Aren't those movies comedies in their own right? How can you spoof something that doesn't take itself seriously to begin with?

It's the same mistake Scary Movie made when it stupidly decided to spoof Scream, which was already a spoof of horror films. You can't just point your fingers and laugh at someone who showed up first and told a funnier, more original joke. It makes you look like an idiot.

That being said what kind of jokes does Epic Movie treat us to? It's your typical collection of gross out gags (it's funny cause it's just plain gross), obvious jokes (it's funny cause we were all thinking it right?), references (it's funny cause they show you something that happened in another movie, but now it happens in this movie too), and puns (Oh Boy - zing - white bitch instead of white witch).

If I had to reach down into the pit of my very soul in order to find something good to say about the movie, I will at least say, without damning myself to eternal Hellfire, that the actors give it their best shot. I can't fault them in this catastrophic mess. Oh, and some of the sets are nice...

But everyone else....oh boy!

Epic Movie is now the film I will refer to in order to describe how unfunny something is. It is truly one of the worst films ever made.

ZERO stars out of 4

Spider-Man 3

Spider-Man 3 arrives with lofty expectations. After the critical and commercial success of the first two movies (both of which I highly enjoyed), this sequel has a lot to live up to. So, cutting to the chase; does it work? As a raccous blockbuster event movie, it certainly succeeds on creating epic scale action scenes that are fun and memorable. On a character level; however, Spider-Man 3 packs in so many new faces that it's hard for anyone who wasn't in the first two movies to really shine.

This story is the most complicated yet, and would take at least three paragraphs to include everything. The short version; Spiderman wants to marry Mary Jane, Spiderman, impressed with his popularity, goes through a selfish period and pushes MJ away, Spiderman and an alien symbiote form an unhealthy relationship, Spiderman's anger begins to control him (with help from said symbiote) as he fights a new villain who may have killed his uncle, Spidey and Harry continue their long standing feud, a young upstart reporter develops a new feud, and all of these plots come together in a breathless final half hour. And that's not even mentioning Gwen Stacy, the new love interest who comes between Mary Jane and Peter, or the arrival of Venom, who swings in during the last act.

It's jam packed, and like any film trying to cram so much plot into a two and a half hour running time, many elements feel shafted. Gwen Stacy is only allowed to be a pawn in this film, and despite Bryce Dallas Howard's winning performance her role is vastly underdeveloped. Howard brings such warmth to her thinly written character that I desperately wanted to see her become a full member of the cast. Same goes for Topher Grace who is hilarious in an underwritten role as the secondary villain, Eddie Brock. He shines in all his scenes, but when he asks God to kill Peter Parker, it feels like the story has skipped several character beats.

The pacing is off at the start as well. With so many separate storylines at play, the movie opts for random encounters rather than properly built up scenes. A fight scene between Harry and Peter feels arbitrarily placed, the introduction of the Sandman feels rushed, and the film doesn't feel like it has truly started until an hour in.

Now, all of this seems to imply that Spider-Man 3 isn't a good film, but it eventually does find it's footing, and Peter's emotional journey, by and large, is compelling. The last half, especially after Peter succumbs to the partying lifestyle brought forth by the alien symbiote, feels far more energetic than the scenes that precede it. Sam Raimi brings out his bag of old tricks and offers up some campy, but funny sequences.

Everything does tie together in the end, and I was pleasantly surprised, despite its disjointedness, to see that the big emotional moments do pay off. The ongoing storyline, established in the first movie between Peter and Harry works best in these final scenes. It's hard not to root for Peter Parker, and the actors, particularly Thomas Haden Church, bring resonance to scenes that could easily have been cheesy.

Spider-Man 3 is a hulking behemoth of a movie, that fortunately finds a way to level out before it veers wildly off course. It's two movies in one, and at least one of those movies is genuinely good.

*** out of 4

Tv Shows I'm Watching - Heroes (Episode 20)

Episode 20 - Five Years Gone - **** out of 4

After last week's so-so episode, Five Years Gone puts Heroes back on top with a suspenseful episode filled with all sorts of wonderful moments, real conflict, and most importantly, a sense of fun.

Hiro and Ando travel five years into the future and discover that the world, after New York exploded, is a terrifying place for superheroes. Most of the heroes we have been following have not ended up in good places. Matt Parkman has become a ruthless government agent, Future Hiro is a bitter shell of a man, Nathan is president, Claire's a brunette, and worst of all...Peter Petrelli is in a relationship with Nikki!!! Horrifying.

So, the writers throw in good natured Ando and Hiro and let them completely make a mess of everything.

The reason this episode works so well is that every plotline is connected in one way or another, and as the episode reaches it's frantic conclusion, everything collides in an exciting climax. Unlike many episodes where some characters are given nothing to do but fix bathroom leaks (Yes Matt Parkman, I'm still bitter about that one!), everyone has an important role to play in this complex 45 minute plotline. Alright, Nikki really just does a strip tease, but seriously, that's the most interesting her character has been for a long time.

What's most fascinating is how we now seem to understand these characters even more by looking at what they could become in the future. Matt Parkman has occasionally stepped on the other side of the law (what with that whole diamond thing), but his future self is a cold blooded killer. Suresh may not be the moral compass he appears to be. Even good natured Hiro may have a more bloodthirsty side to him. How many of these character traits will be revealed in upcoming episodes? It's just one of the intriguing questions posed by this episode.

Also, by taking the show into the future, the writers actually manage to add some immediacy to the whole New York is going to blow up storyline as Hiro uncovers (thanks to Isaac) his true purpose in the scheme of things.

My one big complaint has to do with a small letdown in the last ten minutes. Hiro and Peter confront a lobby full of guards, talk a bunch of fighting words, and promise some hard hitting action that we haven't seen on Heroes before. Just as it's about to get really interesting....we cut away.....only to come back at the VERY END of the fight. I know Heroes isn't an action show, but please don't offer such a tantalizing setup if you aren't going to provide any payoff. My only hope is that they are saving the good stuff for the last couple of episodes and didn't want to ruin it too early.

So, overall one of the best episodes of the season!

Rant - Captivity - False Advertising?

I'm about three steps behind on this story, but today the trailer for Captivity, the new Elisha Cuthbert thriller, was released, and boy....it's something. You can find it by clicking HERE

Holy Crap!

THE FILM THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

THE MOVIE SO INTENSE IT WAS PUNISHED

Did Elisha Cuthbert make a snuff film? Cause, really, that's what I get from this trailer. If I don't suffer a heart attack while watching Captivity then I will be gravely disappointed. But you know what? I don't think I will. Upon closer inspection this whole marketing campaign reeks of desperation.

Now, on one hand I have to hand it to After Dark Films. In recent months, with their After Dark Film Festival, which comprised of "8 so scary they were banned films to die for", playing in limited engagements at select theatres, they have taken on a William Castle level of promotional zest. For those unfamiliar with Castle, he liked to promote his cheapo horror flicks with awesome gimmicks like joy buzzer seating, and special ghost glasses. I really enjoy the creative lengths a film company will go to in order to promote a no budget, first timer's film, but Captivity seems to be another beast entirely.

Captivity seems to be a prestige project (as prestigious as you can get for a horror film) that went terribly wrong, and now the companies are scrambling in order to make sure they get their money back.

Clearly, this ad is a response to the PUNISHMENT they received due to this billboard. Without getting into the nitty gritty details, this billboard, as well as other posters, including the one at the top of the article, were deemed inappropriate, they hadn't been passed through the MPAA, and were pulled because they were too graphic. The rating for the movie (the R rating) was suspended which puts the film in a bit of jeopardy because unrated movies can't play in many theatres.

So, instead of wallowing on these unfortunate actions, the studios are playing up the controversy, but using decidedly sneaky tactics. Since most people probably haven't heard, or don't care to know about the billboard incident (which honestly has nothing to do with the content of the movie), they won't understand the nature of the film's PUNISHMENT. Instead, the trailer pumps up the vague PUNISHMENT in order to create a sick fascination; implying that the film contains graphic material unseen on motion picture screens.

Now, I'm always up for seeing a horror film that will get under my skin, and if that means pushing limits of bad taste...well, I won't necessarily say no. And you know what? If Captivity was the work of some first time director, and an out-to-impress writer I might actually believe that it could be pretty shocking in a down and dirty way (like it's being advertised).

But Captivity won't live up that hype, and as the credits pop up on the trailer it becomes extremely obvious that this whole marketing campaign is a salvage operation.

First off, look at the name of the director. Roland Joffe! This is the man who directed The Killing Fields, a haunting look at the Cambodian civil war, and The Mission, a poetic film about South American missionaries. Now, I know that he has been off the map for a long time, but I find it hard to believe that Roland Joffe, a man whose films have honestly explored real tragedies, signed on to Captivity simply because he wanted to brutalize and torture Elisha Cuthbert for two hours, and make you throw up.

That's like saying Eli Roth, the director of Hostel and Cabin Fever, is going to direct a sequel to On Golden Pond because he's fascinated by romance in the twilight years.

I just don't buy it. That's not to say that Roland Joffe can't or shouldn't make a shocking horror film, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that there is some kind of statement he is trying to make with the film. Unfortunately, this message will completely fly over the heads of the teenagers hoping to see a FILM THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO SEE!!!

More Proof? Look at the screenwriter.

The script is credited to Larry Cohen, who has always added a satirical, or political edge to even the goofiest of films. He made Q, a film about a giant pterodactyl attacking New York, and turned it into a movie about capitalizing off of tragedies. And say what you will about The Stuff, a film about alien ice cream turning mankind into zombies, but it's a pretty funny send up of eighties commercialism.

I guess my point is, when you look at the talent behind the scenes, this isn't a movie that started out as a shlockfest. You don't assemble people like this in the hopes that the advertisements will be sensationalistic. Something has gone wrong with the project. That seems fairly clear (lest we mention that the first trailer for the movie is out only two weeks before it's set to open). I imagine it boils down the old Hollywood standby, "Creative Differences". Who knows how much of Joffe's original film is still included?

I guess the horrible thing about this whole campaign, is that I'm actually curious about seeing Captivity. Does that mean it worked? Well, maybe for me, but I have a funny feeling blood thirsty teenagers who want to see lots of boundaries being tossed aside are going to want their money back.

Trailers that are Better than the Movie - Rules of Attraction

So, I have this habit of gathering movie trailers off the Internet, and much like the previously written about Cliffhanger trailer, it's amazing how many seem to be more kinetic or emotionally involving than the movie itself.

One such trailer is for Roger Avery's incredibly frustrating, occasionally brilliant Rules of Attraction. Here's a movie filled with an abundance of fantastic moments, but that's held together by some of the most excruciatingly offputting characters ever put in a motion picture.

Avery is trying to explore the moralistic cesspool that forms when teenagers run off to university and are bombarded by drugs, sex, alcohol, independence, and a different party every night of the week. It's shocking, sometimes true to life, and occasionally disturbing, but when Avery isn't stylistically pushing new ground (and Rules of Attraction does have an incredible opening), he's giving screen time to a group of hyper-sexed, obnoxious characters who seem more like aliens from another planet than even the most drugged up students I've ever met.

So, in order to promote the whole messy affair, the trailer focuses on style over substance, and manages to say everything about university life in 1 minute and twenty seconds that the movie says in an hour and fifty minutes.

You can find the trailer on this page in the top right corner.

http://movies.virginmedia.com/synopsis/default.asp?filmid=2395&sec=syn

First off, yep, it's a takeoff of the trailer for A Clockwork Orange; classical music, this time Russian Dance from The Nutcracker, interspersed with white words on a black screen, and in-your-face imagery. And much like that trailer, this one is trying to engage the audience, letting them know that the film is provocative and contains an abundance of ideas.

What makes this trailer work so well, is that by hinting at how depraved the movie will be, complete with suggestive, but non-explicit images, the audience members have already thought of at least ten things that are more disgusting or button-pushing than the movie could possibly focus on. Since the trailer offers little in the way of character, the possibilities for the plot are endless. All we know is that moral lines will be crossed, and personal comfort levels will be challenged. The trailer works like a Rorschach Inkblot Test automatically taking our brains to the most primal places of our subconscious, getting us to imagine the worst possible things that could occur on a university campus.

Unfortunately, the movie isn't half as provocative as the trailer. Having these ideas visualized is more akin to having obnoxious teenagers screaming, "look how messed up my life is" for two hours than offering anything resembling though-provoking material. It's shocking at first, but then you just go...yep, another sex scene...yep, more drugs....yep, violence. Avery seems to be interested primarily in bombarding the audience with shocking moments, but after a while the shock fades away, and with no characters to connect with, the movie loses its footing. It all becomes numbing, and a case could be made that that is the point - to bring the audience to the same emotional level as the characters, but by the end I had lost interest.

The trailer manages to accomplish everything the movie cannot - it's thought provoking, shocking, provocative - and it manages to do it all in a comfortable time limit that doesn't wear out its welcome.

Tv Shows I'm Watching - Heroes (Episode 19)

Episode 19 - .07% - *** out of 4

Big plot points included.

After it's super-sized hiatus, Heroes finally returns with an episode that....doesn't actually accomplish a whole lot. Sure, there are some big plot developments toward the end of the episode, but personally this kind of felt like a filler episode to me.

First the good points. Once again Claire's dad is the most interesting character. Having been captured by his own organization he devises a telepathic escape plan with Matt Parkman. It's a suspenseful plotline, provides real stakes for the characters, and has some inventive displays of superpowers.

I also like Linderman's inclusion in the storyline. After months of people mentioning his name ominously, Malcolm McDowell has managed to turn this potentially one-note villain into a complex character. His speech, in which he puts the upcoming New York disaster into context (it's only killing .07% of the population, but will lead to positive world changes), brings to mind the moral gray areas Claire's father has travelled through as well. His decision to bring Micah into the mix might actually mean that Nikki's storyline could get interesting in the near future.

The mediocre storyline follows Isaac's final stand against Sylar. Essentially playing into the prophecies of both his own paintings and also Hiro's time travelling journey to New York, Isaac dies at the hand of the superhero serial killer. I wanted to feel like this was more of a shocking plot point, but frankly I haven't been able to muster much care for Isaac since the story began. I'm sure this isn't the entire end of his character's arc (he hints that he has left clues for others), but it certainly feels like closure. What bothers me most about this death, is that the potential conflict brewing between Peter and Isaac (over the death of Simone) has run it's course. They had a little fight, and that was it. What was the point of killing her off then (other than getting rid of a boring character)?

I was also mildly interested in Claire's meeting with Nathan, her biological father. It was an awkward scene, but one that managed to convey both Claire's disappointment, and Nathan's cowardice.

Now, as for the bad, I was vastly disappointed with the Peter's dead fakeout. After taking a shard of glass to the back of head, Peter dies. Of course, the audience knows that since he has Claire's powers all anyone has to do is take out the shard of glass and he'll be A-okay, but nope...instead we have to watch character after character mourn because Peter's dead. Suresh is sad, Peter's mom is sad, Nathan's sad, Claire's sad (until she finally smartens up and pulls out the glass). It's just tedious because the audience is twelve steps ahead of everyone else.

Also, I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't think Suresh could really take out Sylar with what I will now dub as "The Bulletin Board of Doom!". The guy has like four hundred super powers, but not one can prepare him for the raw power of a rolling bulletin board? Uh huh.

With only a few episodes to go I'm worried that there isn't that much momentum. The "Let's Save New York" plotline really feels like an afterthought for everyone. I'm hoping that this will change quickly.

What I Rented - Eragon

Eragon tells the story of a young man, Eragon, who is magically given a dragon by a captured princess. After his uncle is murdered, he finds that he is part of a thought-dead group of mystical warriors called The Jedi....sorry....The Dragon Riders. Under the guidance of an old disgruntled Dragon Rider named Obi-Wan....wait....Brom (Jeremy Irons) he has to rescue the princess, join a rebel alliance, and take down an evil empire.

So, yeah...originality isn't Eragon's strong point, and the constant feeling of "Haven't-I-Seen-That-Before" intrudes on the movie at least once every two minutes. On top of being two steps away from a plagiarism lawsuit, there is absolutely no sense of pacing. Big moments arrive with little buildup (including a final battle that feels incredibly rushed) and characters have no time to be anything other than "good" or "bad".

That being said, there's still a goofy charm at work in Eragon, and while it isn't particularly good, it is at least entertaining and watchable. Jeremy Irons has fun as the wise elder, and his relationship with Eragon provides many of the film's best moments. The director, Stefen Fangmeier, allows the fast paced action to take a break during their scenes, and Irons manages to inject a bit of life into a thinly written character.

When the film finally decides to venture out from endless Star Wars references and create a mythology of its own it's actually quite clever. I liked the rules of the Dragon Riders; how the life of the dragon is linked with the rider; how they have a telepathic link; how magic can arise from their connection. It's enough to make the relationship between Eragon and the dragon unique; which in this movie is the equivalent of being given a glass of cold water in the desert.

Eragon never really finds its own voice, and that keeps it from being anything more than a pleasant Friday evening rental.

Star Rating ** out of 4

Hot Fuzz

The "Second" film is one of the toughest projects any creative team must endure. How does one follow up a successful film, knowing that fans are expecting something that is contradictory - an entirely new film that still reminds them of the first one? Hot Fuzz, the new comedy from director Edgar Wright, writer/star Simon Pegg, and actor Nick Frost, manages to do just that.

After the wonderful genre-bending Shaun of the Dead, which somehow managed to be a hilarious parody of zombie films, a scary horror film, a romantic comedy, and even an emotional tragedy all rolled into one, they have taken on a new genre - police films; or more specifically testosterone injected police films like Point Break and Bad Boys II. And much like their previous film, they aren't interested in just making a spoof. Hot Fuzz plays around with the genre, and dives headfirst into the adsurd, but it simultaneously manages to be one of the best buddy cop films since Lethal Weapon.

Sergeant Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is the best police officer in London. He's so good, that he makes everyone else look awful, so his superiors ship him off to a small, peaceful town where the biggest villains are the grafitti spraying teenagers, and the tacky performance artists. But, soon after he arrives, a series of gruesome accidents befall several townspeople, and Angel, always one to sniff out a crime thinks a conspiracy is afoot. The only problem is, the other police officers, especially his new partner, movie obsessed Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), haven't encountered a murder in more than twenty years.

The jokes start slowly, and the movie takes time to build its story. Hot Fuzz isn't in a rush to bash you over the head with self referential in jokes like most parodies. It introduces the characters, the small town, the locals. It's all very British. But, ever so slowly, the American police film sensibility starts to intrude on the locale. It starts with a fast paced foot chase that Michael Bay would be proud of, it continues with an unlikely friendship between two vastly different partners, and ends with a.....well....I don't want to ruin the joke, but needless to say, these guys haven't tossed aside gore-filled mayhem just yet.

The result is a spoof that is intensely funny (I laughed consistently throughout the last half hour), but also suprisingly sweet (aside from the impalements and decapitations). Even though they are having fun with the police genre, Wright, Penn, and Frost, manage to create a movie that is more emotionally involving than most of the big budget Hollywood action flicks. You really want that central friendship to work out! Quirks and all, these characters are fun to watch, and seeing them embrace their inner action star provides a genuine level of excitement that is one part thrilling and one part absurd. It's both playful homage and the genuine article.

Their second film manages to embrace the spirit of their first while still taking new risks. With Hot Fuzz, these guys prove they are the real deal.

Star Rating - **** out of 4

What I Rented - Bobby

Emilio Estevez certainly has a lot to say in Bobby about the infamous night Bobby Kennedy was shot at the Ambassador Hotel. With a sprawling cast and multiple storylines (very reminscent of Robert Altman's Nashville) he attempts to create a snapshot of America on the eve of June 6, 1968. It doesn't always work, as there are just too many stories, and several come across as shallow and cliched, but when it does get things right, as it does in its last act, Bobby manages to convey how fragile the American dream truly is, and how those who fight hardest to protect that idealism often fall victim to its shortcomings.

Instead of focusing on Robert Kennedy as a three dimensional character, Estevez uses him as a symbol of optimism. Through old news clips, Bobby, is seen as a hero who will guide America through Vietnam, and bridge the racial divide. It's a smart decision on Estevez's part, because the film isn't about who Kennedy was, it's about how so many people needed a pure hero, regardless of reality, and put all of their hopes and dreams into what he could potentially achieve.

The stories in the hotel reflect this viewpoint. There's the Mexican restaurant worker (Freddy Rodriguez) who longs for a day when he won't be mistreated because of his skin colour. There's the retired doorman (Anthony Hopkins) who lives in the past because the present is cruel and unforgiving. There are the two young Kennedy volunteers (Brian Geraghty and Shia LaBeouf) who spend the day tripping out on acid because they can't imagine what the future holds for them. As each character, including many others, gets ready to watch Kennedy's speech at the hotel, they begin to realize that he may be able to guide them out of their ruts.

These stories unfortunately don't have time to offer much in the way of depth and often hit one note repeatedly. It feels like Estevez is more interested in using these characters to create a cacophany of political and socialogical ideoligies. From each character's story, arises an issue that Bobby Kennedy's political agenda can solve. It's at this point, about an hour in, once the characters start to become mouthpieces for political viewpoints that the film starts to wear out its welcome.

Fortunately, Estevez is able to get back on track for a well-done ending, showing that there is method to his madness. With all of these political ideas floating around creating a sense of wide eyed optimism, it is hard not to feel everything that was lost when Kennedy was shot. The stories converge with the assassination, and Bobby shows how quickly thoughts of peace and unity devolved into a struggle for survival that night. The horrors everyone hoped Bobby would shield them from, infiltrated their "safe" world, leading to a very different future for America.

Bobby isn't a great movie, and the large cast isn't handled well, but there is passion behind it, and the emotional ending is haunting.

Star Rating *** out of 4