tomq5p Reviews

No End in Sight (2007)

Nice cinematography and presentation

[7/10 · 6 February 2008]

First let me comment on the film's presentation. It was well-crafted from an editing/cinematography/graphics point of view. It looked far better than, for example, a Robert Greenwald documentary. It was woven together well and easy to watch.

The content was decent, but I felt that the reasons for invading Iraq were ignored while the film focused on individual people's mistakes as far as military strategy was concerned. If certain companies didn't have an economic interest in that region, the war never would have occurred in the first place, so motivations, to me, are a pretty important detail that many movies about the war seem to be leaving out.

While this film did provide an inside look at the lead-up to the war and Paul Bremer's atrocious handling of the occupation, I felt that it completely glossed over the massive profits that have been made in Iraq by U.S. companies (see the Iraq chapters in Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine").

Halliburton and a host of other U.S. companies have made a killing there while the Iraqi people continue to suffer. The true story of the war (and the hidden rationale for the war), which this movie hardly discussed, is the fact that it was a coordinated attempt to give U.S. companies access to a massive, untapped economic market. Oil reserves, reconstruction projects, and privatized warfare have the potential to be incredibly profitable.

In the past, U.S. companies had no access to these markets, due, in part, to the strict U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The companies that stood to benefit from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the destabilization of Iraq (a.k.a. the opening of an untouched new market) used their money and influence to produce think tank policy papers and talking heads that supported the invasion of Iraq. In fact, many members of the Bush administration, who are (or were) on the government's payroll, refused to divest themselves of their shares in the very companies that would go on to make outrageous profits in Iraq. They were well aware that this constituted a conflict of interest, but when asked to choose between their government posts and their money, they simply refused (or engaged in some "fuzzy math" shenanigans). So, the people who created the war directly benefited from it and it is in their interest to perpetuate it as long as there is money to be made.

From "The Shock Doctrine":

"The fact that Cheney still maintains such a quantity of Halliburton shares means that, throughout his term as vice president, he has collected millions every year in dividends from his stocks and has also been paid an annual deferred income by Halliburton of $211,000— roughly equivalent to his government salary. When he leaves office in 2009 and is able to cash in his Halliburton holdings, Cheney will have the opportunity to profit extravagantly from the stunning improvement in Halliburton's fortunes. The company's stock price rose from $10 before the war in Iraq to $41 three years later—a 300 percent jump, thanks to a combination of soaring energy prices and Iraq contracts, both of which flow directly from Cheney's steering the country into war with Iraq. "

Or, put more simply by Boots Riley of The Coup: "War ain't about one land against the next; it's poor people dying so the rich cash checks."

Captivity (2007)

A disjointed, mediocre horror flick (but still worth a rental)

[6/10 · 1 February 2008]

Let me start off by saying that there are definitely better horror films out there than "Captivity." "The Descent," "Vacancy," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" all come to mind. "Captivity" isn't a brilliant re-definition of the genre (i.e. it doesn't achieve what "Scream" did). However, it's still enjoyable if you are a fan of horror—namely 21st century horror.

The acting in the movie is reasonably good, especially for a horror film. Elisha Cuthbert is adequate in her role as a successful model who suddenly finds herself captive. The other actors are also decent.

The plot is somewhat formulaic, including all the requisite corny horror movie moments, but there are some interesting twists as well. On thing that I liked was the long stretch of the movie, after the initial setup, which had no dialogue.

The editing and timeline of the film are strange. It is unclear how long Cuthbert's character is in captivity. Also, there are periodic fades to black that seem out of place (although they might be there to convey the passage of time).

I was able to predict many things in the movie long before they happened, but it was still fun to see them unfold. Of course, there are tons of unrealistic and logically questionable scenes. The one that sticks out in my memory is when Cuthbert's character scratches something on a window and it isn't backwards on the other side.

As some other users have said, if you can suspend your disbelief, you will probably have a good time, even if you slap your forehead once in a while. If you are like me, you will be wondering why Roland Joffé chose to make this movie as the end credits are rolling.

Film Geek (2005)

Not even enjoyable for a true film geek

[3/10 · 28 January 2008]

I wanted to like this movie, but I didn't. It was simply too low budget to be enjoyable. The acting was generally pretty bad and the story was relatively formulaic.

There was a smattering of funny one-liners (most of which involved the word "basically"), but not nearly enough to get me through the 70 minutes without checking my watch.

Of course, as a film geek, I appreciated the references to lesser known directors and films. In fact, I would have loved it if that aspect of the film was played up. Instead, we get to see a corny pseudo-romance unfold and watch countless "Napoleon Dynamite" wannabe jokes fall flat.

The film doesn't work because the acting and storyline are subpar and the protagonist is a caricature who is far too one-dimensional to be even remotely believable. However, the cinematography is decent for a movie that seems to have been made for about $1000. The music wasn't too bad either.

If someone edited this down to only the obscure film references (which would probably run about 10 minutes), it would be funnier and much more digestible.

I wouldn't even recommend this one to cinephiles.

3 out of 10

Cloverfield (2008)

Decent but nothing to write home about

[7/10 · 18 January 2008]

I had extremely high expectations for this movie (as I'm sure many other fans did). They were not met, but that doesn't mean that the movie was a complete flop. I jumped in my seat many times and I appreciated the unique way the movie was filmed.

The movie succeeded at creating a realistic feel. The acting was better than the average movie and the CGI wasn't too bad either.

Without spoiling anything, the monster looks kind of weird. Some people will like it, others will not. I am on the fence. It was unlike anything I've seen before, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. One thing I am sure of is the fact that I wish I saw more of it (as well as the destruction that it left behind).

I think, in this case, a bigger budget would have yielded a more satisfying result. I am also not too sure that the hand-held camera approach added a whole lot. The way the wide angle shots were set up was pretty clever though.

One thing that really bothered me was the product placement. There is one shot in particular when the camera hovers over some candy for no reason whatsoever. There were embedded ads for Nokia, Dunkin' Donuts, Juicy Fruit, Mountain Dew, and others. Call me old-school, but, like David Lynch, I don't think that product placement has any place in true cinema. I expected better from Cloverfield.

Overall, I think this movie was on par with Godzilla. Godzilla had better CGI and way cooler shots of the monster but a weak plot and pretty bad acting. It just depends what you value. Since I am a sucker for cool action sequences and good special effects, I would probably prefer watching Godzilla. At least I wouldn't have a headache when it was over.

Speaking of the ending, I liked it. I have heard a lot of complaints, but I think it was appropriate and well done.

7 out of 10

The Kingdom (2007)

Pro-American but well done

[7/10 · 1 December 2007]

As expected, this movie had a pro-American perspective. Having said that, on the whole, the movie is somewhat fair and doesn't deteriorate into anti-Arabic garbage like some other Hollywood movies.

The action is excellent, albeit very unrealistic. The acting is also above par. I especially liked Chris Cooper and Jason Bateman.

The cinematography and editing are good. The editing is frenetic, similar to "The Bourne Ultimatum." If you get dizzy easily, you might want to sit this one out. The camera is constantly moving; In fact, I don't recall a single smooth camera motion.

As far as a political message, there really isn't one. There is an attempt at a moral (which seems unnaturally tacked on at the end), but the movie is basically standard shoot-em-up eye candy with good acting and a relatively original storyline.

It's worth a rental, but don't expect anything too deep or analytical. Check this out if you liked "Smokin' Aces"; avoid it if you liked "Syriana."

7 out of 10

Idiocracy (2006)

A decent critique of where we are headed

[6/10 · 10 November 2007]

It isn't too surprising that Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" did terribly at test screenings. Many of the people watching the film may have been missing the jokes because they were the exact type of people being depicted.

This movie, starring the deadpan Luke Wilson and the sexy Maya Rudolph, imagines what would happen to our society if all of the worst current trends took hold and became the norm. The movie levels criticism at rampant commercialization and commodification, corporate dominance, lack of education and literacy, obsession with violence and sexual exploitation, and a host of other societal ills. Although its critique of society is reasonably well laid out, "Idiocracy" deals with race in an inappropriate manner.

Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph's characters are "frozen" (à la Austin Powers), and, after some unexpected events, wake up about 500 years later. The world is in a state of disrepair where TV rules and intelligent people are nonexistent.

The dystopian future created by Mike Judge is often funny and clever in its stupidity. The dialogue is well done and the problems that face the imagined world in 2505 are relevant to our current ones. The movie simultaneously elicits laughs are and sighs when we think about how ridiculous the situations are but then realize how similar they are to the real world.

This movie can appeal to someone who "gets" all the references and critiques as well as someone who doesn't, and that is its main deficiency. In appealing to a larger audience, it is forced to dumb itself down somewhat and rely on slapstick humor or weak plot devices. However, the most troubling aspect of the film is how it deals with race.

In the hopeless future presented in the film, the government is headed up by a clueless black president. Latino accents are also often used in a very negative way and are associated with stupidity. Luke Wilson's character, a white male, has a very positive role in the film while Maya Rudolph's character is a prostitute. It also seems that there are more people of color as extras in the wide angle shots than in an average Hollywood film.

In a film that could serve as a wake up call to society, or any film for that matter, it is inappropriate to use racial stereotypes and imply that people of color aren't as intelligent or as capable as white people. It is important to realize that the current destructive trends in society are often the result of the actions of white people. The pre-emptive war in Iraq is a perfect example. The bungling response to Katrina is another.

Obviously, a film like this shouldn't bear the burden of educating people about structural racism and systemic oppression, but it also shouldn't fall into the same traps that it should be criticizing.

The film is funny. The plot is weak, but the gags are entertaining. The general message is on the money, but the treatment of race is highly problematic.

6 out of 10

The Hitcher (2007)

Better than the original

[7/10 · 24 May 2007]

This movie is very similar to the original, but better. The acting is superior and the special effects are much better. The plot remains pretty much intact, so there are no surprises there. First of all, Sean Bean is a better John Ryder than Rutger Hauer was. Hauer was comical at times and never truly scary. Sean Bean is a first-rate actor and really makes John Ryder believable and scary. The two college kids are decent actors too - nothing spectacular, but far better than, say, Sarah Michelle Gellar.

The special effects are phenomenal, much better than the original, but, since the movies have almost the exact same plot, this doesn't detract from the storyline. I'm sorry, I know a lot of people like cult classics from the 1970s and 1980s, but the cheesy effects often ruin those movies. I enjoy realism, which is what this movie delivered.

If you like Splat Pack films (The Hills Have Eyes (remake), The Descent, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (remake), etc.) you'll love this. If you refuse to admit that older horror movies just aren't that scary and could really use a face-lift, steer clear.

7 out of 10

28 Weeks Later (2007)

As good as the original, if not better

[7/10 · 15 May 2007]

Although this film isn't too similar to "28 Days Later...," it is a quality piece of movie-making. The editing is insanely fast, the gore is in-your-face, and the action is phenomenal, albeit over-the-top. If you are a fan of zombie flicks or relentless action, check this out now. Be prepared for plenty of gross out moments and blood letting.

Also, if you pay close attention and get a little creative, you can find a political subtext to the film, much like the first installment.

Yes, the acting is mediocre. Yes, there are plenty of scenes that are illogical or just downright impossible, but that doesn't really matter when zombies are attacking from all directions and people are being devoured and torn limb from limb. This is a must-see for fans of the genre.

The lack of character development is a valid criticism, but, frankly, any more of that would have bored me. I appreciated the "cutting to the chase," over and over again...

One complaint I had was a couple shoddy CGI shots that were blatantly unrealistic. Other than that, I was thoroughly entertained. Hey, I even thought a little.

7 out of 10

Revolver (2005)

A departure from Ritchie's other films

[5/10 · 1 March 2007]

"Revolver" is not like Guy Ritchie's other work. Although it contains many of the elements present in his other films - Jason Statham, violence, organized crime, dark humor, fancy camera work and special effects - it takes a philosophical twist that most people, including me, probably did not expect. It is a bold film, but it falls flat in certain areas. In the end, whether or not you like it will boil down to whether or not you like movies that cannot be fully explained and understood.

It is reminiscent of philosophical and confusing films like Mullholand Drive, The Matrix III, Memento, Fight Club, and countless others. Like these films, in tackling this philosophical subject material, "Revolver" runs the risk of being pretentious or just so hard to understand that it isolates the viewer. I'd say the film was a little too full of itself but not to the point that it completely ruined the experience.

Some of the acting was good, some was mediocre, and some was downright terrible. Ray Liotta was all of these at different times during the film. (He was bizarrely funny in the scenes in which he sported fancy underwear.) Statham brought nothing new to the table; he was effective but a little boring. André Benjamin was somewhat weak, as were some of the other supporting actors.

The mild-mannered killer was great. Look out for him. He's a stereotypical character, but he's still worth checking out.

If you want more of the Guy Ritchie you are used to, you might very well be disappointed. If you are ready for more a of head-trip, check this one out. Just remember, you've been warned. I still cannot decide what I think of this movie.

5 out of 10

Battle Royale II (2003)

A feeble attempt at a sequel

[4/10 · 3 February 2007]

"Battle Royale" was a classic. "Battle Royale II: Revenge" (the director's cut) was not. Instead of developing the ideas from the first film, it tried to do everything and failed miserably. In the process of trying to incorporate action, politics, love, and overall social commentary, the film got bogged down in its own grandiosity and fell flat.

The acting is terrible, especially the often-complained about, always-irate blond kid who runs everywhere after glowering at someone. The "teacher" character is actually pretty funny, but so over-the-top that it gets old and ridiculous. Most of the rest of the characters are one-dimensional and boring.

The action scenes are pretty well-done, albeit unbelievably unrealistic. The death toll is extremely high, but all the deaths are almost exactly the same, and the violence becomes monotonous and annoying. There are also countless scenes of people dying in the arms of others and uttering supposedly meaningful last words of wisdom or encouragement.

The film makes an attempt to convey some sort of political message, but it is never too clear what that message is. The filmmakers obviously wanted to include a critique of the actions of the United States, especially post 9/11. The opening scene is almost identical to the collapse of the World Trade Towers. Later, the imperial interventions of the United States over the years are mentioned in a particularly damning fashion. There are also references to global resistance movements and many vague references to some sort of revolutionary struggle, which seems to be represented by a "kids versus adults" metaphor, which doesn't really work. Overall, aside from an anti-American vibe, the film doesn't delve into any substantive political analysis. I believe that the United States should be criticized for its role in the deaths of millions of people over the past several decades, but this film didn't know what it wanted to say or how to say it, so the message was muddled and eventually lost entirely.

The film is outrageously corny, which is exemplified by the famous gravity-defying rugby dive at the end, which is hilariously unnecessary and irrelevant.

I really don't see how anyone could genuinely enjoy the film after watching the first hour. The end gets dragged on forever and there is no payoff. I was very tempted to turn it off, something I very rarely do.

I'd steer clear of this one, even if you liked "Battle Royale."

4 out of 10

The Hitcher (1986)

Not too scary but well made

[6/10 · 30 January 2007]

For some reason, older horror films do not scare me anymore. For example, I think the new "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is way better than the original, which makes sense because filmmakers have many more tools at their disposal now than the people making movies decades ago - without the help of computers - did. "The Hitcher" is good by older standards, but it simply doesn't hold up against many recent horror films ("The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," The Hills Have Eyes," "Wolf Creek, " and even "High Tension").

"The Hitcher" is good from a cinematography point of view. It is pleasant to look at, featuring well balanced shoots and nice scenery. It is mediocre from an acting point of view. The performances are okay, with Rutger Hauer's standing out. C. Thomas Howell's acting isn't anything special; he isn't always believable when he is in peril or frightened for his life, which is crucial to keeping the audience engaged and in the mindset of the character.

The plot is far-fetched but fun and full of action. The pace of the movie was good. The hitchhiker kept re-appearing to off more people or blow something up.

This film reminds me of the recent French release "High Tension." ("High Tension" was a solid film until the finale, which was ridiculous.) What "High Tension" achieved that "The Hitcher" didn't was realism and genuine fear. The audience actually dreads having to watch the protagonist face off against the marauding killer. In "The Hitcher," the killer is a little too goofy to be taken seriously. There are also plenty of the requisite scenes in which the timing is questionable and the main character escapes by the skin of his teeth.

I haven't seen the new film yet, but I suspect it will be much better, mostly because the special effects will be far superior.

If I were you, I'd go see a newer horror film and actually get freaked out, not just watch a movie to see how they looked back then and realize how much horror has improved.

6 out of 10

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)

Necessary viewing

[9/10 · 24 January 2007]

Since the Hays Code, filmmakers have had a lot more freedom over the content of their films. However, the MPAA ratings board still does exercise a certain de facto censorship power. Most people do not realize this.

"This Film is not Yet Rated" exposes the arbitrariness, secrecy, and bias of the MPAA ratings board and makes the viewer question why movies receive the ratings they do.

Kirby Dick puts together a nice cross-section of directors and "talking heads" who discuss the MPAA ratings board's biases when it comes to realism, sex, violence, gay themes, and other taboo issues in films.

Dozens of major directors have had problems with the MPAA ratings board - they either received the NC-17 (or the old "X") rating or had to cut their films to meet the requirements of the ratings board. Some examples are: Kubrick, Tarantino, Lynch, Woo, Friedkin, Peckinpah, Aronofsky, and countless others.

This film exposes the fact that the ratings board is made up of people who are given NO criteria and NO training for rating films, so they basically use their own personal (and obviously heavily biased) judgments to decide what rating a particular movie should receive.

This is an important film because so few people realize how movies are rated in the U.S. Even fewer realize how problematic (biased, anti-democratic, non-transparent, not accountable) our system is.

It is also well put together, so it is easier to watch than most documentaries.

I would have liked to have heard more comparisons between the U.S. rating system and others worldwide, something that was only briefly touched upon.

9 out of 10

Wrong Turn (I) (2003)

Decent horror, nothing more

[6/10 · 14 January 2007]

City kids get lost in the woods and are hunted down and killed by inbred mountain people. Obviously, the plot of "Wrong Turn" is very simple and cliché, but it still kind of works. In fact, the film is slightly better than most, but not on par with slasher classics such as "Scream."

The acting is pretty believable and the dialogue is acceptable. The cinematography is pretty good as well, although there is (at least) one CGI shot that is incredibly bad, unnecessary and annoying.

If you like horror, you'll enjoy this movie, but you won't love it. If you don't like horror, steer clear.

It definitely gives off an X-Files vibe from time to time with "Deliverance" and "The Hills Have Eyes" thrown in as well. In fact, there is a reference to "Deliverance" in the film.

The message of the film (if there is one) is a little problematic ethically - It is sad that our society has to immediately assume that someone who is disfigured is an insane murderer.

Instead of this, I'd recommend "The Hills Have Eyes" or "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning." They are both better, more complicated, and have more of a message. Plus, they had higher budgets, which resulted in much better effects.

6 out of 10

The Bone Collector (1999)

Weak ending

[5/10 · 14 January 2007]

In this film, Denzel Washington plays an egotistical detective (and author) who has been partially paralyzed by an accident. Angelina Jolie plays a cop with a knack for forensics. Between the two of them, they try to apprehend a serial killer who leaves clues behind. Sound familiar? It should - this movie basically copies many before it, most of which are much better. ("Copycat" comes to mind.)

All the ingredients were there, except for a good plot. This movie is interesting and engaging at the beginning, but then it becomes dull. Overall, it is nothing new. The resolution of the plot is terrible and contrived. It reminded me of "Fallen" in that Denzel played a cop but didn't bring much nuance to the role; the acting was mediocre, but nothing to call home about; the premise was interesting; and, the finale was terrible.

I wouldn't even suggest this one as a rental.

5 out of 10

Jesus Camp (2006)

Scary

[10/10 · 10 December 2006]

No one could have scripted a satirical film that would have had as much impact as this documentary does. It's intense and very disturbing. The film examines the Christian Right in America and how they are co-opting religion, indoctrinating the youth, and influencing politics.

The ironic thing is that the main subject of the documentary, Becky Fischer, an evangelical kids' summer camp preacher, thought the film would have a positive effect on people's perception of her "Jesus camp."

The real effect is QUITE the opposite. It is horrifying to see what the kids at the camp are exposed to. This is indoctrination at its worst.

An excellent, scary film.

10 out of 10

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

Extremely disturbing and misguided

[2/10 · 22 November 2006]

Many people claim that this film shows how the so-called civilized world is actually brutal and violent. That may be true, up to a point, but the overall tone of the film still portrayed the indigenous people as inferior, stupid, and worthless. This film was incredibly racist in its portrayal of the indigenous people of the Amazon.

The animal torture and murder was completely unacceptable and unnecessary. However, the point could be made that the same type of thing happens on an enormous scale every day in factory farms.

The acting was utterly terrible, as was the dubbing. The cinematography was strangely captivating at times, and many of the visual effects were quite believable.

The film tried to be philosophical, but it was really an excuse to make a brutally graphic, exploitation film that would shock viewers and cause controversy - which it has now been doing for decades.

People do not watch this movie to understand how indigenous people are affected by the invasion of documentarians, settlers, imperialists, or any other outsiders.

People do not watch this movie to understand the media's obsession with violence and sex.

And, people don't watch this film to better understand human nature.

People basically watch this film to see how graphic and disturbing it really is. Some even watch it because they enjoy the content. The former is understandable; the latter is upsetting to say the least.

This movie is "gore for gore's sake" with a pathetic attempt at creating some semblance of a moral. That is not to say, however, that the film is completely without merit. The realistic style was interesting. The constant nudity (male and female) definitely goes against the grain. And, lastly, the effects were very innovative for their time.

With that said, the overall movie was racist, misogynistic, cruel, and in extremely poor taste. Supposedly, Deodato regrets having made the film; it probably would have been better if he hadn't.

2 out of 10

The Departed (2006)

Just short of a classic

[7/10 · 5 November 2006]

Martin Scorsese has created another great film that will join "Casino" and "Goodfellas" (two of his earlier films) in the American mobster canon. However, this film isn't quite as good as Scorsese's earlier contributions. In fact, it doesn't really improve on "Infernal Affairs," the film it is based on - it merely Americanizes the story.

The script is excellent for the most part. The dialogue is funny, quirky and effective. The actors do a great job (although the accents falter occasionally). Jack Nicholson is hilarious and believably crazy, although, admittedly, he is somewhat typecast as the character he plays in this film and seems to rely on standard grimaces and deranged smiles.

Mark Wahlberg's character is strangely lovable, even though he plays a cop with very few redeeming qualities.

Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio convince us that they are, respectively, moles in the police force and an organized crime racket.

Alec Baldwin's supporting role is also very entertaining.

One thing that bothered me was the subtle and not-so-subtle product placement, which, in my opinion, took away from the film (Halls and Dell are two prominent examples). While many argue that we should just accept product placement as a fact of life, I believe that directors have the choice to sell out or not and should resist the urge to make more money while compromising the visual and ethical integrity of their films.

If you have not seen the original film (Infernal Affairs), you'll probably love this movie. If you have, you'll still like it. If you enjoy repartee coupled with violence (something only mobster movies seem to be able to satisfactorily provide), you'll be in for a treat. And, you might have a taste for some Halls mints when you leave the theater...

7 out of 10

America: Freedom to Fascism (2006)

Brings up important questions about the future of this county and the world

[9/10 · 5 November 2006]

Aaron Russo set out to find out about legality of taxing income in the United States and ended up discovering more than he bargained for, or at least so he tells us. Although Russo seems to have a preconceived view on the topics he examines in this film, it is well worth a close viewing.

The film asks a lot of important questions that aren't tackled in the mainstream media; its importance lies in the fact that it encourages people to question the actions of those in power (the U.S. government and the elite) and demand answers.

I follow the debate on our civil liberties pretty closely, and I was still surprised to learn many things about the income tax, the Federal Reserve Bank, national ID cards, and other threats to the civil liberties of Americans and the citizens of the world.

I took issue with certain sections of the film, especially the section on immigration. But, overall, the issues covered were very important to be educated about and are never touched by media sources in the U.S.

Check this film out for a shock and a reality check.

9 out of 10

Borat (2006)

An offensive letdown

[4/10 · 5 November 2006]

This film had a lot of potential, but Sacha Baron Cohen rarely capitalized on it. He basically just resorted to making comments that reflected how "backward" his fictional Kazakhstan is. People have the right to be offended. However, I am by no means advocating the censorship of this movie. In fact, the most outrageous scenes in the film (which must have raised the eyebrows of the censors at the MPAA) are also the funniest.

There is an ongoing debate on whether it is appropriate for Sacha Baron Cohen to create a character who is supposedly from a real country, Kazakhstan, and then proceed to insult the country for an hour and a half by acting like a racist, misogynistic idiot (among many other things). Some argue that Baron Cohen's motivations - to expose usually carefully hidden American ignorance, racism and prejudice - justify the film's content. I do not buy into this for one primary reason: the majority of the people will laugh for all the "wrong" reasons and few of the "right" ones. In the theater, many scenes that elicited laughs clearly did so by simply portraying highly racist and sexist beliefs, not by exposing the ignorance that those beliefs are predicated upon.

It is sad to say, but the majority of Americans have been brainwashed for so long that they are not ready to see this movie and definitely not equipped to understand the complicated, highly critical satire that it is meant to be. Many may argue that a movie should be judged on its "real" or intended message, not what people take from it, and that makes perfect sense. But the question is whether Baron Cohen motivations are purely honorable. Let's remember how much money is at stake here. The movie has already made over 20 million dollars at the U.S. box office. It seems much too convenient to make a movie that can be interpreted in at least two ways and make the majority of the money off of people who are laughing AT Borat and the ultra-racist stereotype he represents, not the critical lens of American society and culture that some will see him as.

Many, possibly even the majority, of the jokes in the film are based on Borat's ignorance, not on the ignorance of the people he interacts with. The notable exception is a stand-out scene at a rodeo in which Borat whips the crowd into a small frenzy about the "war of terror" and killing all the Iraqis.

I am afraid the frat boys that Borat encounters during his travels represent the response that mainstream American will have to this film - albeit exaggerated.

In future films, Baron Cohen should be more critical and rely on exposing ignorance, not participating in it.

That's not to say that an intelligent, critical person won't laugh at the film. Everyone will, especially during the soon-to-be infamous hotel scene. However, I left the theater thinking more about Baron Cohen's motivations and the average American's reaction than how Borat pulled the wool over so many people's eyes to create this biting satire.

4 out of 10

American Blackout (2006)

An eye-opener that everyone should see

[10/10 · 3 November 2006]

Democracy is heralded as the core of America's greatness. We claim to respect and revere it so much that we try to export it to other countries, albeit with disastrous results.

Strangely, while Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others continue acting as cheerleaders for democracy abroad, the majority of Americans do not even realize that the "democratic" 2000 and 2004 elections in the United States were stolen through diabolically clever schemes worthy of a fictional feature film; the only thing is, this actually happened.

Through various tricks and illegal maneuvering, Black, Latino and working class voters were disenfranchised in enormous numbers, which ended up giving Bush the slight advantage he needed in both races to come away victorious. The movie doesn't end there, it tells the story of the attacks on Cynthia McKinney due to her outspoken criticism of the policies of the Bush administration and the questions she asked after September 11th. Everyone needs to hear this story. America's democracy is in a sad state of affairs my friends.

This documentary lays it all out there. It should be requiring viewing in all schools. It will infuriate you and hopefully make you want to take some action to change things.

10 out of 10

Saw III (2006)

Nowhere near as good as the first two

[4/10 · 27 October 2006]

"Saw III" doesn't possess many of the qualities that made the first two movies so good. There are still crazy death-traps and excessively gory scenes, but that's about it. The twists are weak and predictable at that. The acting is mediocre. The plot is actually somewhat boring. There aren't any genuinely scary scenes, just graphic images that make you cringe. This movie seemed dumbed down. Everything was over-explained. The connections to the previous two films are weak and poorly done. I loved the first two movies, but this one is a significant departure. There were also several CGI shots that weren't convincing at all. I do not recommend this film for Saw fans. There is violence and gore and not a whole lot more.

4 out of 10

The Illusionist (2006)

Good acting and cinematography cannot save a weak plot and script

[5/10 · 25 September 2006]

I really wanted to like this film but I simply couldn't. I predicted the ending as soon as it was possible to do so. Eisenheim (the Illusionist) didn't fool me, and he probably won't fool the moderately shrewd moviegoer either. The film didn't tie up a variety of loose ends and the plot was all over the place. The script was average at best. In fact, some of the dialogue struck me as not being accurate to the period being portrayed in the movie. All of the other aspects, however, of the period portrayal were excellent. The cinematography was impressive and contributed to the feel of the movie, which did a great job of placing the viewer in moment. Unfortunately, the plot was too weak to hold the movie together and there are many questions left unanswered. Some might argue that the film is supposed to leave the viewer asking questions. I, however, thought that is was more a result of sloppy film-making and a plot with several gaping holes. The opening scene didn't even match itself when it was shown again toward the end of the film. Everything was there except a solid plot or mystery. I have a feeling that "The Prestige" will do a much better job with virtually the same concept.

5 out of 10

Jackass Number Two (2006)

Insane - you might want to bring a 'barf bag'

[8/10 · 25 September 2006]

It's what you expect. It induces laughter, cringing, and dry-heaving, not necessarily in that order. It's over-the-top. You will see things that you may never be able to erase from your mind's eye. " Jackass Number Two" is better than the first; the actors definitely took more risks while filming this movie. There are many stunts which could have killed the actors, especially Johnny Knoxville. The treatment of animals was suspect, but other than that, the movie achieved what is was made to achieve. If you like the preview, see the movie. If you don't, steer clear!

8 out of 10

The Protector (2005)

Instant classic martial arts film

[10/10 · 10 September 2006]

Everything that made "Ong Bak" good also makes "The Protector" good: the stunts (which were done without wires or special effects), the insane and brutal fight sequences, the comic relief and the highly implausible excuses for fighting new adversaries in new locales.

Tony Jaa continues to amaze. He flips, spins, runs on walls, and does a variety of other things that incorporate break-dancing, all sorts of martial arts, gymnastics, etc. As expected, the choreography is amazing. There are countless scenes that look so real that one wonders how they were done without harming the actors.

This movie is about as good as "Onk Bak: The Thai Warrior." The plot might actually be slightly better. Some mobsters stole two elephants that are sacred to the Thai people and Tony Jaa's character has to retrieve them (in Australia).

The various fights sequences are gravity-defying, creative, and just plain fun to watch. There are roller-bladers, bikers, huge muscle-men, guns, cars, fists, bones, rope, and other things that I cannot recall right now. There is even one long fight sequence that rivals Beatrix Kiddo's fight with the "Crazy 88" in Kill Bill.

You will be entertained, even if you don't tend to like martial arts movies.

10 out of 10

Crank (2006)

Offensive and absurd

[1/10 · 10 September 2006]

Let me start by saying that I usually like crazy action movies with plots that are an afterthought. "Crank," however, was a ridiculous mess, a waste of time, and offensive on top of that.

Jason Statham plays the same character he always plays. Everyone else in the movie is essentially an archetype. The portrayal of people of color and women is standard, which is by no means a good thing. At one point Chev Chelios (Statham's character) pulls a Middle Eastern driver out of his taxi and yells "Al Qaeda." Then a group of people viciously attack the taxi driver as Chelios steals his car. That scene is pretty representative of the film and its depth. There are a wide variety of racist portrayals and comments. Chelios forces his girlfriend to have sex public. She resists but then loves it and starts asking for more. Typical.

There is plenty of the now common, but still annoying and detractive, product placement.

The plot is barely worth discussing. Basically Chelios has been injected with a Bejing Cocktail, a drug that slowly kills a person unless the person's adrenaline levels stay at an abnormally high level. So, he has to do outrageous things to keep himself alive. At the same time, he has to get revenge on the people responsible for administering the drug.

The action sequences are okay. They aren't that impressive compared to say, The Protector, which is also in theaters as I write this and is considerably better. There ARE some good special effects and gore, if you are into that.

Now, some might argue that the film is really a comedy/satire. The completely impossible and outrageous ending would suggest as much. If this is the case, the movie is better, but not by much. It remains offensive and lacking. Plus, it seems doubtful that the intention was to create a clever satirical film which actually poked fun at other movies starring Jason Statham but cast him as the main character also. Sure, it's possible that the people behind this movie meant for it to be taken as big joke and I simply didn't get it, but I sincerely doubt that.

1 out of 10