From the files of

CHRISTIAN SAUVÉ

Don't say we didn't warn you

• Home
• About
• Writings
• Reviews
• Links
• Search
• Contract
• Français

MOVIE REVIEWS

2004

2004, Christian Sauvé

The Internet Movie Database says: (As of February 2006)

And I say (In alphabetical order):

13 GOING ON 30 (2004, Romance/Comedy): Surprisingly enough, this film avoids to be as cringe-inducing as the premise and trailers initially suggested. A large part of this achievement rests on the shoulders of Jennifer Gardner, nearly perfect as a 13-year-old who wakes-up as her 30-year-old self. Her enthusiasm for the material and bouncy delivery does a lot to overcome the obviousness of the material. The first fifteen minutes (the obligatory "age 13" prologue) aren't particularly interesting and for a moment, it looks as if the film is headed straight to the dustbin. Fortunately, things get a little better afterwards, with plenty of amusing material and heart-felt romance to liven up everything. Things take a turn for the worse by the end, as the screenplay draws itself in a corner and has to the resort to the worst possible ending in order to salvage a happy ending. Sadly, in doing so, it negates a good portion of the film and, most annoyingly, allows everyone to ignore the consequences of their actions. Eeew. But what else to expect from this kind of film? Coincidences, continuity errors and stupid movie tricks (you know; the kind of stuff no one ever does in real life) abound, showing a production laziness that further heightens the impression that this isn't something to care about. (In theaters, July 2004)

AFTER THE SUNSET (2004, Crime/Comedy): Let's see: A caper comedy starring hot actors and taking place in a lush tropical paradise. That stuff can succeed on auto-pilot. Alas, that's almost what director Brett Ratner does with AFTER THE SUNSET, a good-enough film that nevertheless never tries for something more ambitious than mere adequacy. Oh, Salma Hayek has seldom been hotter (though there's also plenty of good things to say about Naomie Harris as a policewoman with a Caribbean accent and pleasing curves) and the whole script moves forward with an impeccable amiability. There is a good rapport between the actors, and the lush cinematography is awe-inspiring. But the film starts falling apart when you look at the details of the script, which is so loose as to be inconsequential. Tons of plot holes are carelessly abandoned here and there, with unexplainable contrivances, inconsistent characters and dubious developments. Despite the suave presence of Pierce Brosnan as a master thief, this is nowhere near THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR. The conclusion is all in keeping with the film's impact: Pleasing but hardly impressive, capping a film that will just do as a light diversion. (In theaters, November 2004)

AGENT CODY BANKS 2 (2004, Kids/Comedy): While the first film in the "Cody Banks teenage spy" series had its moment, it suffered from too slavish an adherence to the Bond formula, resulting in a film that lost a lot of interest as it went along. While the sequel isn't all that much better, it's somewhat truer to itself and avoids repeating the typical Bond arc. Frankie Munez is back, and charming as ever as the lead character. Angie Harmon is sorely missed as Banks' "handler", but Anthony Anderson does his usual buffoon shtick to good effect. While the film occasionally panders to the kiddie audience with stupid plot tricks, some grossness and silly wish-fulfilment, there is still enough here to entertain adult audiences. The violence gets tiresome, though (especially the fist-fights, which seem out of place in a film for younger teens), and this exasperation is carried over in the third act, which is slightly too long for its own good. Otherwise, there are a few good gags, a few good action scenes and a few clever gadgets. It's not a must-see, but neither is it a must-avoid. (In theaters, March 2004)

LES AIMANTS (LOVE AND MAGNETS, Canada, 2004, Romance/Comedy): Subtle yet intricate, this romantic comedy manages to weave an impressive number of sub-themes and tangled subplots in only 90 minutes. Serendipity reigns supreme in this tale of crossed identities, lost messages, misleading appearances and tangled characters. Yves Pelletier's script contains plenty of artistic references to new-age beliefs, theremin playing, and Vermeer paintings (including a visual nod to "The Girl With a Pearl Earring", thanks to Isabelle Blais' uncanny resemblance) After a sputtering start, the film finds its way once all the characters are introduced and rolls along until a conclusion that leaves a few characters hanging by the wayside. Fortunately, the images are top-notch, and the actors all do a good job. (Plus, hey, there's a small role for Isabelle Cyr.) Quiet but satisfying, LES AIMANTS is a little surprise even for those who follow the French-Canadian movie scene. (On DVD, June 2006)

THE ALAMO (2004, War/Drama): As a French-Canadian, I don't really remember the Alamo given that I was never told about it in the first place. Things are unlikely to change with this film. Oh, the American jingoism is part of the film's problems, but by no means the biggest one: Far more damaging is the chaotic storytelling, coupled with a lazy pacing that just makes one wish for a speedier massacre. Recent historical films such as THE LAST SAMURAI have proved that it's feasible to create a historical tale that's both clear and fast-paced. But THE ALAMO wastes so much time on trivialities that it struggles to keep our attention. Fortunately, a few things are worth staying awake for: Billy Bob Thornton's excellent performance as Davy Crockett, the impressive historical re-creation of the fort and some of the final combat scenes. (Connoisseurs of camp may also appreciate Santa Anna's over-the-top cruelty) Otherwise, well, it's a long slog that actually gets worse near the end of the film: While a movie like THE ALAMO cries out for credits right after the death of the last American at the fort, this one (like PEARL HARBOR) feels compelled to stretch the story even further to show ultimate American triumph. Er, no: It's not okay to show Mexicans massacring Americans as bad and then Americans massacring Mexicans as good. Add to that the shameless hero-building (viz Crockett's last scene), the bloodless combats, the overdone dialogues and the result is an ALAMO likely to be forgotten. (In theaters, April 2004)

ALEXANDER (2004, War/Biography): I would have believed it if I hadn't had three hours to find out for myself, but it's true: Oliver Stone has taken one of the most inspiring life in history and made a boring movie out of it. This lavish biography of Alexander the Great frequently fails to deserve any attention at all. Despite the epic scale, the wonderful actors, the convincing re-creations and the sheer bloody length of the picture, ALEXANDER bores and annoys. The trouble is obvious even from the first ten minutes: Lengthy monologues make it obvious that this won't be a snappy picture even as the quality of the lines falls through the floor. Yikes. It doesn't really get any better afterwards: The adult Alexander takes too long to be brought on-screen; A massive battle scene that could have been impressive had it been half as long just feels flaccid; narration is used to reinforce the action on-screen rather than provide crucial context; Colin Farrel never plays Alexander as someone worthy of respect. While the film tries to do much in terms of character psychology, the only characters with whom we sympathize are the soldiers who just want to go home after eight years on the road; certainly, ALEXANDER has begun to feel just as long by then. Would I be the generous sort, I'd give a single star to the film on the sole basis of Rosario Dawson's pendulous assets. But by this point, I fear that I may have imagined her nude scene in-between bouts of somnolence. Oliver Stone. Boring. Who would have thought? (In theaters, November 2004)

ALIEN VERSUS PREDATOR (2004, Science-Fiction/Action): Admit it: what did you expect with a title like that? The good news is that the film delivers more or less what's promised by the title: A B-grade movie that doesn't try too hard in trying to please the fan-boys. Some winks and nods are cute (Lance Henrickson's role, for instance), but as the movie progresses, it becomes more and more obvious that ALIEN VERSUS PREDATOR is, faithfully enough, fan fiction brought to the screen. And fairly dumb fan-fiction at that: On paper, it's scarcely distinguishable from the tons of truly wretched fan-fiction to be found everywhere on the Internet: flat characters; clichés repeated with gravitas ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend", "I'd rather have it and not need it than..."), scenes and beats stolen from the previous films in the franchise; as well as numerous errors of physics, continuity and logic. What's worse is that the direction is scarcely better than average: While there are one or two good shots (I'm thinking of the "Pyramid Swarm" or the ironic "bullet-time face-hugger"), Paul Anderson (RESIDENT EVIL, EVENT HORIZON) has done much better in the past. Worse; he's the one who wrote the script, and you only need to read one or two interviews with the guy to understand that whatever talents he has are solely in the area of SFX-heavy direction. Oh well; dumb as it is, ALIEN VERSUS PREDATOR at least has the decency to move at a good clip and seldom wastes any time. As a result, it feels a lot more satisfactory than it really deserves. And that's what I mean when I talk about a decent B-grade movie. (In theaters, August 2004)

THE AVIATOR (2004, Bio/Drama): It's always a pleasure to see Martin Scorsese at work again, and he does much to please both fans and general audiences with this Howard Hughes biography. Leonardo DeCaprio may not be such a good casting choice as Hughes (he look too frail and, later, far too young), but his performance is impressive. Mogul in most sense of the terms, the historical figure of Hughes is unequalled when it comes to the richness of available dramatic material: His love life was a parade of celebrities, his legal battles were legendary and his personal problems were, shall we say, gigantic. THE AVIATOR is seldom as absorbing as when it races through Hugues' good days as a fascination with Hollywood leads him to a life-long passion for airplanes and then on to the civil aviation business. The script has its weaknesses, but they're often paved over by a CASINO-strength Scorsese ably assisted by top-notch editing. THE AVIATOR runs into repetitive sequences later on, as Hugues' descent in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders gets the better of a grander-than-life character. Many sequences then run too long, and keep on making a point long after which it's been understood. (Ironically, the film focuses too much on Hughes' disorders to give a more complete picture of his personality as a businessman, a playboy and an inventor: I wonder if it hadn't been better to stick to the accepted chronology of Hughes' life, in which his worst OCD episode developed much later in life) Still, THE AVIATOR still leaves an impression of superior film-making. Blame Cate Blanchett, whose dynamite interpretation of Katharine Hepburn deserves both an Oscar and a separate biopic of its own. (Kate Beckinsale's Ava Gardner is also quite good, but Gwen Stephani is over-hyped as Jean Harlow) Blame the seamless visual effects. Blame the Beverly Hills crash sequence, itself a spectacular action scene. Blame the lavish production. But perhaps best of all, blame a director who understands how to portray a character who finds deep joy while flying in a film titled, indeed, THE AVIATOR. (In theaters, December 2004)

BANLIEUE 13 (DISTRICT B13, France, 2004, Action): French cinema has often threatened to become an action powerhouse, but attempts so far have proved disappointing and -worse- fleeting. Still, writer/producer Luc Besson tries and tries again, and with BANLIEUE 13, he may come closest to replicating the insane energy of Jackie Chan films. Loosely set in a dystopian near-future where whole districts of Paris lie fallow and ungoverned, BANLIEUE 13 uses parkour and street fighting as inspiration for action scenes, with stunts that are good enough to leave you gasping. The narrative set-up is interesting (though ultimately disappointing, in no small part thanks to Besson's predictable distrust of authority), but never mind the story: what really shines here are the two lead actors (Cyril Raffaelli and parkour guru David Belle), who kick and punch and jump their way to the end. They're enormously likable characters, so let's hope that they can keep it up: action cinema is often a matter of leads, and these two seem perfectly able to carry a film on their shoulders. As for the rest, well it's almost all good: there is a definite lack of women in this macho film and the social commentary is overdone, but the film as a whole is dynamic, fresh and fun-fun-fun. Now let's see the next one. (In theaters, June 2006)

BRIDE AND PREJUDICE (UK/India, 2004, Romance/Musical): This, all things considered, isn't such a great film: As a hybrid adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice in an Indian/Western setting, it wastes its potential. The dialogue is ordinary, the Darcy character is bland, the acting has rough edges and the third act seems thrown together. But you know what? Scarcely anything of that matters once the film is over and it makes you feel as if the world is a better place. Hot on the success of BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM, director Gurinder Chadha delivers a clever blending of Indian, British and American culture, playing both to Eastern and Western crowds through its adaptation of Bollywood and Hollywood movie conventions. The tone is fast, colourful, breezy and definitely playful (BRIDE AND PREJUDICE tickles the fourth wall at least twice, calling the purpose of the first musical number and, later, double-staging a fight in front of a movie screen.) Aishwarya Rai definitely lives up to her advance billing as "the world's most beautiful woman": her universal appeal shines brightly every time she's on-screen, despite stiff competition from a number of other gorgeous Indian women. While there's an energy lag in the third act (probably linked to the dearth of musical numbers in the film's second half), the film ends on a suitably high romantic note, leaving you with the impression that the world is in better shape at the end of the movie than at the beginning. (In theaters, February 2005)

BRIDGET JONES' DIARY 2: THE EDGE OF REASON (2004, Romance/Comedy): The first rule of happy romantic comedies are that they end at the right moment. There is no rational reason for them to have sequels, given that the ending is already pre-ordained and all you get is ninety minutes of needless complications. What's worse in this case, however, is that this sequel raises anew the question "What does he see in her?" and fails to offer any good answer. What's left is a series of "oh, isn't she adorably stupid!" moments, of which we had quite our share in the first film. Gaah. (And I liked the first film.) Fans of the book will be both pleased and saddened by the considerable changes wreaked on the plot line: No more incompetent handyman, no more interview with Colin Firth, no more uncomfortable suicide attempt. More of Hugh Grant as Daniel Cleaver. More of Colin Firth as the unflappable Mark Darcy. Much more of Renee Zellweger as Bridget Jones. (She looks a lot more curvaceously attractive here, extra pounds and all, than the featureless stick-like waif she played in CHICAGO.) I suppose that undemanding viewers will enjoy more of the same. For the rest of us, though, enough is quite enough. No reason, no edge either. Hey, who knew Thai prisons were so entertaining? (In theaters, January 2005)

BARBERSHOP 2 (2004, Comedy): This follow-up to the surprise 2002 "black comedy" hit may not have the elegance of its prequel, but it'll prove more than worthwhile enough for fans of the first film. All protagonists are back for a second cut, and their arc is a natural extension of the first film. This sequel certainly seems to have more money to play with, as the action regularly goes outside the barbershop and around Chicago over a period of several weeks. In a way, that's unfortunate; the original had a wonderful sense of spacio-temporal unity, a "day in the life" in a barbershop that acted as a refuge against the cold winter. Here, it's summer and the action hops here and there and even across decades as there are several flashbacks in Eddie's life. They don't all work as effectively. The other thing that the sequel has over the original is a sense of what it's doing, but this self-awareness often translates into self-conscious showboating. The easy, unassuming freshness of the original is somewhat dulled. Then there's the setup for the next instalment of the franchise, BEAUTY SHOP, which doesn't quite feel as an organic part of the story. Oh well; at least the actors are having fun and so are we. Warning for French-Canadians or other people without an ear for inner-city slang: You may want to take advantage of a subtitled version to understand some of the rapid dialogue. (In theaters, February 2004)

BLADE: TRINITY (2004, Action/Horror): Sigh. As a big fan of both prequels, I guess I'm the only one to blame for my heightened expectations for this third instalment of the series. But after the high standards set by Stephen Norrington and Guillermo del Toro, director David Goyer (who, shockingly enough, also wrote all three film) seems only too happy to deliver the kind of by-the-number B-grade film we see all too often on straight-to-video shelves. Wesley Snipes seems bored by the undead material, or annoyed that the spotlight is off on two younger vampire hunters. Indeed, Jessica Biel has the requisite moves and Ryan Reynolds steals the show with motor-mouth action, but neither of them can do much to rescue BLADE III from the doldrums. The dumbing-down trend of the series' writing continues unabated in this third film, what with a hand-to-hand fighter forgoing her sense of hearing for trip-hop, one of the most boring Draculas in recent memory, useless characters and lame gags all around. Alas, whereas the first two films could rely on some dynamic action, David Goyer's first effort merely wastes CGI dollars and recycles Honk-Kong action moves with no flair. How bad is it? Well how about this: Françoise Yip is in the movie, but her total screen time is measured in seconds. Outrage! See this film out of a sense of duty if you must, but don't expect much. A sequel is doubtful; maybe it's better that way. (In theaters, December 2004)

THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (2004, Thriller): I wasn't a fan of the first film (dull, unremarkable and not quite as sophisticated as it thought it was), but this sequel is a bit better. Stepping off the event of the first film with nary a regard for the plot of Robert Ludlum's eponymous novel, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY reprises the elements that made the success of the first film (a competent but remorseful assassin, a gritty car chase and European locations) and reheats them once more. While the story is generally more enjoyable the second time around (with some impressively close ties to the content of the first film), the direction has taken a major step backward: I don't think that there's a perfectly still shot in the entire film, what with its constant use of unsteadied hand-held cameras. The result is highly annoying, and quickly becomes a confusing mess as soon as the action starts. Otherwise, well, there are a few unexplained plot shortcuts (how did he obtain those cell phone numbers?) and a few lengths here and there. A solid but generally tepid thriller. (In theaters, July 2004)

THE BUTTERLY EFFECT (2004, Fantasy): Surprise surprise: In the rush to dismiss this film as yet another career move by it-boy Ashton Kutcher, most seems to have missed the fact that this is, in fact, quite a good film. It doesn't take a long time to realize that this is a lot darker than anyone could guess. Within the first few unnerving minutes, child abuse, murder, rape, suicide and supernatural creeps are all trotted out in horror-film fashion. It's not pretty nor engaging, but it works; soon enough, the film presents the usual time-travel premise in a fairly original manner. But what the rather clever script does with it is progressively darker, with scant relief. Now, before anyone gets too enthusiastic, it's worth pointing out that the film makes less and less sense the closer you peer at it: The time-travel mechanism evolves in pure wishful thinking, while the time-travel paradoxes get more obvious as multiple time-lines are spun. (The protagonist's motivations are also suspect, but at least the other characters have the guts to call him on it) Still, there's no denying that the film works rather well on its own as a B-grade supernatural thriller in the FINAL DESTINATION vein. Kutcher himself does a good job, even though the supporting actors all steal the show as they have to incarnate vastly different versions of themselves. Often uncomfortable but seldom less than intriguing, THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT achieves what it sets out to do. Heck, it even pays appropriate to Ray Bradbury in a split-second visual gag. (In theaters, February 2004)

CELLULAR (2004, Thriller): Thrillers don't have to be good if they're clever, and CELLULAR demonstrates this better than most other films. Bad dialogue? A lousy lead actress? Contrivances, coincidences and leaps of logic? Here's the surprise: you just won't care if the film is energetic and suspenseful enough. After a wobbly first fifteen minutes (Kim Basinger is still pretty hot, but her idea of "terrified" is closer to our vision of "mildly annoyed"), the premise is clearly established: A faint phone connection as the only thing linking a kidnapped woman to her accidental would-be rescuer. After that, watch out, because the film takes off and doesn't land until the end. A succession of clever set-pieces keeps the action flowing, and director David R. Ellis' nervy direction excels at delivering a limpid story. There's suspense, there's action, there's wish-fulfilment and there's plenty of humour. Lead Chris Evans does exceedingly well as an ordinary guy thrown into an extraordinary situation. Jason Stratham is wasted as the bad guy, but Rick Hoffman turns in a great character performance as an ultra-obnoxious lawyer. Los Angeles itself takes a starring role as the playground on which all the craziness occurs. The ending is a bit conventional, but no matter; by that point, it's easy to be completely taken by CELLULAR, one of 2004's purest and most compelling thrillers. Let this be a lesson to would-be filmmakers; be funny, be fast and be clever, damnit! (In theaters, September 2004)

THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK (2004, Science-Fiction): Oh no; here I am, twisted between a bad film and a genre I love, a ridiculous script and a director who knows what he's doing. In some ways, this film is the epitome of dumb people's conception of bad SF. Would I be inclined to melodramatic statements, I'd probably say something like how it "sets back the general public's perception of SF by decades", except that BATTLEFIELD EARTH already damaged the genre's perception for years. On the other hand, I've professed my admiration for David Twohy just about everywhere else, and there's no denying that he's attempting something very ambitious here. Too bad that it's pure bargain-basement nonsense: despite some nifty details here and there, this movie rarely makes sense and is content to rely on tired clichés (the Furian prophecy, the easy "victory by killing the head vampire", etc.) rather than bring forth something new. It doesn't help that the direction is just about as original as the writing. Scientifically, it's all trash (don't get me started on the impossible weather patterns of Crematoria), but that hardly matters given that the film veers more often in science-fantasy territory. As such, there's something admirable about the grandeur of the visuals: even though the film's design is singularly ugly, it's big and bold. Much of the same could be said for Vin Diesel, who once again turns in a serviceable return performance as bad-boy Riddick, though he's nowhere near the impact of his turn in the prequel PITCH BLACK. Judi Dench and Colm Feore spend the entire movie slumming in undignified and humourless roles. Still, there's an undeniable appeal in seeing scorched-hot Thandie Newton vamp around in a snake-tight outfit, or even Alexa Davalos do her best with the usual "tough chick" shtick. So there I am, twisted between dull directing, bad writing, a love of the genre and respect for Twohy. What's a critic to do? (In theaters, June 2004)

THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK (2004, Sci-Fi/Action): Some movies improve upon a second viewing and some don't. This one not only doesn't, but actively suffers from the supplement of information that is to be found on the DVD. Sure, some of the action sequences aren't bad, the art direction is imaginative and Vin Diesel has a screen presence that can do much to compensate for the material. But nothing can raise the quality of the atrocious script, nor make sense of the ridiculous excuse for a science-fiction story. In fact, the more information is presented to us, the less sense the film makes. Yikes. Don't listen to the audio commentary! (Second viewing) (On DVD, March 2005)

CLOSER (2004, Romance/Drama): Two men, two women and a full-contact emotional destruction derby: CLOSER is one mean piece of work best appreciated as a performance showcase than anything profound on the nature of love. For one thing, keep in mind that this is an adaptation of a stage play: The unusual structure of the film, following short dramatic moments over the course of several years, is a direct off-shot of this, and so it the script's reliance on dramatic dialogue. (CLOSER doesn't spend much time showing us what happens when things go well for months at a time). As an excuse for showy acting, it's nearly perfect: all four main players do well, but Clive Owen steals the show (as usual) over Natalie Portman, Jude Law and Julia Roberts. Still, don't read too much in the characters: "What are you, twelve?", says one at the beginning and so it's difficult to imagine that we're seeing the actions of anything but the puppets of a writer. If there are some terrific dialogue scenes throughout the entire film, it's hard to connect with the impulsive actions and juvenile attitudes displayed by the characters. CLOSER, ironically, rebuffs any attempt to come closer to the characters: they are best admired, like the script, as a performance piece. (In theaters, February 2005)

COLLATERAL (2004, Thriller): Michael Mann films are rightfully regarded as minor film-making events, and even this admittedly average effort shows why: In this case, an average script is delivered by above-average talent, making it seem a great deal fresher than it is. Just take a look at the first few minutes, as Mann's camera suggests Los Angeles as a vast uncaring monster, thinly linked by endless roads on which it's easy for a man to be reduced to the simple role of a carrier. Hey, I know this is reading too much in a film, but that's exactly the beauty of Mann's direction: Make things appear deeper than they are. Because frankly, once you start picking at the details of this kidnapping/assassination thriller, it falls apart quickly: Jamie Foxx may play a sympathetic cab driver taken hostage, but the moron repeatedly manages to miss even the most obvious ways to get out, call the police and get away. The point isn't that he should have done so (otherwise; short movie!) but that the screenwriter should have worked a little harder polishing the script. Otherwise, you end up with the kind of amazing coincidence that is likely to make any audience shake their head. (Come on: Don't tell me you didn't know, ten minutes in, who the fifth target was going to be.) Silly script, with a sub-par third act that crumples into a whimper of a conclusion. But -aha- boy does it look good and profound with Mann at the helm. (Tom Cruise also helps, with an icy look that does much to bring some much-needed oomph to the story) Wow, philosophical discussions in a taxi cab! It almost makes COLLATERAL feel like it's supposed to be a fable about estrangement and not a run-of-the-mill thriller. But don't take a second look: You may be disappointed. (In theaters, August 2004)

CONNIE & CARLA (2004, Musical/Comedy): Some movies are almost too fluffy to talk about. Such is the case here, with a light and inconsequential comedy in which two women on the run from the mob disguise themselves as... drag queens. Nia Vardalos is almost unbearably cute, but (as in the beginning of her previous BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING) she's not afraid to lather on repulsive coats of makeup for comic effect. Aside from her performance and her blandly pleasant script, the rest of the film is scarcely unremarkable, defusing stereotypes by sheer virtue of being inoffensive in all other aspects. I'd wonder about the reaction of actual drag queens to the film, except for the nagging suspicion that, like everyone else, they'd find it so darn hard to say anything less than nice about the film. It's a campy comedy by the numbers; let's leave it at that. (In theaters, June 2004)

CONTROL ROOM (2004, Documentary): This fascinating documentary takes us on the ground at the US Military media "control room" in Quatar throughout the American invasion of Iraq. While the focus is kept on the staff of the Al-Jazeera news network, this is really an examination of how war affects journalism, and how truth is carefully molded by forces escaping individual control. As a documentary, it's low-touch: All is raw footage and beyond some text at the very beginning of the film, there is no feeling of a narration telling us what is happening. Don't think that this makes for a loose film, though: Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of CONTROL ROOM is how it defines and watches its own characters coping with the ordeal. Samir Khader, a wizened news producer who tells the truth in-between cigarettes, including how he'd gladly trade the Arabic nightmare for the American dream. Hassan Ibrahim, a teddy bear philosopher whose quiet brainy rage is no match for the events he's covering. Lt. Josh Rushing, a mouthpiece for the US Army who nevertheless shows, at times, a rough understanding of what is going on. Donald Rumsfeld, appearing only through television monitors, every single time uttering a statement that applies more to himself than to the enemies he thinks he's damning. And the staff at Al-Jazeera, professionals and journalists just like others, until they themselves become targets. Throughout the film, one stark realization emerges for non-partisan viewers looking at it from a late-2004 perspective: In a match between American and Arab media, the Arab media seems to have a clearer picture of what truly happened. As American media breathlessly accuse Saddam of torturing prisoners and lying to the press, it's hard not to feel the force of history selecting the ultimate truth-sayer. (In theaters, September 2004)

DANS UNE GALAXIE PRÈS DE CHEZ VOUS – LE FILM ([IN A GALAXY NEAR YOU - THE MOVIE], Canada, 2004, Science-Fiction/Comedy): I would have seen this film earlier had I thought it had potential to be good. Fortunately, it's only slightly better than I expected: a lame collection of jokes about Star Trek strung together in colloquial French-Canadian may be fun for a five-minute sketch, but it starts grating at the sixth minute. Some moments aren't too bad, but most of the film doesn't even try for internal coherency. Some silliness is good, but most of it is grating. Worse are the film's last-act foray in dramatic territory, which never really work. The actors at least try to have fun, and some of it comes through despite everything else. Fans of cheap B-series SF comedies may come to grudgingly appreciate the whole thing. The DVD comes with English subtitles that gamely try to translate the wordplay and allusions of the original dialogue. (On DVD, December 2005)

DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004, Horror): Now that's how you make a zombie film. Re-inventing absolutely nothing and taking no ironic distance to its material, this entry in the undead sub-genre nevertheless manages to deliver the requisite amount of bloodshed, action and grim humour that is required of such movies. Director Zack Snyder knows what he's doing, moves the story along at a decent clip and does surprising things with an average script by James Gunn. While there are numerous wasted opportunities (the satiric bite of the original film, for instance, has been completely eradicated), too many annoying characters and only occasional flashes of wit, DAWN OF THE DEAD at least fulfils the basic requirements of zombie film. “Shoot'em in the head” has seldom been more graphic than its depiction here. Stay during the credits for the full story. The DVD includes many, many extra features. (On DVD, March 2005)

THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (2004, Science-fiction): It's either growing mellowness or creeping senility, but I seem to be liking Roland's Emmerich's catastrophe films more and more. Hated INDEPENDENCE DAY, was okay with GODZILLA and now THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW actually manages to be even a little bit good. Sure, it's crammed with silly dialogue, familiar plotting and dumb Action Movie Moments (including characters out-running a tidal wave). But on the other hand, the destruction sequences are among the finest ever filmed. Hollywood's destruction by mega-twisters is worth the price of the ticket by itself: Add to that the spectacle of New York getting flooded, then freezing in place and you have enough eye-candy to satisfy anyone. (For more, er, conventional eye-candy, check out the luscious Tamlyn Tomita. Wrrrw!) I wasn't so amused by the lack of cold-sense exhibited by the characters (In sub-zero temperatures, you close doors behind you) nor the silly way the action scenes got amped-up through magically appearing axes or CGI wolves. Still, there is an undeniable power to THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, even if it's in contemplating a chillingly plausible disaster. It's a catastrophe film that aspires to a conscience and a brain: Considerable death and destruction isn't fought and stopped at the last moment; science is seen as a provider of answers and safety and people find safety at a public library, be still my nerdish heart! (Plus, who survives? The gifted teens and the librarians! Wooo!) Sure, the science is intentionally unrealistic. But once you see New York under dozens of meters of snow, hardly any of that matter: THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW delivers the goods. Consider the DVD pre-ordered. (In theaters, May 2004)

DEAD AND BREAKFAST (2004, Comedy/Horror): Don't look any further for this month's straight-to-DVD happy discovery: This is a fun, unpretentious, often corny zombie comedy in which a bunch of young people find themselves in the grip of unspeakable horror. It's intentionally goofy and all the better for it when on-the-nose musical interludes enliven the film. This isn't for everyone, but if you laughed at EVIL DEAD, DEAD ALIVE or SHAUN OF THE DEAD, this is a B-grade film in the same category. The actors do a fine job, there are a few fun twists and turns and the pacing steadily moves forward despite low production values, uncertain direction and a generally muddled plot. (When some deaths catch you by surprise, I'm not sure it's by design as much as insufficient setup.) A warning, though: I'm a good sport for such kind of films. Your mileage will definitely vary. (On DVD, May 2007)

DE-LOVELY (2004, Musical): I've never been able to let bad wordplay stand in the way of a nuanced review, and so I can't help but write: DE-LOVELY is DE-BORING. Granted, I know next to nothing about Cole Porter, but it's not this tepid musical biography that will make me rush to know more. Granted, I did like some of the staging and the way some numbers were integrated into the overall story. But then the music starts and I can't muster much enthusiasm for the types of show tunes Porter was known for. The framing device can't do much to counter-act the increasingly wearying impact of the film, which runs about half an hour too long and gets less and less interesting as Porter's life goes by. (“Just die already!” becomes the rallying cry in my living room) I suppose that devotees of musicals will get a kick out of it; as for myself, this movie just can't make me care. Which is ironic because when you take a look at all the good material that's stuffed in this film, you'd expect much better. (On DVD, March 2005)

LE DERNIER TUNNEL ([THE LAST TUNNEL], Canada, 2004, Crime/Drama): French-Canadian cinema is still at a stage where it's amazed whenever it manages to deliver competent American-style entertainment. Every so often, though, it slips back into the kind of depressing introspective drama that used to pass for cinematic entertainment around here. And so LE DERNIER TUNNEL is a mix of both tendencies: After a long set-up describing how a master thief goes back in the crime business after a stint in the hole, the film holds its own when comes the time to build tension and suspense. While the first two acts are both sketchy (in plotting) and self indulgent (in repetitive "character-building"), the last twenty minutes are pure action cinema, complete with a CGI shot of an exploding mailboxes and a bullet-time effect. Whew! But just when you think that this is going to end American-style, the film grinds to a halt, jettisoning whatever good will it had managed to accumulate and going back to old-style defeatism. While there is a place for an ending in which not everyone gets what they want, the choice here is grating: The absence of a twist, the drawn-out finale that amounts to nothing, the lack of satisfaction after a conventional build-up all conspire to negate the film's momentum. The credits roll, the lights go up, and the audience is cheated by a film that just lost its nerve. (In French, In theaters, April 2004)

DODGEBALL (2004, Comedy): Oh my: this is a juvenile, frat-boy glorification comedy that never hesitates to go for the cheap gag and the gross sight. And yet, I pretty much loved it from beginning to end. Good supporting characters, inspired lunacy, some shamelessness and plenty of unpretentious attitude can carry you a long way, and so DODGEBALL manages to suceed despite characters you would almost certainly hate in real life. The way that "dodgeball" is formalized with rules that would never make up a real sport and then hyped up as a Vegas sport is particularly endearing. The ending does fall apart, but that's part of the fun: This film has one of the most outrageous good-guys-win-everything finale I can recall, but look closely at the screen and you can see the winking deus ex machina. There isn't much more to say about the film though: Instantly accessibly, instantly forgettable. But it is funny enough. (On DVD, August 2006)

DOWNFALL (DER UNTERGANG, Germany, 2004, Drama): The last days of the Nazi regime are a natural dramatic point of interest. As the entire German infrastructure was being destroyed and the Russians were racing east, imagine the reactions of those left in Berlin. Based on several books and contemporary account, DOWNFALL flits about Berlin as Hitler and his advisers retreat in an underground bunker. There is a lot of material to cover, perhaps more that can comfortably fit into a single motion picture: DOWNFALL occasionally feels halfway between a miniseries and tighter film, with a result that feels long even though it should be interesting. Those hoping for a sweeping view of Berlin will be as disappointed as those who are hoping for a story exclusively centred on Hitler's bunker. In any case, it's hard to fault the actors as they attempt to recreate the slightly unhinged atmosphere of the time, or the claustrophobic cinematography as the walls come closer and closer to the characters. The script is graced with polish and a good amount of period details, down to capturing the essence of many historical characters. I suspect that WW2 buffs will be fascinated by the film, while others will want to snip entire segments of the film. (On DVD, July 2006)

ELLA ENCHANTED (2004, Kids/Fantasy/Comedy): Virtually unnoticed by critics and audiences, this fairy-tale satire actually works surprisingly well, solidly claiming a tradition in the vein of THE PRINCESS BRIDE. Part of the considerable charm of the picture rests squarely on the adorable shoulders of headliner Anne Hathaway, whose charisma shines throughout. (It's not simply how cute she looks when she shakes-shakes-shakes her booty, though that also helps. For a kid's film, its scores fairly high on the babe-o-meter, what with perennial favourites Minnie Driver, Parminder Nagra and Vivian E. Fox all showing up for too-few scenes.) The premise (a mish-mash of fairy-tale sorcery and gentle political satire) has the potential to be annoying, what with its unconvincing "obedience" shtick, but it manages to go beyond the obvious gags and present something more interesting. The script eventually finds its voice, with some surprisingly clever moments. (it's probably not accident if it's adapted from a book) Special effects are uneven, through the opening fly-by is a thing of beauty. All in all, a fine time at the movies, and a film that can be enjoyed by the entire family. (In theaters, June 2004)

ELLA ENCHANTED (2004, Kids/Fantasy): Capable comedy riffing off fairytale motifs, holds up quite well to a second viewing. Good jokes, well told and quickly lined up. The limits of the budget are obvious, but the charm of Anne Hathaway in the lead role more than compensates for any sub-par special effects. Charming, fun and fit for the whole family. The DVD includes an adequate audio commentary and a number of supplements worth watching once, at the exception of the dull and repetitive EPK featurette. (Second Viewing) (On DVD, March 2005)

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004, Science Fiction/Drama): I have a bad, bad allergy to naturalistic film-making. But even that couldn't keep me from appreciating this film, a cheerfully original piece of work that feels both fresh and gritty. The concept of memory erasure as a "solution" to heartbreak isn't revolutionary (there are many Science Fiction stories dealing with that exact same theme), nor is the notion of Jim Carrey as a dramatic actor. But this film does wonders with both. A simple story (boy meets girl, boy loses girl, girls has boy erased, boy does same) told in an eclectic style, Charlie Kaufman's script seamlessly delves into matters of memory and identity. As a Science Fiction story, it's interestingly realistic, featuring ordinary people who often do stupid things and jury-rigged technology that can go really wrong. It's also admirable how it avoids the circular pessimism that is inherent in its premise, suggesting that it's only by learning from mistakes and painful moments that we can grow. Obvious stuff, sure, but somehow the way it's all done makes it seem new. (Much in the same way that the muddy cinematography of the film often obscures top-notch special effects) I'm still not completely blown away by the film (among other annoyances, it sports far too many gratuitously-weird moments that don't end up meaning much at the end) but it's a rare piece of solid SF cinema-as-art, something that can be discussed and taken apart. (In theaters, April 2004)

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (2004, Documentary): Devastating. It's not that there is a lot of new material here (reading a lot of left-wing blogs helps in being jaded), but the way Michael Moore arranges nearly four years of American history in a coherent opinion piece is unbelievably effective. From Bush's incompetent first few months in power to the trauma of September 11^th and the terror hysteria leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Moore says out loud what an increasing number of people are thinking. His use of archival footage is nearly flawless and speaks for itself (though I would have used dates and attributions on every single frame); compared to his previous BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, Moore manages to avoid being on-camera most of the time and the film is much more effective for it. I defy other movies this year to do what FAHRENHEIT 9/11 does on an emotional register; in a large crowd, you can hear the laughs, the crying, the gasps and the stunned denials. The music also helps a lot, going from the unsubtle ("Vacation") to the ironic (oscillating between happy and ominous music between shots) to the breathtakingly nasty (I wonder how many people noticed the "Cocaine" riff?) Yes, it's a mash-up of two movies (the pre-Iraq treatise on Bush's incompetence and corruption; then the Iraq mess), but that's at the image of what has happened to Moore, heck, to America itself in 2001-2004, smashed from one narrative to another whether they liked it or not. All in all, a wonder of a movie, one that actually dares to push back the establishment, and even veers into highly subversive territory mere moments before fading to black. Whew! (In theaters, June 2004)

FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX (2004, Adventure): Curse the lack of restraint of modern directors with an Avid editing station in their hands: FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX is a perfectly respectable old-school adventure, and it calls for a classic tone. For most of the film's duration, that's indeed what we get. But from time to time, the film segues into gratuitously wierd jump-cuts, dream-like sequences and other assorted modern trick that simply don't work. Those moments don't do much to compensate for the pedestrian dialogue and the iffy geographical coherency of the location. (My favourite moment is when they walk away from the side of the plane and end up in debris having fallen out of the plane earlier... which would place them behind the plane wreck! And that's saying nothing about how the plane is at a handy distance away from dunes, nomad camps and natural runways.) Other annoyances abound; the look and development ("That's my watch!"?) of the nomad camp encounter; the ridiculously extreme drama of some scenes and the jarring inclusion of "Hey Ya!" as a montage song. Still, there's also enough to like in the film for everyone looking for a little adventure, from a spectacular plane crash that ensures that this will never be an in-flight movie to a refreshing lack of sexual tension between the protagonists and the lone woman in the team. Some of the desert cinematography is a thing of beauty, Randy Quaid delivers a good gruff performance and there's a remarkable purity in the premise of the film. But it's easy to see how THE FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX could have been improved, and it's a shame that it wasn't. (In theaters, December 2004)

FINDING NEVERLAND (2004, Drama): I wish I could be mad about this film, but there's something to be told about truth in advertising. Everything I'd seen or heard about this film -premise, trailer, poster- screamed "boring", and it took the official Oscar nominations to make me see the film. While certainly not bad, it's certain long and boring. The "true story behind the classic" shtick has been done, better, by SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, and it takes only one errant cough to see where this film is going. I suppose that PETER PAN fans will get a lot more from this film than I did. Even at 106 minutes, FINDING NEVERLAND still feels like a slug. I can't fault the technical side of the film nor the acting of Johnny Depp and the rest of the cast. On the other hand, the script has me wondering: Even though it's supposed to be a celebration of imagination, the way that Depp's character simply recycles everything he hears tends to diminish the role of the writer's creativity. Oh well; if ever I saw the ideal target audience for this film, it was the three nattering ladies in front of me, who seemed to delight in even the tritest plot developments. Let them buy the DVD and torture their grandchildren with it. (In theaters, February 2005)

THE FORGOTTEN (2004, Science-Fiction): The curse of most average SF/Fantasy movies these days is the market imperative to pad a story until it's roughly 90 minutes long. While the plot of THE FORGOTTEN may have been mildly entertaining as a 20-minutes TWILIGHT ZONE episode, it severely overstays its welcome as a feature film. Plot development is held back, obvious revelations are drawn out and the movie dilutes its impact through bad pacing. Truth be told, there just isn't enough in the premise of the film (a woman sees elements of her life being "erased" from her life, including in other people's memories) to justify more than a short story's worth of material. Over ninety minutes, the basic problems of the story become obvious: All-powerful "erasers" able to modify minds but unable to paint over a wall? People "magically" remembering things? Silly chases through open fields? The powers of the opposition just don't match the cat-and-mouse game (and the silly clues) in the film. Dumb, which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't asking for a full hours-and-a-half of our attention. But it does. And shouldn't. Calling a dumb little movie THE FORGOTTEN is asking for a reaction in kind. Just give me a week or two. (In theaters, October 2004)

HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE (2004, Comedy): Being one of the world's most unrepentant fan of director Danny Leiner's DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR?, I expected to like this film. I didn't expect to like as much as I did, though. Tapping into the same absurd vein than Leiner's previous “vehicle” (although with far more raunchiness), HAROLD AND KUMAR slam-dunks a silly laugh-a-minute comedy mini-classic. It's about two stoners looking for burgers, sure, but it's also a fine metaphor for modern man's search for meaning in a darkened wasteland faintly illuminated by the neon signs of enlightenment. Nah; forget I said that: It's all about hots chicks, dope jokes and sticking it to The Man. Part of the film's success rests on the considerable appeal of its two lead actors, John Cho and Kal Penn, as they effortlessly win us over. But it's Neil Patrick Harris who steals every single scene he's in, thanks to a madcap caricature of himself, tearing recklessly in a role that demands nothing short of a daredevil comedic streak. (Ryan Reynolds makes a similar impression in a brief cameo). It's also refreshing to see that the film earns its sold R rating thanks to nudity, profanity and drug usage, giving a black eye to so-called “edgy” PG-13 comedies scrupulously avoiding all three topics. The film's sly but substantial take on multiculturalism is also noteworthy, and worth celebrating. Superbly entertaining, almost unbearably funny and with its own special brand of wit. Not for everyone, and that's just great! (On DVD, August 2005)

HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (2004, Teen/Fantasy): Well, it's obvious that Chris Columbus is out of the picture for the third instalment of the Harry Potter series: the colour palette is harsher, Hogwarts has abandoned its all-Caucasian student policy and the camera actually moves once in a while. Hurrah for Alfonso Cuarón! But it takes more than pans and swoops to make a good film, and if HARRY POTTER 3 is a lot more fun to look at, it's curiously not as steadily compelling as the first two films. The film even become literally repetitive toward the end, capping a curiously tepid dramatic arc. It certainly doesn't help that the script cut a lot of the original story to fit in a reasonable length: some details didn't make sense until they were patiently explained to me by other Potterphiles. (The ending is particularly chaotic, pulling thin threads out of nowhere) But let's not go overboard with criticism: Even when it's middling, the Harry Potter series has enough good stuff to leapfrog over most of the other movies of the year. Acting-wise, the lead trio does a fine job, and will hopefully be able to follow the series along until the end. Onward to the fourth volume, then. (In theaters, June 2004)

HELLBOY (2004, Fantasy/Action): As an unconditional fan of director Guillermo del Toro, I may have been expecting a touch too much from this film, his logical follow-up to the exceptional BLADE II. I'm not displeased by the end result, mind you: Anything which mixes Nazis, catholicism, demons, big guns and tentacular Lovecraftian creatures has my vote. But there's something missing here. Maybe it's the same-old shtick of making the first film of any superhero franchise an origin story. Maybe it's the repetitive nature of the fights. Maybe it's the unconvincing nature of the secret bureau described in the film, which sports a grand total of what seems to be five employees. Whatever it is stops HELLBOY from vaulting on the top shelf... but don't think that I don't be in line to buy the DVD: From the good CGI to the great direction to Hellboy's own blue-collar superhero shtick, there's plenty to like anyway about this film. It's just too bad that it can't take the last step separating it from popcorn greatness. (In theaters, April 2004)

HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS (SHI MIAN MAI FU, China, 2004, Action/Romance/Drama): Taken by itself, this is perfectly entertaining, visually exciting piece of cinema. Unfortunately, it comes on the heels of both CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON and HERO, and unfortunately covers much of the same territory in much of the same fashion. Slightly pretentious, far too long, maybe a bit too deliberate in how it tries to distinguish between every scene, HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS seems too familiar to have an impact. The twists in the tale also seem too deliberate to feel interesting: at the end, the only things missing are an alien and a split personality. And that's truly too bad, because HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS shows an ambitious aesthetic sense that puts most other films to shame. In trying to figure out how this film may seem too familiar even as dozens of Jackie Chan film can all have their individual appeal, it may be useful to consider the element of fun: Chan, at least in his best early-nineties period, broadly appealed through stunts and easy jokes: Yimou Zhang, on the other hand, has evacuated all humour out of his film, trying for high-end romantic drama with a tragic twist. There very well be a limit to the number of films appealing to that particular corner of the mindspace: Too bad that HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS had to end there third. (On DVD, August 2005)

GHOST IN THE SHELL 2: INNOCENCE (2004, Science Fiction): As a rabid fan of the first GHOST IN THE SHELL, I had high expectations for the sequel, all of which were dashed. In a bizarro reversal on the strategy of playing up a first film's strengths, INNOCENCE revels in the first film's worst traits and forgets nearly everything that made it so good. In a nutshell, INNOCENCE is a simplistic fifteen minute film stretched over more than an hour and a half. The rest of the time is spent spouting nonsense at tediously low bandwidth. While Major Kusanagi is good for a cameo voice appearance, Batou simply isn't strong enough as a protagonist: He is adrift without a strong anchor, and the hound dog doesn't cut it. INNOCENCE is not without its good moments; the last fifteen minutes, once the action starts again, is good in ways that remind us of the first film, and some odd scenes here and there (the intro; the barely-coherent convenience store shootout; the repeated sequences) have at least the potential to be interesting. Plot-wise, though, this film is a mess (yeah, just go in and start shooting the Yakuzas... that'll work), and it doesn't even try to cover up its worst problems through fast pacing. Worse is the philosophy: Unless something went horribly wrong in translation, you could find more philosophical insights in the third Matrix film (yes, the third) than this one. Yikes; don't be surprised if the endless droning just drives you to sleep. On the visual front, the CGI is much nicer than in the original film, but the traditional character animation now clashes with the background more than ever, a problem that is only becoming more jarring as animated films keep depending on this half-and-half technique. Go rent the original again and temper your expectations again regarding this sequel. (In theaters, January 2005)

GOING UPRIVER (2004, Documentary): There is little doubt that this is a hagiography of John Kerry, carefully structured to bolster his image both as a soldier in Vietnam and then an opponent of the war after his tour of duty. And it delivers in spade. An "invisible documentary" with little overt intervention by a narrator, George Butler's GOING UPRIVER does wonder with archival footage and talking heads, describing Kerry's formative experiences with skillful effect. In doing so, however, it manages something more; it holds its own as the capsule description of a time and a place from Vietnam to Washington. John Kerry predictably emerges from the film looking like a hero, but the context surrounding him is even more impressive. As someone born the same year Saigon fell, the description of anti-war protests is an eye-opener, going well beyond the usual encyclopedia articles about the subject. Kerry's leadership qualities are manifest, but so is the dedication of the movement he's spear-heading. It's unusually moving, especially given the natural tendency to associate this war, so long away, with another still unfolding as I write this. In this mash-up between Kerry the soldier and Kerry the activist, it's the activist who emerges as the clearest hero. Powerful stuff: the archival footage is excellent (including large portions of Kerry's Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony) and some of the pictures are nothing less than breath-taking. (Among the film's surprises is seeing John O'Neill pop up, thirty years ago, as a White House-selected Kerry opponent. And they say history history repeats itself...) It all ends with a clever montage of photos from later in Kerry's career, showing his ascension to positions of power. How can this man not be elected president? (On VCD, October 2004)

THE GRUDGE (2004, Horror): First thing first: Yup, this film is packed with chills and scares and spring-loaded cats and gratuitously wrong imagery. On these grounds alone, this ranks as a successful horror films. There's only one catch, though: Even as your lower reptilian cortex is being so effectively stroked, your higher-level brain functions will violently react as they try to make sense of what is ultimately a pretty dumb film. The implicit pact between filmmaker and viewer is broken: The early weird scenes do not end up making sense. We are to believe in a haunted house that takes sadistic delight in killing everyone who enters it, but then we see a real estate agent waltz in and out. Then the house starts going after victims just about everywhere in Tokyo, under guises that don't actually reflect the internal logic of the triggering trauma. Then some people are killed efficiently while others are left to suffer for a bit, and maybe even take the bus back home. In short, there's no internal logic, no "rules" to play with. This, contrarily to what others may say, doesn't make the film scarier: It makes it cheaper, lazier and dumber. A year after THE RING, I still have chills over it thanks to a simple plot line that worked. A day after THE GRUDGE, I can scarcely remember it already. (In theaters, October 2004)

GUNNER PALACE (2004, Documentary): There really isn't much to say about this film beyond the simple facts: It's a documentary about a bunch of American soldiers (most of them young), stationed at what was Uday Hussein's pleasure palace. The filmmakers behind the camera spent a year with the soldiers and filmed everything: GUNNER PALACE is best seen as a collage of life over there, without much in term of narrative structure or documentary development. As a demonstration of what life is like for the men out there, it's unbeatable: War, from the trenches, is about boredom footnoted by death. Garbage bags that may explode. Allies that turn into enemies overnight. Living in the ruins of excess, trying to help people who would rather throw stones at you. I suspect that GUNNER PALACE is so close to its subject that it's likely to be seen as a triumph regardless of one's political affiliations. Alas, it's already gaining in historical stature as, two years later, the situation over there hasn't really improved... and thousands of Americans have come back in body bags. Ultimately, reviewing the film isn't necessary, not when they (or people much like them) are out there, and we're over here... not understanding what they're going through. (On DVD, August 2006)

HOTEL RWANDA (2004, Thriller/Drama): Making a reasonably watchable film about genocide is a dicey proposition: You can be heartfelt and veer into melodrama, bashing the audience with massive quantities of guilt and disgust for the human race (hello SCHINDLER'S LIST), or conversely treat the subject as nothing more than a great excuse for explosions, guns and righteous vengeance (I'm talking about you, TEARS OF THE SUN). This in an exception, though: by taking the path of a suspense film, canny writer/director Terry George manages to create a film that is both revelatory and, yes, fun to watch. Protagonist Paul Rusesabagina is your proverbial everyday man, stuck in an impossible situation without anything but his wits to keep the Rwandan genocide away from his hotel. Powerful stuff, but the way the film is constructed, as a series of mini-crises to be solved or else, makes its message accessible to a much wider audience. The suspense runs high, the horrors are shown crisply and the final message is one of quiet optimism: Bad things happen and most will try to pretend otherwise, but it's possible to do good if you work at it. Competent technical credits and excellent acting from all players involved only make a good film great. Canadians will feel a strange sense of helpless pride at the sight of Nick Nolte as a Canadian UN peacekeeper (loosely modelled on real-life hero Roméo Dallaire) seething in impotent rage at the world's inaction. The best thing about HOTEL RWANDA is that it communicates this rage to us without feeling like a message film. (In theaters, February 2005)

IMAX: FIGHTER PILOT: OPERATION RED FLAG (2004, Documentary): As a certified military hardware buff, I had a number of dropped-jaw moments during this documentary. Covering (and re-creating) the annual "Red Flag" training tournament, FIGHTER PILOT gives us military planes on glorious 70mm negatives and kick-ass surround sound. Just wait until you see a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber slide into view, or hear the heart-stopping rumble of an A-10 Warthog main gun. While the structure of the film can be a scatter-shot of cool scenes that only aviation geeks will love, the quality of the pictures more than makes up for it. It generally improves by the end of the film, even concluding with a rescue sequence that easily belongs in a Bruckheimer action movie. A lot of stuff blows up. It's all good. Given the international nature of the "Red Flag" exercise, Canadians even get to hear a snippet of Québécois. Albeit limited by the nature of the venture (This film would have not existed if it wasn't for the collaboration of Boeing and the Air Force), FIGHTER PILOT is a lot of fun for aviation enthusiasts. What for sure is that this isn't the usual OMNIMAX nature film. (In OMNIMAX theatre) (In theaters, March 2006)

THE INCREDIBLES (2004, Comedy): Pixar's continued good run of excellent films continues unabated with this latest entry, most assuredly one of the best superhero films ever made. Combining sharp satire with a healthy respect for non-sappy family values, THE INCREDIBLES does everything it can with the elements it chooses to cover. A far funnier take on WATCHMEN's theme of disgraced superheroes, writer/director Brad Bird's latest masterpiece (five years after THE IRON GIANT) is simultaneously one of funniest comedies of the year and one of the most awe-inspiring action film of 2004. Best of all, however, is Pixar's patented tendency to refine the elements of its films until perfection is attained: Hence the non-stop delight of one of the film's best sequence, in which an elastic woman is stuck in-between three (or four?) different doors at once. The action sequences are similarly awe-inspiring, with buzzsaw chases across an island paradise and a fantastic set-piece in which superheroes battle a robot in downtown Metropolis. Whew! But even with Pixar's technical savvy and sophistication, it's the script that shines brightly, with simple gags and fantastic characters such as Edna E Mode, a costume designer borrowing equally from Doctor Ruth and Christian Dior. Despite some initial lengths, rarely has a film stepped so assuredly on my Year's best Top-10 list. (In theaters, November 2004)

I, ROBOT (2004, Science-Fiction/Action): I truly hope that die-hard Isaac Asimov fans blow a fuse while watching this film. No, it's not even near a adaptation of Asimov's short stories. This is Hollywood, what do you expect? A faithful but dull collection of vignettes? Please; simply think of the film as iROBOT, an average sci-fi action film that happens to have a few cool winks and similarities with Asimov's work, including the Zeroth Law. As such, it works fairly well: The bright futuristic landscape is delicious and the action scenes can be spectacular. (Robot-to-robot bullet-time combat! Roadway rampages! Chi McBride with a shotgun! Rotating cameras! Sweet!) Sure, the film doesn't make much real-world sense: The mechanics of the NS-5 roll-out are unbelievably dumb by any business standards, physics are routinely humiliated (advanced machinery isn't a substitute for F=MA) and the variable scope of the story is frustrating. Throw in some silly stuff like fully-furnished houses being scheduled for destruction scant hours after the death of the owner (huh?), plus some obscenely blatant product placement, and it's hard to take this very seriously. And yet it works. Will Smith turns in an unexpectedly dramatic role as a policeman with cybernetic issues, bringing along his usual considerable charm. Bridget Moynahan is a good-for-Hollywood Susan Calvin (no actress in Southern California is plain enough to play Asimov's Calvin) with a believable arc from cold scientist to fluffy action heroine. But frankly, the robots are the star performers of the film: Even as we're supposed to be too jaded for modern special effects, those in I, ROBOT still manage to impress. All in all, a satisfying film. But don't expect much fidelity to the original material. And that's a good thing. (In theaters, July 2004)

I, ROBOT (2004, Science-Fiction/Action): I'm in the minority on this one, but if you're looking for an action SF film, you can do much worse than I, ROBOT. Sure, there are plot holes big enough to accommodate a robotic house-wrecker. But on the flip side, the film is competently directed, has at least one or two levels of subtlety, can rely on a likable lead (Will Smith, scoring another hit as an action hero) and even includes one or two nods toward the original material. Not bad, and hearing SF geeks scream their betrayal is actually part of the film's attraction. It holds up well to a second viewing. The DVD is a bit thin on the “making-of” side, especially given the fantastic CGI work. The commentary instills some respect for the complexity of the script. Wait; did I just qualify the I, ROBOT script as being “complex? (Second Viewing) (On DVD, March 2005)

JERSEY GIRL (2004, Romance): Ouch. While it's not fair to begrudge writer/director Kevin Smith's desire to grow up after five raucous comedies, it's not poor efforts like JERSEY GIRL that will demonstrate anything. What's nearly unbearable, though, is the dawning realization that the film's problems stem from one source: The writing. The direction is surprisingly unremarkable for a Smith film (it looks like just about any cookie-cutter romance, which is a step up for Smith's notoriously static style) and all of the actors do really good work, from Ben Affleck's uneasy blue-collar worker to Elizabeth Castro's adorable kid character. (Heck, even Liv Tyler has never looked hotter; it's the glasses, I swear!) But the stuff that comes out of their mouth... eeew. Smith's writing has always been the chief attraction of his films, but he completely (and repeatedly) misses the mark here: He brings to romantic drama the same sledge-hammer quality so obvious in his comedy and the result is a disaster. Characters spout off "on-the-nose" monologues to sleeping infants, react in broad and obvious ways that have no equivalent in the real world and engage in conversations that feel more like dramatic check-lists. Yikes. To add insult to injury, whatever comedy writing is in the film falls flat and feels forced. All in all, it's not Smith's new intentions that are at fault (despite everything, you can still sense the heart-felt bond between father and daughter) but his inept execution. Too bad. (In theaters, April 2004)

KILL BILL VOLUME 2 (2004, Drama/Action): I'm surprised: After condemning so many recent movies for being far too long, this bloated self-indulgent monstrosity of a second half drags on for more than two hours... and I didn't want it to end. Yes, there are tons of useless scenes, loose dialogue, extended scenes and annoying pauses. But it's handled with such a deft hand that by the time the "Last Chapter" title card is dropped, you can only go "Whaaa? Already?" Beautiful direction, inventive twists and turns, uplifting ending (unlike other recent revenge films, this one suggests a hint of personal redemption if not -for lack of a better word- progress) and excellent acting all contribute to a unique cinema experience. Interestingly enough, This VOLUME 2 is quite different from VOLUME 1; more talkative, less spectacular, but as good in its own way: It's going to be hard to wait until the inevitable combined edition of the film. Film geeks of all stripe will once again go nuts for this latest offering from Quentin Tarantino. More mundane viewers may not care as much, but that's hardly relevant: the film isn't for them anyway. (In theaters, April 2004)

KING ARTHUR (2004, War/Drama): While I'm partial to the concept of presenting "the real story" behind the myths, that kind of stuff isn't in itself sufficient to sustain my interest in a film. The first half of KING ARTHUR passes in a drowsy daze, as director Antoine Fuqua seems content in simply showing how much mud existed at the time. Fortunately, things pick up (from a pacing standpoint) as soon as Guenevere (Kiera Knightly, an average casting choice at best) is rescued from a damp dungeon. While "realistic", the film doesn't do much to acknowledge real science given how hand injuries are easily forgotten, unlikely arrow shots find their targets a mile away and heroism takes precedence over simple physics. Oh well; at least it's easy to warm to the title character (a fantastic Clive Owen) and his merry band of knights. Some low-level flirtation, along with a gruff Merlin and a shot of a round table, and we've got the making of myth. But it's the action scenes that work better than anything else, from a great little frozen-lake sequence to a rather good final clash between two (or three) armies. Nifty, but they can't excuse the tepid storytelling nor the bombastic details. It's a mixed bag, really; better than expected from the lifeless trailers, but still not quite up to the level of quality offered from other recent historical epics. (In theaters, July 2004)

KUNG-FU HUSTLE ([GONG FU], China, 2004, Action/Comedy): It's a well-known truism in the movie business that action translates around the world whereas comedy doesn't. So you can imagine the mixed reaction when a Chinese action/comedy hybrid like KUNG-FU HUSTLE makes it to American shores. The most unfortunate thing about the film is that it begins in a very peculiar fashion, slowly mixing low-level comedy with some surprisingly gory violence. Don't be surprised if, fifteen minutes in the film, you don't know what to make of it: It's hard to care about a film that starts out with the brutal shotgun murder of a woman (in the back, no less). But keep at it; despite a few early missteps, KUNG-FU HUSTLE gradually reveals its glorious insanity, ballooning into a delicious parody of martial-arts films complete with the biggest density of computer-generated special effects I've ever seen in a comedy. Writer/Director Stephen Chow isn't always funny (for every gag that works, another one fails) but the film as a whole improves throughout its entire duration, ending with a dynamite combat sequence that leaves most other kung-fu movies in the dust. If you've seen SHAOLIN SOCCER (which shares many of the same actors), you know what to expect: A long buildup followed by an unbelievable payoff. Not for everyone (especially with the early violence), but fans will understand how good it becomes. (In theaters, April 2005)

LADDER 49 (2004, Drama): In this post-9/11 era where firefighters are the new demigods of civic responsibility, funding for a movie such as LADDER 49 comes naturally. Even the trite by-the-numbers script plays it safe in a transparent attempt to mythologize the plight of the ordinary firefighter. The result is a sure-fire populist hit and film likely to be a firehouse fixture for years to come. For those with an average interest in firefighters, however, all that's left is an ordinary drama that makes to attempts at being a thriller (unlike BACKDRAFT) or more than a straight-up biographic drama. This is a life (or maybe an instructional video), not a story. Save for a manipulative framing device, events simply happen without dramatic tension or surprises. Is it earnest or calculated? I suspect that those who go for the film just won't care. (In theaters, October 2004)

THE LADYKILLERS (2004, Crime/Comedy): There's no denying that on the heels of INTOLERABLE CRUELTY, the Coen brothers have once again disappointed many with this lesser film. A remake that audaciously re-imagines the basic story of the London-based 1950s original in contemporary Southern Mississippi, THE LADYKILLERS is a slight comedy that unfortunately loses interest as it winds up to its conclusion. The best two things about the film, as may be expected from the Coen Brothers, is the music and the secondary characters. While Tom Hanks gets all the flash and glory in the lead role of a cultured southern gentleman who decides to try his luck at crime, every character in the film speaks with their own cadence and idioms, a musicality of speech that meshes well with the musical background. (What O BROTHER WERE ART THOU? Did to folk music, this version of THE LADYKILLERS does to gospel choirs, maybe even too much) Sadly, the relatively amusing first half of the film loses stem once the light crime comedy cedes its place to much darker and moralistic material. Suddenly, the film isn't so much fun to watch. It doesn't help that the lead character, a formidable black woman with a fearful sense of right and wrong, is such a dull character. While the film is supposed to revolve around her, her presence just isn't as compelling as the dastardly villains she's facing. Oh well; Quirky is the word, but then again quirky is what the Coen Brothers are all about, occasional misfires and all. (In theaters, April 2004)

LAYER CAKE (United Kingdom, 2004, Crime/Drama): From the assured opening narration (from an unnamed narrator who credibly claims to be a businessman whose trade happens to be illegal), we're easily swept along this criminal tale. There are twists, there are turns and there's a joyously mean ending twist. As a movie, this is somewhere between Guy Richie and Martin Scorsese, mixing wry dark humour with an insider's look inside the criminal trade, carried along with a tight plot and interesting characters. Daniel Craig continues to demonstrate why he was picked to be the next Bond with a performance that is both intelligent and brutal. It's hardly perfect (there's at least one abrupt change of heart for the protagonist, and one development that's hard to justify), but it's fun and ultimately that's more than enough to satisfy anyone looking for a fix of glamorized crime fiction. (On DVD, August 2006)

LEMONY SNICKET'S A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS (2004, Kids/Drama): No, Tim Burton didn't direct this film... but other thank the annoyingly static camera setups you wouldn't guess that its relative unknown Brad Silberling is responsible for this delightfully Gothic kid's film. Not that it's any kind of conventional film for the young ones: Dark and twisted enough to be the delight of all older moviegoers, this first LEMONY SNICKET often surprises by oddball plot twists and ghoulishly awful fake-outs. Jude Law's dead-pan, almost sorrowful narration sets the tone, but the film rests squarely on the shoulders of Emily Browning and Liam Aiken as the two eldest Baudelaire children whose lives are afflicted by this series of unfortunate events. A who's-who of other actors revolve around them, most annoyingly Jim Carrey, whose ham-fisted delivery is somehow supposed to be in character. No matter; the film thrives without him, revelling in a series of convoluted gags and weird sets. It is, all in all, surprisingly enjoyable for a film that seldom makes anyone laugh. (In theaters, December 2004)

THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU (2004, Drama): By now, director Wes Anderson's uneasy pairings of silly comedy with awful melodrama is fast approaching cliché, and this film doesn't do much to correct this impression. On one hand, it's more technically ambitious than either RUSHMORE or THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (look at that: CGI! A cutaway set! Action scenes!) and doesn't leave as bad a taste once it's over. On the other, well, the death of some characters doesn't mean much, the quirkiness seems too cultivated to be effective and there's always the sense that Anderson's films are a grab-bag because he lacks the ability to focus on a coherent objective. Too bad, also, that the editor of the trailer has a better sense of humour than Anderson himself: by selling this film as an outright comedy, the studio isn't making itself any friends. Fortunately, acting credits are top-notch: Bill Murray reprises his soulful loser personae in yet another attempt to recapture an Oscar while the rest of the players struggle in his shining magnificence. All well and blah, but maybe it would be time for Anderson to do something else? (In theaters, December 2004)

THE MACHINIST (EL MAQUINISTA, Spain, 2004, Crime/Drama): Another entry in the overly-clever sub-genre of “everything you know about this story is wrong” movies, this film is perhaps best considered as a showcase for Christian Bale's dedication wrapped in a side-order of unusual plotting. The deliberately dark and foreboding cinematography quickly creates a nightmarish quality to the film that underscores the protagonist's self-alienation. The star of show, of course, is Bale, who lost a significant portion of his weight in order to portray his emaciated character. Unlike a good number of twisty movies, the film ends on a hopeful note, making the experience look like redemption more than deception. Yes, I'm being vague; but you'll appreciate the coyness when you see the film. (On DVD, August 2005)

THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (2004, Thriller): While the idea of remaking the classic 1962 film was completely unnecessary, the actual finished film captures the paranoid essence of 2004 like few other have the guts to do: By replacing the anti-Communist material with an anti-corporate message, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE knows where to go for paranoid thrills. Throw in some science-fiction gadgets, the Gulf War, War-on-Terror rhetoric and the result is a film that may very well come to represent the unique feel of the Bush II administration. Meryl Streep, Liev Shreiber and -especially- Denzel Washington all deliver when comes to time to portray intense characters. Director Jonathan Demme is ideally suited to give life to this paranoid nightmare, what with his propensity for flat close-ups (even in conversations) and the off-beat way he films even simple scenes. Granted, the plot is often silly, unconvincing and packed with implausible events. But that goes with the territory of a nightmare. Even the eerie sound landscape of the film contributes to the uneasiness. Not an easy film to love nor enjoy, but nevertheless one that sticks in mind. (In theaters, July 2004)

MAN ON FIRE (2004, Crime/Drama): Almost-successful revenge drama starring Denzel Washington in another very solid performance. Unlike some other revenge films, there is some real emotional content as the relationship between victim and avenger is established. It takes too much time (nearly an hour!), but at least it's there, buried under the stylistic embellishments of directory Tony Scott. Anyone who has followed the brother Scotts' careers knows that they're prone to unexplainable excess, and MAN OF FIRE attains an exasperating paroxysm of self-indulgent style. For no reason at all, the camera will jerk, speed up, slow down, cut to impressionistic passages or go wild with grain and outrageous colours. It works in some specific instances, but otherwise mauls the intent of some scenes and inserts another layer of interpretation between the viewer and the story. The only truly successful experiment is the unprecedented use of subtitles as emotional counterpoint to the action: Even English phrases are written on-screen as reflections on the action and illustrations of rage. (Overall, though, Scott's "Deal with the Devil" short film on the bmwfilms.com site serves as a stylistic preview of MAN ON FIRE) There's no denying that this is a very long film. When it starts to heat up, it does the "revenge fantasy" shtick better than THE PUNISHER (and, ironically, in a style considerably closer to comic books that the comic book adaption itself) But it's just too long; even the elegiac conclusion could have been chopped away without much loss. Not bad, but annoying. Not good, but involving. Tony Scott is working only a tiny trip away from total madness, through. (In theaters, April 2004)

MEAN GIRLS (2004, Teen/Comedy): Now that's a teen comedy worth watching even if you're older than 15. Scripted with great skill by Tina Fey, from Rosalind Wiseman's non-fiction book Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence (!), MEAN GIRLS even feels like a teen comedy written by adults. It's not quite HEATHERS, but it's almost up to CLUELESS' level in sheer sustained viewing pleasure. (It's also jam-packed with good quotes). Lindsay Lohan is cute and believable as Cady Heron, a home-schooled girl abruptly thrown in the cesspool of high school at age 16. Fortunately, she's not the only highlight in this film, which features a strong supporting cast of characters, with even the most minor ones getting a chance to shine (props to Rajiv Surendra and the Mathletes!). I especially liked the "rediscover your inner nerd-ness" message implicit in the finale, and the biting social commentary on schools. This film is a blessing after so many cookie-cutter teen comedies without any kind of social conscience (yes, SLEEPOVER, I mean you.) A fine film that is probably going to find its own adult audience. (In theaters, July 2004)

MEAN GIRLS (2004, Teen/Comedy): Months later, this film still retains a tremendous amount of wit and charm –enough it leave it squarely in the running as one of the most enjoyable releases of the year. Written by an adult for brainy teenagers, MEAN GIRLS could have coasted a long time on the innate charm of Lindsey Lohan and her assorted co-stars, but there's a lot of depth to the screenplay, and the direction is suitably efficient. More than worth a look, and the extra material on the DVD will do much to satisfy all fans of the film. (Second viewing, On DVD, December 2004)

MILLION DOLLAR BABY (2004, Sports/Drama): Oscar season is once again with us, and that means a slew of painful movies about impossible odds, plucky heroes, heavy drama, famous old actors playing what may be the last great performances of their careers, and that type of stuff. It's as if every year included its quota of such film made for the above-fifty contingent that makes up most of the Academy, and so MILLION DOLLAR BABY fits in this year's slot. Oh, it's not as bad as you'd expect. The boxing scenes (for it is a film about a woman boxer breaking into the scene though sheer self-determination... oh, you've heard this one before) are good, and I suspect that this film will teach more about the technical side of boxing than any other work of fiction. Efficiently directed by Clint Eastwood, this film plays it simply, slips up only occasionally (mostly in its depiction of a hillbilly family) and moves without any fuss. I suppose that it should be commended for an unpredictable third act, but the truth is that the said third act feels very long and pointless after that came before: The sports film veers abruptly into straight-up Oscar-bait drama and never recovers. The last ten minutes feel like a stretch of the inevitable. Bah. You know that the usual crowd will go nuts for the film; people like me barely have the luxury of complaining. (In theaters, January 2005)

MONICA LA MITRAILLE ([MACHINE-GUN MOLLY], Canada, 2004, Crime/Biography): While it's not true to speak of Monique "Machine Gun Molly" Sparvieri as a folk heroine, she does have a place in the small pantheon of French-Canadian criminals. Coming from the slums on post-war Montreal, her life in crime proved more acceptable than most other options, and if the film does one thing relatively well, it's to depict the hard life she led. It helps that Céline Bonnier does such a good job portraying the title character, with all of her flaws and complicated relationships. (As usual with French-Canadian cinema, almost all supporting roles are filled with familiar faces) Unfortunately, the film isn't as rigorous when comes the time to present a coherent story on top of its anecdotal scenes: The passage of time feels muddled, some events make sense only in retrospect and -to make things worse- a number of frustrating shortcuts are taken (such as having everyone meet repeatedly over the same stretch of The Main). The final impression is fragmented, leaving the impression of having seen a two-hour promo for Georges-Hébert Germain's biography. While one gets that Machine-Gun Molly was a formidable woman, the film doesn't care to spell out which kind of formidable. (In French, In theaters, May 2004)

THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES ([aka DIARIOS DE MOTOCICLETA], 2004, Bio/Drama): Funny, dramatic, historically important and occasionally moving, this "Young Che Guevarra" adventure is the sort of thing that would be worth watching even if the protagonist wasn't a man who would become a generational icon. You don't have to be a pamphlet-carrying Marxist to enjoy this series of events as Guevarra and his best friend Alberto Granado try to cycle their way through South America. Chances are that you'll laugh as they behave like ordinary horny young men, looking for silly adventures with pretty girls and ending up forging their philosophy for the rest of their lives. The script is a bit forceful, especially with you compare it with Guevarra's own written diary of the events. Events are shaped and dramatized to be a lot more meaningful that they appeared to Guevarra at the time but, hey, this is a movie. On the flip side, this infusion of meaning also gives a far more accessible structure to Guevarra's trip. I was sorry to see some his adventures stay on the page, but generally pleased by the way some things were best explained in a visual fashion. (And then I saw the credits, which state that it's based on Alberto Granado's book about the same trip; some material may be from this other source) As a gateway into life as it was known in South America (and still probably is, for all I know), it's exceptional. (In theaters, January 2005)

NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (2004, Comedy): To say that this is a cult movie is to abuse understatement. Much as saying that this will appeal to a select number of viewers. Even I, as a self-professed uber-nerd, as a guy for can love even the stupidest films, had a hard time making it to the end of this one. The eponymous character is a nerd without skills, living in what seems to be a town similarly devoid of normality. Everyone in this film, with very few exceptions, behave in orthogonal ways to what people usually do: while that would have been amusing in a five minutes short film, here it drags on for 82 long and painful minutes, like nails being scratched on a blackboard. Believe me; the joke gets old quickly, backed-up with the most intentionally lifeless acting ever committed to film since ED WOOD. There is no interface between Napoleon's weirdness and the normal world: naturalism (or, heck, realism) never really intrudes in this film. (Even the aggressively dull direction offers no respite: The best we get are shots of girls being horrified.) It sort of pays off at the end with a glorious dance number and the unexpected escape of a character to a ghetto-gangster life, but there is no shame at stopping the film after only fifteen minutes if you suspect it won't get any better. I suspect that my reaction to the film is shaped by my own experience of geekness: All of the nerds in my life may be socially inept and prone to weird and obsessive behaviour, but all of them had some superb skill or two. Technically, socially inept people without skills are called “retards”, and that may or may not sum up my final reaction to NAPOLEON DYNAMITE. (On DVD, August 2005)

NATIONAL TREASURE (2004, Adventure): Everyone loves a good secret, a good chase and a good mystery, so it's no surprise if such a slick piece of escapist entertainment as NATIONAL TREASURE should tap into the same popular success as The Da Vinci Code. True, the Nicholas Cage / Jerry Bruckheimer combo has produced wonders in the past and this fourth collaboration is pure wall-to-wall fun. It had to happen sooner or later, mind you: a blockbuster tapping American history as a source of adventure and a thin pretext for chases and gunfights. That it works so well is less a testament to the appeal of early American history than to the professionalism of Jerry Bruckheimer's formula. NATIONAL TREASURE moves at a fast clip, doesn't waste time on needless material, uses arcane ideas at a prodigious rate (for a film) and disposes of them almost as quickly. Oh, many lines are lame, physics routinely ignored and the characters come straight out of central casting, but that simply reinforces the comfortable blockbuster feel of the whole thing. The only surprise is that the film wasn't released in the summer. Hey, you can bitch and moan about this being a poor man's INDIANA JONES (and you'd be right), but NATIONAL TREASURE is such an oddball Hollywood creation that it's hard not to feel some sympathy for an action picture that, at least, pays some lip service to the virtues of knowledge. ("I know something about history that you don't know... Hold on one second, let me just take in this moment. This is cool. Is this how you feel all the time?") Good enough for me, at least. (In theaters, November 2004)

NOCHNOY DOZOR (NIGHT WATCH, Russia, 2004, Fantasy/Horror): Hurrah for Russia! Just as Hollywood urban fantasy is crumbling under its own lack of interest, he comes a dark and grimy kerosene-fuelled tale of good versus evil. Oh, it's derivative all right, with enough common fantasy elements in one film to make anyone wonder how that particular internal mythology is going to hold together. It doesn't, not really: but NIGHT WATCH is so much fun that it doesn't really matter. Part of the appeal, despite such well-worn tropes as vampirism and Big Evil, is to be found in the contemporary Moscow setting: grimy, unpleasant and naturally different, it's almost naturally suited to urban fantasy. The other big strength of the film is in its pedal-to-the-metal style, with overactive cuts, loud rock music and idea-a-minute visual inventiveness. Even the excellent English subtitles of the American version get in the act, with font changes, interaction with on-screen material and other occasional flourishes. After a long revving-up period, NIGHT WATCH attains its own cruise speed, but watch out: It's setting itself up as the first volume in a trilogy rather than a complete volume. I'm still not sure that it all holds together, but I like it nonetheless. I want to see the rest of the story; I want to see more of Olga; I want to see more of that crazy everything-included mythology. Frankly, I just want to see the next two segments of the trilogy. Volume Two (DAY WATCH) is already screening in Russia; Volume Three (DAWN WATCH) is planned for next year: Bring'em over, Fox Searchlight, and I'll be there on opening day. (In theaters, March 2006)

OCEAN'S TWELVE (2004, Crime/Comedy): There are two Steven Soderbergh, and the wrong one directed this sequel. The first Sonenberg is the cheerfully commercial director, the one who did ERIN BROCKOVICH and OCEAN'S ELEVEN. His movie may not have much depths, but they're fun and slick. The second Soderbergh is the artiste. He makes Hollywood home movies like SOLARIS and FULL FRONTAL, which excite film geeks but leave audiences yawning in their seats. And so it goes with OCEAN'S TWELVE, a wannabe crime caper that looks and feels as if it was a collection of outtakes for a more coherent film. Shot with the usual artistic grain, featuring elliptical dialogue and experimental direction, OCEAN'S TWELVE is artsy because it thinks it can get away with it. (From the box-office receipts, it sure looks as if it's right.) But what it really does is screw with a story simple enough to bore schoolchildren. The hook of the "thief's underworld" is quite nice, as is the developing competition between Danny Ocean and François Tourlour. But the rest feels like a waste of time, from cryptic appearances by Robbie Coltrane to a dumb scene with Major Hollywood Stars pretending to be themselves. Imagine our deep and abiding interest as an audience. Catherine Zeta-Jones seems to be working with only a fraction of the charm she has, and that also goes for the rest of the players. Oh, there are enough satisfying scenes here and there to stave off outright dissatisfaction, but one impression remains: We, the audience, are paying for this superstar Hollywood vacation film. (In theaters, December 2004)

PAPARAZZI (2004, Thriller): Normally, it's easy to emphasize with movie heroes looking out for their families. But when confronted with such a hypocritical piece of work like PAPARAZZI, it's even harder to care. A revenge fantasy made for those dozens (dozens, I tell you!) actors rich enough to be hounded by celebrity photographers, PAPARAZZI makes its first mistake when it introduces a hero with serious attitude problems. Most of us could deal with paparazzis with a touch of tact; here, our protagonist starts pounding. Ahem. Then our antagonists are just as quickly sketched as lewd and amoral caricatures of pure evil, prone to hissy fits where they vow "I'll destroy you!". Uh-huh. (The script is so detached from reality that it features a woman jumping into bed right after witnessing her one-night-stand leaving the scene of a terrible accident he just caused. Whaaat?) The rest of the picture is a revenge fantasy where our sympathies naturally migrate toward the photographers rather than the rich-and-famous-actor. The awful coincidences, dumb contrivances and limp plotting do nothing to make us care and more. By the time the protagonist's self-styled therapy session has given him the tools required to face his celebrity ("I've killed a bunch of your colleagues; how's it going, champ? Take another picture of me, willya?"), normal audiences are left to face the fact that this is what passes for entertainment these days. (In theaters, September 2004)

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (2004, Historical/Horror): There is something tremendously ironic about the mega-success of this film: The first successful melding of religious fervour and Fangoria-grade gore.; the fact that fundamentalist Christians flocked to an R-rated film after decades of decrying too-violent movies; the way some critics forgot all of their usual cinematographic standards in favour of ideological confessions one way or another. It's almost too easy to forget that there's an actual film in the middles of the flying fur, and that it's a flawed film at that. Oh, technically there's few one can say about it: It's competently directed, contains a few really nice shots, features very impressive makeup, convincingly recreates a period and is even daring in its stylistic choices. But the pacing of the film is a bit off, the story depends too much on what viewers already know (or can remember) from Sunday School and the gratuitous inclusion of a Satan-of-sorts often makes no sense. This is definitely a throwback to hellfire-and-brimstone old-school Catholicism where Jesus ain't your buddy given how he suffered for your sins. Considering the film as a B-grade horror film is enlightening, given how the film often (more specifically during it first half-hour) goes for cheap scares in the best tradition of the genre. Alas, the gore isn't terribly gross (well, there's a lot of blood, but then again my standard in this area have been forever altered by DEAD ALIVE) and Monica Bellucci doesn't even show anything under the neck (is that a first?); that's a waste of a perfectly good R rating right there. All in all, an interesting film but hardly an essential one; see it because everyone else has. (In theaters, April 2004)

LA PEAU BLANCHE ([WHITE SKIN], Canada, 2004, Thriller): I'm not a very objective critic when it comes to this film adaptation: I've owned the original book ever since it came out, the writer is a good friend of mine, I worked on the movie's preview web site (some of my copy even made it on the final web site) and I was even present at the cast and crew premiere. So adjust accordingly when I say that it's a pretty good film. Fans of quiet horror/suspense films like THE OTHERS and THE SIXTH SENSE are best-prepared to appreciate the way this teen romance gradually evolves into something far more sinister. The acting is excellent (with mad props to leads Marc Paquet, Frédéric Pierre and Marianne Farley), in no small part due to the very natural dialogue and crisp direction. There's also plenty of good things to say about the film's cinematography and polish, especially given how the crew had to work with a pitiful budget (under a million Canadian dollars) and tight shooting conditions. Hooray for digital cinema! First-time feature director Daniel Roby has a bright future in front of him: I just hope that the right people see this film and I can't wait to see his next effort. Some viewers may not like the way the film keeps switching genres, or how the third act is a full-bore descent in darkness. Tough for them; as for me, I'm just pleased to have been associated, even so tangentially, with such a slick film. (In French) (In theaters, March 2004)

THE PERFECT SCORE (2004, Teen/Crime): "It'll be like THE BREAKFAST CLUB" says one of the characters at one point, which is highly appropriate given that THE PERFECT SCORE often feels like a cross between a typical teen ensemble comedy and a heist film in the OCEAN'S ELEVEN vein. Here, the object of desire is not money or diamonds, but self-esteem and future success in the form of SAT test results. Six different students with their own reasons join up and try to infiltrate the offices where the answers are located. It's an excuse for a teen comedy, sure, and the "suspense" isn't as much in whether they'll get the answers, but in if it's going to do them any good. (It's carefully neutered for the parental approval of all; this is no edgy morality tale, oh no) At least the film shines when it comes to the characters; while the characterization may not be all that deep, it's adequate, and there's good fun in seeing Scarlett Johanssen run around as a goth girl with a pink wig after her turn in the oh-so-serious LOST IN TRANSLATION. While Erica Christiansen is as hot as usual with her flawless complexion (but how much CGI was needed for such perfect skin?), it's Leonardo Nam who steals the show as the stoner narrator "Roy". There are plenty of technical mistakes (disappearing cameras, lousy computer security, lack of police common-sense) but it's all in good fun, with a few oddball gags (such as a shot-perfect parody of THE MATRIX) thrown in for good measure. The usual teen movie stuff, worth a look for brain-free entertainment. (In theaters, February 2004)

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (2004, Musical/Drama): Sweeping musical drama that leaves a leaden impression despite lavish sights, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA both impresses and disappoints. Some of the staging is fabulous: the cinematography, set design and costumes are all Oscar-worthy and director Joel Schumaker has enough experience with big-budget cinematography to do justice to the romantic sweep of the piece. Add to that the enormously likable Emily Rossum as the romantic heroine and it's hard to see where it can go wrong. But it does; after the first few songs and the showpiece tunes everyone has heard at least once ("Music of the Night", "Masquerade" and, obviously "Phantom of the Opera"), the rest of the film blurs into an undistinguished series of maudlin ballads. From my limited musical perspective and my tin ear, some of the dubbing work is off: Emily Rossum is convincing; Gerald Butler is not. The film remains spectacular throughout, but it also gets boring really quickly. Far too long and inconsistently slavish to Andrew Lloyd Weber's stage musical, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA cries out for some snipping. (In theaters, February 2005)

THE POLAR EXPRESS (2004, Fantasy): I initially avoided this film due to the incessant "this is the film that makes Christmas feels good" marketing blitz. But it's hard for a Special Effects geek to ignore an all-CGI film like this one, especially if it represents yet another curious foray in the world of motion capture. Tom Hanks plays three characters? Heck, why not? But once you get past the entire "The spirit of Christmas is in you" crap, there's a lot to admire about this film. For one thing, there's a ton of action; I can see why people raved about it being on IMAX-3D. Some scenes approach pure roller-coaster goodness, including a terrific sequence set atop a frozen lake. Then there's the very good quality of the animation which, creepy human characters aside, works relatively well. Director Robert Zemekis has always been a fan of the virtual camera (see FORREST GUMP, or WHAT LIES BENEATH) and the purely virtual nature of THE POLAR EXPRESS allows him unprecedented flights of fancy: I'll simply single out the "ticket ride" uninterrupted shot as a virtuoso sequence that would be impossible in live action. The rest of the film I don't care too much about (the less said about the last interminable fifteen minutes the best, I suppose), but there's simply too much intriguing material in THE POLAR EXPRESS to miss it. (In theaters, February 2005)

PRIMER (2004, Science Fiction): Heh! I've always said that you can make a real science-fiction film with just two guys in a kitchen, but I never expected any film to embody this wisecrack as literally as PRIMER. Shot on a ridiculous USD$7000 budget, PRIMER certainly sounds like a low-budget effort (pray that the DVD has subtitles!) and looks like a half-decent Digital Video film. But beyond the grainy look and the inaudible soundtrack lies an authentic work of science-fiction, told in a wonderfully elliptical fashion with enough fascinating ideas to keep your mind running for a while. The cheap look and feel of the film actually helps it in some ways: it looks so unpretentious and, well, cheap that suspension of disbelief is achieved without any trouble. It helps that writer/director/producer/etc Shane Carruth's script goes where higher budget fear to tread: there is a quasi-documentary rawness to the dialogue that makes it compelling even as you desperately want the production qualities to improve. Just make sure to tough it out until after the thirty-minutes mark: It gets much much better as it goes along. I'm still not convinced that the plot makes complete sense (the sudden appearance of a third, um, traveller is still a head-scratcher, and so it the lack of a follow-up on both that and the sudden bleedings) but it makes enough sense to enchant. During a year where big-budget SF crashed and burned so miserably, it's something of a wonder that what looks like two guys in a garage came up with a story about two guys in a garage that come up with... oh, but why spoil it? Just see it. With subtitles. I hate to harp on this, but you'll agree with me after seeing the film. (In theaters, January 2005)

THE PUNISHER (2004, Action): If they ever made a movie about the audience watching this film, they'd call it THE PUNISHED. While the vengeful premise initially feels like a throwback to 80s action movies, THE PUNISHER has none of the overblown charm of its Reagan-era predecessor. Detailing the film's inanities would take too much time, but not as much as explaining why the film feels so dull and lifeless. The biggest problem with THE PUNISHER isn't how divorced it is from reality, but how it doesn't bother to offer a more compelling fantasy universe. Even by the uneven standards of movies adapted from Marvel superhero comics, this one makes no sense, from deserted streets in the middle of Tampa to an impromptu press conference announcing both resurrection and vengeance plans. Supposedly top-notch assassins stroll in and sing their appearance (in a restaurant solely populated with the hero's three allies) while high explosives are obtained by the truckload by a supposedly dead man (and hauled in an apartment with a cheap lock). Thomas Jane growls in the right places and Laura Harring is scrumptious, but John Travolta's can't do better than a charmless supporting performance with the awful material he's burdened with. The pacing is completely off; don't be surprised if you end up demanding a lot more punishment. Worse, however, is the film's tone: not only doesn't it succeed in imposing an overly dramatic atmosphere to the protagonist's action (complete with a lot of alcohol; dumb), it feels compelled to introduce wacky neighbours as comic relief. It's hard to overstate how ineffective those attempts end up: In fact, it's more appropriate to talk about "exasperation" than "comic relief". There are two or three effective moments, but don't worry: You've seen them in other, better movies already. (In theaters, April 2004)

RAY (2004, Bio/Drama): In a few years, they'll put the poster of this film on the "vanity project" Wikipedia entry. That it happens to be a good film doesn't take anything away from the fact that Jamie Foxx does wonder with a role written for the Academy's consideration. Oh yes, Ray Charles is a genius, and Foxx is perfect playing him. Director Taylor Hackford makes a few unusual choices early on (eschewing the bulk of the usual "childhood" material at the onset, but -alas- putting it everywhere in the film), but the film really gets cracking during the moments where Charles' music and life are seamlessly edited together. Very good, very interesting, very revealing. Unfortunately -and this isn't a criticism of the "real" Ray Charles as much as it's a comment on the way all celebrities' biography seem to run- the good old guy-overcomes-handicap, guy-becomes-famous, guy-gets-addicted, guy-redeems-himself plot gets tiresome regardless of whether is presented with snappy editing or whether it's a hour-long TV biography. Maybe the film couldn't avoid that, but it probably could have meshed the themes better (there's a point where the script seems to consciously put, say, an infidelity scene here, a drug scene there, a pop-music scene here... repeat as required) and it certainly could have avoided the pat "come to grip with your childhood trauma and everything will be fine" ending. Meh. If nothing else, downloads of Charles MP3 will spike after this film. (In theaters, January 2005)

RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE (2004, Science-Fiction/Action): It's not that this film is entirely unpleasant: It's just that whatever is interesting about this film comes in thirty-seconds snippets, sandwiched between vast stretches of silliness and boredom. Yes, there's plenty of added value-for-money for us Canadian in seeing a very explicit Toronto double as a "Raccoon City" overwhelmed by flesh-eating zombies. It's interesting to see another take on the urban desolation theme. Roughly three of the last five minutes are top-notch. Milla Jovonovich isn't completely wasted as super-powered heroine "Alice". Here and there, dumb shoot-em-ups still manage to bring back memories of the rock-and-roll first film. But by and large, RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE struggles from one set-piece to another, barely managing to distinguish itself in the increasingly crowded zombie sub-genre. The dark-on-black cinematography annoys, the cheap production values hurt and so does the painfully inept script: The characters are so unimaginably stupid that it's hard to actually cheer for any of them. Worst of all, though, is the dawning insight that Paul Anderson's much-derided direction is what propelled the original RESIDENT EVIL from stupid video-game movie to enjoyable stupid video-game movie. Here, well, it's not all good. Not all good at all. (In theaters, September 2004)

SAW (2004, Crime/Horror): It's no accident if, at least three times during its duration, SAW starts throwing loud music, fast cuts and insane visuals at the viewer. It's very impressive, but it just masquerades a fundamentally unlikely premise. You could certainly see it as yet another entry in the ever-more-extreme "Clever Serial Killer" mystery genre popularized by THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Here too, innocent characters find themselves at the mercy of a mastermind criminal who plans everything ahead of them. Chances of survival? Slim. Believability of the whole premise? Slight. But it's all in the execution, and so SAW is built like a puzzle, with interlocking parts often glossed over when the film doesn't want you to pay attention to plot holes. Amazingly enough, it works: The film is grim enough, different enough and fast enough that the conclusion has the time to take your breath away before you can go "Yeah, but...!" There is some dynamic film-making at work here, especially when the style overwhelms the substance. Telling you more about the story would be a disservice, but warning you that this is a seriously twisted film is probably fair enough. Here, it's obvious that the screenwriter is the one who is manipulating both audience and characters like puppets. It all amounts to a decently-entertaining pitch-dark crime drama. It works like a nightmare and makes just about as much sense. Enjoy, if you can. (In theaters, November 2004)

A SHARK'S TALE (2004, Kids/Comedy): The diversification of CGI films outside the Pixar tent continues to stretch the envelope. Even if the parallels between A SHARK'S TALE and FINDING NEMO are a bit fishy, there's no denying that the end result is still good enough. It's certainly not a classic (the pop-culture jokes will carbon-date it instantly to 2003-2004) and its emotional depth is nil, but it's an innocuous comedy that's simple enough for kids and pop-referential enough for young adults. You have to love Will Smith in order to like the movie, though; even as a fast-talking voice, he takes over the whole film and makes it fit in his usual shtick. Don't expect much more than an extended sitcom episode in terms of plotting, but keep your eyes open for tons of visual references. I particularly loved the split-second "Before you die, you see... THE HOOK" movie ad gag. A soundtrack drenched in hip-hop further drives the point home that this is clearly aimed at the younger audiences. But not all is lost for older viewers; there's a fair amount of visual experimentation going on, though special flashbacks and wild camera moves, extending the cinematographic language of animated films further into the possibilities offered by the medium. As for the rest, well, it's (usually) fast, it's effective and it's funny. No need to go any further than that. (In theaters, October 2004)

SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004, Comedy/Horror): It's a zombie movie! It's a slacker comedy! It's a romance! And surprisingly enough, it's actually quite good! These are two-days-in-the-life of Shaun, British lad with relationship problems and no clear goal in life. But that's all about to pale in significance as the zombie problems goes from background chatter to full-blown problem. Plans are hatched. Sight-gags abound. Wishes are fulfilled. Stuff happens. Through it all, SHAUN OF THE DEAD manages a tight act holding together elements of three different kinds of movie into a cohesive whole that never betrays its characters. Sure, you can point at moments here and there where the characters are unbelievably stupid, or where "it can't happen like that!" Still, the film feels unusually clever at combining background jokes, zombie-movie lore and everyday British life. Nice, funny and constantly interesting. Most recommended, especially if you found fault with the dreary 28 DAYS LATER. (In theaters, October 2004)

SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004, Comedy/Horror): Not quite as surprising upon a second viewing, this horror/comedy/romance hybrid nevertheless survives well to an encore performance. The performances feel natural, the writing is crisp and the direction moves its pieces with admirable efficiency. As a respectful take-off on the notion of zombie films, it's not bad at all. The DVD contains tons of extras, all of whom are worth watching, sometimes surprisingly so. (Second viewing) (On DVD, March 2005)

SHREK 2 (2004, Comedy): The Green Ogre's adventures continue in this smile-a-minute adventure that starts where the first film left off. Technically, the film is more spectacular than the first one (just compare the "fields" sequences), but don't worry; the quality of the script is just as solid. The outright laughs may be concentrated in small portions (the opening musical montage, the "KNIGHTS" segment, anything with Puss in Boots), but the giggles are steady through the entire film. Some unexpected gags (Love Potion Number 9, etc) and twists are also in the fine tradition of the first film. Otherwise, well, there's not much to say: The whole family will enjoy the ride. (In theaters, May 2004)

SIDEWAYS (2004, Comedy): The premise doesn't promise much: A depressive wine connoisseur with delusions of literary competency goes on a wine-tasting road trip with a womanizing friend on the eve of his wedding. Wackiness ensue. But to dismiss the plot of the film is to ignore the way SIDEWAYS progressively becomes more and more sympathetic, despite its flawed characters and maybe even thanks to them. Not only is Paul Giamatti pitch-perfect as the miserable protagonist, but the rest of the cast also does fantastic work. Best of all is the screenplay, which not only teaches more about wine than you'd ever expected to know, but also finds just the right spots between comedy and tragedy. (It just may be writer/director Alexander Payne's best effort yet). The Californian wine-country cinematography is gorgeous and the direction is unobtrusive. I didn't expect to enjoy this as much as I did, but then again it features an exchange I can identify with: "So you've written a novel?" "You you like to read it? I've got a copy of it in the trunk of my car." Ah, so true. (In theaters, February 2005)

SILVER CITY (2004, Drama/Thriller): Long, slow and dull political thriller that is nevertheless smarter than most of what you'll see in theatres this year. John Sayles is, of course, an independent film-maker's legend, and the quality of SILVER CITY's execution clearly shows why: Not only has he crafted a good script and filmed it in a clean, sparse style, but he has also managed to attract an impressive number of known (and semi-known) actors on the sole basis of the project. Sayles intention with this film is (among other things) to expose the modern pseudo-conservative ideology in which politics is but another mean for businessmen to further their ambitions. It's certainly no accident if Chris Cooper, playing a puppet candidate, acts and sounds exactly like a certain current American president... But perhaps the most impressive thing about SILVER CITY is how it manages to cover so many themes in scarcely more than two hours. It exudes an CHINATOWN aura of hopeless corruption, a contemporary society built on lies and exploitation. Sure, the pacing could have been improved, and a meditative thriller is no excuse to put viewers to sleep. Still, there's more good stuff than bad here, and it's just too bad that the film is such a hard sell to mainstream audiences. (On DVD, August 2005)

SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW (2004, Science-Fiction): Every two or three years, sci-fi geeks get a little present from Hollywood. DARK CITY, EQUILIBRIUM and now, SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW. They have to be quick, though: The films usually crash and burn with nary a trace, proof that what turns on geeks like myself is just not what amuses mundanes. Oh, it's not like SKY CAPTAIN is a perfect film, even for pre-sold audiences: Shot in a virtual environment, it has all the stiffness of old studio films. Interaction between characters and stage are reduced to a strict minimum, and there's an aura of artificiality clogging the naturalism of the direction. The self-consciously pulpish story may not be to everyone's taste, but even the best intentions can't compensate for lengthy stretches of banal dialogue. This being said, nothing will stop me from loving this film unconditionally; it's simply a beautiful piece of nostalgic golden-era SF, filled with big images and classic themes, wonderful machines and crazy ideas. I'm not usually a big fan of Gwyneth Paltrow, but it just takes long flowing locks of blonde hair and a sassy attitude to show me the error of my ways. Yes, this is a box-office flop and an incomprehensible curiosity to mass audience. But I'll be buying the DVD as soon as it comes out; thank you Hollywood, and I'll wait until the next happy accident. (In theaters, September 2004)

SLEEPOVER (2004, Teen/Comedy): Granted, I'm not the target audience for this film. It's still not much of an excuse when the result is so uneven. Comedies aimed at 10-to-12-year olds can be simplistic if they wish, but that's not an excuse for them to be stupid. Here, the writing oscillates between decency and eye-rolling awfulness. There's a faintly creepy atmosphere in how it blatantly aims, through innuendo, sexual situations at pre-teen girls... but what do I know about that age group, right? I was, truthfully, a bit more disturbed by the way the characters lived in upper-middle-class paradise (complete with private security forces) as if it was normalcy. There's no attempt at teaching any kind of deeper message here beyond "cool is good and happiness can be found only through a boyfriend". Gaaah; it's the revenge of superficial status-seeking for a new generation. If you're going to feed stupid teen comedies to you kids, at least make sure they have the right message. At least, acting-wise, there are a few rewards: Alex Vega shows that there is a career for her after the SPY KIDS trilogy and she's ably helped by Mika Boorem in a strong supporting role. Laugh-wise, most of the good stuff is focused on Sam Huntington's quasi-stoner big brother, with some additional laugh going to the skateboarder trio. A early-teen comedy barely worth remembering if it wasn't for its surprisingly creepy undertones. (In theaters, July 2004)

SOUL PLANE (2004, Comedy): Some films are good and funny. This one isn't so good, but it's twice as funny. An urban (read; "black") take-off on the whole airplane disaster genre, SOUL PLANE is gloriously silly and doesn't even try to hide it. There's a joke every ten seconds and plenty of them miss the target (ie;whole subplots go nowhere in an dull fashion). But those who manage to hit the target actually hit pretty well: it's hard not to be swept into the whole "airline with soul" premise. While some would like to make you believe that SOUL PLANE wallows in ethnic clichés, it's more appropriate to say that it takes us in a very specific fantasy world packed with good music, infectious fun and bootylicious bodies. Babe-wise, few other movies of 2004 can match the sheer sex-appeal of SOUL PLANE's K.D. Aubert, Angell Conwell and (woof!) Sofía Vergara. (Sadly, there is zero nudity despite the film's R-rating. Talk about a waste: even AIRPLANE had some, gosh-darnit.) This being said, it's zaftig comedienne Mo'Nique Imes-Jackson who grabs the film's best moments as an overzealous security guard. Sure, some moments go over the top and should have been trimmed out: Taste-wise, it's an equal-opportunity offender. But why care when it's so darn silly? "At ease, ladies" says Captain Snoop Dog upon boarding, and this kind of sexy insouciance is exactly the right frame of mind for SOUL PLANE. Step on the plane, and don't forget to visit the upstairs club. (In theaters, May 2004)

SOUL PLANE (2004, Comedy): Some films really shouldn't be watched more than once, and that goes double for lame comedies. Once the initial surprise of comedies has been blown, viewers have the right to be a little bit harsher on the actual quality of the film, and SOUL PLANE truly doesn't do well at a second glance. For one thing, a second viewing clearly highlights the jarring dead moments when the main romance kicks in at the film loses all sense of humour. A similar "filial love" plot thread also falls flat in the context of a silly comedy that live or die on the strength of its pacing. Fortunately, the rest of the film's silliness is preserved, though the repetitive nature of the film's jokes starts grating midway through. I still like the booty, the silliness, the cheap gags and the performances of quite a number of the actresses. But it's not nearly as The DVD doesn't bring much more to the experience, and even hurts as the commentary track has an extra value of exactly nil. Warning! The DVD film is different from the version shown in theatres: Though I can't remember the exact details, I clearly remember at least one theatrical scene between Tom Arnold and Mo'Nique that's not on the DVD (has the old silly phobia of interracial romance reared its ugly bigoted head once more?), and the "unrated" version adds a few T&A shots –none of which do much to justify the unrating. (In fact, DVD reviews report that the R version and the unrated version have different outtakes. What the heck?) (Second viewing, On DVD, December 2004)

SPANGLISH (2004, Comedy): It's no accident if SPANGLISH shares its first few letters with SPANK ME: It would take some serious masochism to sit through this sad excuse for a movie a second time. Within five minutes, I already knew I hated this film. Exploitation of illegal immigrants, rich white guilt, indulgence toward fat kids (let's not hurt her feeelings)? Funny stuff, that. But even past my general loathing for the film's unthinking acceptance of class exploitation, SPANGLISH fails on its own terms: the story goes everywhere and nowhere without any strong conductive tread, and ends with the laziest "...and she quit" plot cheat. What's between awful beginning and bad ending is the stuff lame movies are made of. Inconsistent characters, grossly simplistic situations and dumb motivations: It's hard to watch Tea Leoni struggle with her cardboard character and remember that this is from the same writer capable of writing BROADCAST NEWS. Adam Sandler also struggles with the saccharine puppet he's asked to play, occasionally blowing off steam in two or three lines stolen from his usual angry personae. SPANGLISH never coheres, never does anything with the elements it has, never even tries to deliver something satisfying to its audience. Stay away from it. (In theaters, February 2005)

SPARTAN (2004, Drama): David Mamet writes and directs this film, so you can expect an off-kilter result. Indeed, his take on political thrillers and special-operative character study features a few precious moments of pure genius. Twists are thrown, dialogue is barked, Val Kilmer is surprisingly good, schemes unfold, American politics are criticized and stoic characters fight for the right thing. Unfortunately, these good moments are intermittent and only get rarer as the film advances. The budget also seems to diminish as the film unreels, and we end up with a Dubai that looks a lot like the Boston we just left. Unfortunate, but not as much as the cold and methodical style of the film, which gets less and less efficient as the plot heats up. The ending features one unforgivable flying coincidence. Not bad, but a bit frustrating... a lot like his previous HEIST and THE SPANISH PRISONNER: Good bits and pieces in search of a coherent whole. (In theaters, May 2004)

SPIDER-MAN 2 (2004, Action/Comics): Maybe I'm getting too old for this stuff; I wasn't a particularly enthusiastic fan of the original SPIDER-MAN (too dull, too ordinary) and if the second one is distinctly better, I'm still not all that convinced. Oh, certainly, I just love parts of this sequel: t