From the files of

CHRISTIAN SAUVÉ

Don't say we didn't warn you

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

MOVIE REVIEWS

2006

2006-2007, Christian Sauvé

The Internet Movie Database says: (As of January 2007)

And I say (In alphabetical order):

16 BLOCKS (2006, Crime/Thriller): There is something old-fashioned in this straight-up thriller by veteran director Richard Donner. The trailer may try to sell you an action film, but there's little in the actual film to reflect that: Much closer to traditional crime thrillers, 16 BLOCKS even indulges in a considerable amount of character development between its leads, a burnt-out useless cop (Bruce Willis), and an annoying criminal (Mos Def). There are few highlights in the film, but on the other hand it's solid throughout its entire duration (with a number of third-act slip-ups) and doesn't waste the elements in hand. Willis is especially solid as a terminal case seeing a last chance at redemption; it's great good fun to see him go one-on-one with David Morse. There isn't anything particularly memorable about this film, but it doesn't matter as much as you'd think: at a time where even solid thrillers are rare, this isn't bad at all. (In theaters, March 2006)

A SCANNER DARKLY (2006, Science-Fiction/Drama): Richard Linklater mystified many observers with WAKING LIFE, but all of the prep work finally pays off in A SCANNER DARKLY, which uses the curiously off-putting rotoscoped animation technique to good effect in representing the inner life of heavy drug users. Things are never what they seem as even the shapes keep shifting on viewers. Yet the heaviest irony of this science-fiction film is how the SF elements are the film's least convincing aspect. For all of Dick's clever positioning of his themes in a triangle between paranoia, surveillance and drugs, it's the home life of his blasted-out protagonists that is the most interesting. When the glossy SF elements are introduced, they feel like a distraction from the story's real content. Alas, the end result is a film that dawdles a long time before getting down to business abruptly and decisively. When it ends, we're left contemplating a fascinating premise, an intriguing atmosphere, a merciless twist but a wafer-thin plot. While I remain unconvinced by the overall appeal of the film, it's hard to deny that it's crammed with a number of great moments. (In theaters, July 2006)

ALEX RIDER: OPERATION STORMBREAKER (2006, Teen/Thriller): Spy movies for the younger set have enjoyed a small wave of popularity with the SPY KIDS and CODY BANKS series, but redoing Bond for the younger high school kids requires a bit more than simply a Bond story with a younger protagonist: Alas, the first filmed instalment of the ALEX RIDER series doesn't even try too hard to get to that level. If adults are likely to be amused by the film's almost camp approach, it still takes itself too seriously to be appreciated as a self-aware piece of absurdity. Instead, we're left groaning as the increasingly ludicrous set pieces betray a lack of spatial logic and of elementary spycraft. While the supporting players are very good (with a cast like Stephen Fry, Robbie Coltrane, Bill Nighy, Mickey Rourke, Andy Serkis and the luscious Sophie Okonedo, it's hard to sink a film –though this one comes close), the problem is with Alex Rider himself, who is envisioned and played as an adult's idea of teen cool, with disastrous results: Rider comes across as a sullen, smarmy and incompetent protagonist, one that owes more to JOHNNY ENGLISH than James Bond. The disconnect between what the film is and what it wants to be is only too obvious when it's contrasted against some wonderfully loopy moments in the film itself, whether it's Fry's deadpan gags or Nighy's caricature of a stiff high-echelon bureaucrat. But few problems rankle as much as the terminally asinine staging, from the most contrived helicopter take-off in history to the way the characters don't even act like what they're supposed to be. In the end, I suspect that the younger teenage target audience will look at the movie and think "Do they really think we're stupid enough to like this?" (In theaters, October 2006)

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH (2006, Documentary): There is a moment during this film (I suspect it will be a different moment for everyone) where you just stop and tell yourself “Hmm... I just paid ten dollars to see a slide presentation on a scientific subject... and it's great!” As a sucker for science, environmentalism, presentations and American politics, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH has a number of effective hooks on me: but the fact remains that this is a concert film where a slide presentation of global warming takes the place of a rock show. Al Gore makes an affable, enormously likable presenter: Ironically, the film falters when it stays with him and his family history, picking up as soon as the presentation starts again. It's a slick piece of work, both from a technical and an rhetorical sense: The visual information is meticulously well-calibrated, dosed with humour and delivered with honed passion. As someone who's already convinced of the importance of Global Warming, the film was already playing to a converted audience: still, I could only appreciate the build-up of the film, the oratory prowesses and the archival snippets (did you notice the footage from FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW?). While the film often plays hard and fast with causality (I wanted to ask questions at times, or point out areas that could use a bit more explanation), one of AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH's best characteristics is how it make a complex scientific subject a lot of fun. Yay, science! The other big asset of the film -and one that may go unnoticed from the doom-and-gloom trailers- is how the film ends on a real note of hope, something fit to make anyone stand up and do something. A unique film --and one well worth seeing. (In theaters, June 2006)

APOCALYPTO (2006, Thriller): That wily Mel Gibson! Who would have thought that his vast Mayan epic would be an excuse for a Rambo-like 40minutes chase sequence? (Probably the same one who saw THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and said "Hey, that's a shlock horror film!") Despite the subtitles and lush visuals, despite the historical recreations and the fundamentally different nature of its protagonists, APOCALYPTO is both a travelogue and an action film, first taking us from jungle to decadent civilization and then following its protagonist through an extended chase where he picks off his opponents one by one. Tons of very painful gore belie Rousseau's "noble savage" ideal, but finely uphold the violent nature of Gibson's oeuvre so far. I do have a number of problems with the exactitude of the historical recreation, but not its verisimilitude. Though the film relies on two honking Once-in-a-Century Big Events as plot drivers, these contrivances pale in comparison to the pulse-pounding effect of the film's third act. APOCALYPTO ends up being being a surprisingly accessible, vastly entertaining film. For those who can take the bloody nature of it. (In theaters, December 2006)

BABEL (2006, Drama): One gunshot, four stories. But while the presence of a rifle, deadly danger, abusive policemen and an investigation that spans the globe may suggest an international thriller, BABEL is closer to a set of four very intimate dramas. But then again, BABEL isn't about the stories as much as it's about the way people fail to communicate, or simply the way they all live in today's world. The solid ensemble cast is one of the finest international group of actors assembled for a single film: While American mainstream audiences will flock to see Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt, their presence is scarcely more than a small portion of the entire film. The direction is skillful despite the impression that the stories aren't as linked, nor as interesting as the screenplay wants them to be. It's certainly a film for an older, less impatient audience, what with the time-jumping, relatively small scales and sometimes-unnerving subject matter. It speaks volumes, for instance, that any discussion of "horny Japanese schoolgirls" in the context of this film is a prelude to unimaginable heartache more than anything else: the conclusion is as significant for what didn't happen that what did. And that's the kind of film BABEL ends up being, despite depending on one single gunshot. (In theaters, November 2006)

BASIC INSTINCT 2 (2006, Thriller): Aside from Sharon Stone, the only people who were actively waiting for this film were the cosmetic surgeons who made sure that Stone still holds together at her age. If you don't mind bolted-on body parts that nonetheless hang on either side of her navel, you'll probably find something effective in BASIC INSTINCT 2; otherwise, well, it's hard to avoid a serious case of the giggles which watching this train-wreck. Nominally billed as an "erotic thriller" rather than the far more honest "silly mess", this sequel stars David Morrissey as one of the dumbest psychiatrist in England ("You're addicted to risk! The only thing that will stop you is your own death! So, hey... wanna make out?") and the most unintentionally hilarious script of the year. Partly set in London's Gherkin Tower, it brings back memories of MATCH POINT and suffers for the comparison. But perhaps the worst thing about the film is how defyingly boring it becomes in its latter half, as the film frantically tries to spin more and more plot twists that just don't make sense, while actively failing to engage its audience. What becomes sadly obvious by the end is that frankly, no one actually cares about Stone's character –and that this is a sequel most of us could very well have done without. (In theaters, April 2006)

BLACK DAHLIA, THE (2006, Crime/Drama): This film is likely to remind you of two things: First, that there will always be a place for noir in cinema. Second, that Brian de Palma is capable of the best and the worst. There are times where THE BLACK DAHLIA works really well: The sequences flow naturally, the historical recreation is credible, Aaron Eckhart square-jaws his way through his tough-guy dialogue, Scarlett Johansen appears on screen, and so on. De Palma can still move his camera like an artist, and some sequences show him at his best. But then there's the silly stuff, the over-the-top comedy that intrudes on the film, the side tangents that don't illuminate as much as they grind the film to a halt. Other than Eckhart, the actors all look as if they're pretending more than acting: Scarlett Johansen is cute but vapid, Hillary Swank can only do femme fatale for seconds at a time and Josh Hartnett sleep-walks his way through another role without showing more than the essential hound-dog emotions. The result feels scattered, but the two scenes of insane family comedy look as if they've been clipped from another film, and their impact on the rest of the picture is considerable. What could have been a great film (considering the pedigree of the talent) becomes at best a passable one, and at worst just something to forget. (In theaters, October 2006)

BLOOD DIAMOND (2006, Drama/Thriller): At a time where Hollywood blockbusters seem more concerned about marketing than social edification, it's a mixed blessing to see a film like BLOOD DIAMOND, which cleverly mixes all of the trappings of an action thriller with a heavy-handed social drama about the plight of Africa. It works far more often than it doesn't, but the didactic edge to the film often lends it a moral righteousness that works at odds with the film's entertaining nature. Compared to the similar CONSTANT GARDNER, BLOOD DIAMOND feels like a blunt instrument swung wildly, often making contact but with far less grace. Entire chunks of the film feel superfluous, but none more than the shoehorned romance between the two white leads: Though Leonardo DiCaprio turns in a fabulous hard-edged performance on the heels of his turn in THE DEPARTED, Jennifer Connelly is a bit lightweight as a journalist who's supposed to have seen everything –though she's stuck in an underwritten role. Whatever the case, their romance feels like a weak and mandatory plot element, which is disappointing given the richness of the film's other thematic concerns. Third-world exploitation, child soldiers, cyclic patterns of insurrection, private wars, first-world indifference, gun-dealing and other weighty issues are all tackled with some skill here, and the script even allows itself a generous helping of gunfights, chases and explosions. The result is a good film, but one that stops short of being great. Ironically, it's not because it's lacking something: it's because it has too much of the wrong stuff. A leaner, less Hollywoodish third act would have been a perfect cap on an excellent film: as it stands now, BLOOD DIAMOND is still one of the better films of the year, but struggles to be anything more. (In theaters, December 2006)

BON COP BAD COP (Canada, 2006, Crime/Comedy): As a good little bilingual Canadian, I've been waiting for this film a long, looong time: A fully-bilingual crime comedy buddy-movie featuring a Québecois and an Ontarian, solving a case about a serial murderer going after those who ruined our national sport of hockey. Scripted and shot with fully naturalistic dialogues, BON COP BAD COP was distributed in Canada in two flavours: One has French subtitles and another has English ones, but bilingual moviegoers will lap up the dialogue without looking at the bottom of the screen as the film fluently switches back and forth, playing on stereotypes and promoting national unity with plenty of action. The film does miracles with a minuscule budget, but it's the characters and the dialogue that makes the film more than the gunfights or exploding cars. There are tons of regional references throughout the film, from one-liners referencing October 1970 to inside jokes about recent hockey history. Don't miss Rick Mercer playing Don Cherry, a jab at George W. "Arbusto" or how a character with accents in both languages is linked to former prime minister Jean Chretien. It's hardly a perfect film, mind you: the plot mechanics don't make sense, the film is predictable from start to finish and the clichés fly fast and low. More annoyingly, the film definitely lacks an epilogue, loud music often drowns out the sound during the cheaply-shot action scenes and there is a lack of tone consistency as the film goes from lighthearted cop comedy to gory serial killer thriller. But the film's central conceit is fabulous enough that audiences (especially bilingual ones) are unlikely to care even if they notice: I saw the film in a sparsely-packed theatre, and the crowd was collectively out-laughing many fully-crowded audiences I've heard. BON COP BAD COP takes the crowd-pleasing techniques of Quebec films and applies them to a broader framework: the result is well worth watching. Uncharacteristically enough for a Canadian-branded film, this one's a crowd-wowing winner. (In theaters, August 2006)

BORAT (2006, Comedy): Niiice. Well, maybe not: Like all humiliation comedies, BORAT's laughs are tempered by the realization that the people acting foolishly may very well be us on a bad day or in an absurd situation. The concept itself is pure genius, allowing a mixture of high-concept comedy with improvised reactions... and a justification for a camera recording it all. But the execution usually aims for squirms and pained smiles. Interestingly enough, the film's biggest laughs sometime come from strictly conventional comedy routines (the bits with the chicken or the naked fighting, for instance) more than the grand explorations of the American psyche, which eventually become not much more than a gonzo documentary. There's a lot to admire here, but not that much to laugh about. (In theaters, February 2007)

CARS (2006, Kids/Comedy): From anyone else but Pixar, this film would be a mega-hit and a critic's darling. From Pixar, it's just another film in their collection, maybe not as good as some of the other ones. It's certainly problematic at times: overlong, too sentimental and afflicted with muddled nostalgia. While Pixar films usually stand up well to multiple viewing, I have the feeling that many will choose to fast-forward a number of segments. Plus, I defy anyone to watch the romantic subplot and not think “Car Sex? How does that work?” And yet focusing on the film's problems would be doing a disservice to the film's undeniable qualities. While the story is a threadbare feel-good classic of redemption and the characters are pretty much all out of central casting, there's a relentless degree of creativity in how the designers and animators were able to give human characteristics to cars. Some of the attempts look goofy, but others work surprisingly well. (I was particularly amused at the celebrity caricatures.) Otherwise, well, it's “just” a solid movie for kids and adults alike... though the adults may not want to see this more than twice. (In theaters, June 2006)

CASINO ROYALE (2006, Action/Thriller): At a time where we thought we could simply dismiss all new James Bond entries as scarcely more than action films, here's another reinvention of the franchise that goes back to the dark psychological roots of the character, and doesn't forget to include two or three of the best action scenes of the year, smoothly wrapped in the classic glamour and exoticism of the series. Daniel Craig is very good in the iconic role, presenting a performance that's closer to Connery (or Ian Fleming's own depiction) than any of the other Bonds since. The direction is nervy enough, the script is polished and the cinematography is luscious. The only notable problems are a long lull late in the film, a torture scene that sticks a bit too closely to the original book and a whiff of the familiar "love conquers secret agent before making him even meaner" series plot. But really, what else do you need to know? Bond's back, and his future looks bright.

CATCH A FIRE (2006, Thriller/Drama): One of the best things about suspense cinema these days is how it's finally going global: SYRIANA, CONSTANT GARDNER, LORD OF WAR... and now this film, which follows the true story of a South African family man as he becomes a radical and starts fighting against his own government to bring down Apartheid. The movie works wonders in putting viewers in someone else's shoes and making his situation understandable. By the time our once-shy protagonist straps on the AK-47 and decides to fight for what's right, there isn't much doubt in our minds that he's doing the right thing. Amusingly enough, this 1980-era movie now feels more relevant than ever as twenty-first century western society seeks to differentiate between freedom fighter and terrorist: the line may be thinner than anyone expects, and Tim Robbins' sympathetic portrait of an Apartheid enabler serves as a further reminder that what's wrong is often perceived as being necessary. While a fairly restrained and intimate drama, CATCH A FIRE is not without its share of good moments and powerful sacrifices: Our protagonist eventually comes to lose everything that's dear to him through a combination of being at the wrong place at the wrong moment, and being unable to accept submission. Well-done, well-told and well worth seeing. (In theaters, October 2006)

CHILDREN OF MEN (2006, Science-Fiction): For a Science-Fiction fan, this film is a bit of a mess: The science is implausible, the background details are badly integrated with the world, and the structure feels off, especially toward the end. But this is a great film despite its weak SF elements. From a directorial standpoint, CHILDREN OF MEN is a tour de force, combining savvy film-making with extraordinary visuals. At least three long continuous shots bring back some of that old “how did they do that?” magic while doing a tremendous job at drawing us into the story. Clive Owen is a solid protagonist, but everyone else holds their own in a finely crafted film. It's a shame, though, that the extrapolation is so weak: The sterility problems are too sudden, too all-encompassing (and don't hold your breath for an explanation, because it's not that kind of film) to be credible, and elements of the technology shown in the film seem inconsistent with each other, not to mention difficult to reconcile with the “we don't know why everyone's sterile” statement. Oh well; at least the film is far better than the book when it comes to its SF elements, for which we can only be thankful. (And it's hardly alone in being a “good SF movie” despite weak SF elements: Only in 2006, A SCANNER DARKLY and THE PRESTIGE also earn that distinction.) Cinematic dynamite: don't miss it. (In theaters, January 2007)

CLERKS II (2006, Comedy): That's it, Kevin Smith is out of the doghouse: After the disastrous JERSEY GIRL, this film is a thematic retreat, but an overall progression for the writer/director. Sure, going back to the Askewniverse smacks of desperation for a sure-fire redemption. There are enough fans of Jay and Silent Bob to cover the production costs of the film and that's all that counts, right? Still, it doesn't necessarily imply an artistic regression: Smith's progression as a director continues to impress: While CLERKS II had nowhere near the budget of the studio-backed JERSEY GIRL, the direction continues to progress. There are even a few nice moments here (including a sing-along to the Jackson 5's "ABC") along with a camera that moves (!) from time to time. The editing, on the other hand, could use some work: too many shots last just a bit too long, which saps the comic energy of the film. See the far-too-indulgent "donkey show" sequence for the best examples. But it's as a writer that Smith continues to make the most progress. Even though CLERKS II continues to rely on its usual crutches (pop culture dialogue, in-your-face shock frankness, fantasy characterization), there is a solid emotional core in the middle of the R-rated dialogue, and the conclusion puts all the pieces together with a satisfying thunk. Smith is also fortunate in his choice of actors. Here, Rosario Dawson steals the show by grabbing a character seemingly written as a male dream-girl and transforming it into something extra. The film certainly won't appeal to everyone, and that's a huge part of its charm: While you may not understand why it's funny to insult a Transformer fan by calling him a "Gobot", I can guarantee you that it's hilarious in its proper context. Now all we have to hope is that after finding solid ground once more, Kevin Smith will try something else for his next film. (In theaters, July 2006)

CLICK (2006, Fantasy/Comedy): Well, as Adam Sandler films go, this isn't one of the worst ones. This is, indeed, very faint praise: Sandler's films have become a predictable mix of sappy morals, slapstick violence, mock anger, insipid female characters and broadly accessible premises. In this case, some things actually work well: the "universal remote" gimmick is used for pretty dumb gags, but it eventually allows a fairly sophisticated meditation on the nature of living life, and the paths that our choices can end up making if we're not careful. Some gags are amusing, and the film has a surprising amount of internal coherence. Despite the obvious plot threads (including a blatantly obvious "departure point" trap-door), it all amounts to a good character arc. But then there is the rest of the picture: The disturbing way Sandler's character resorts to violence whenever he's not accountable for it; the way the female characters are sidelined in easy caricatures; the cheap gags that do little but amuse the 12-year-olds in the audience. CLICK ends up as a potentially interesting film hobbled with obvious sops to Sandler's usual demographics. Too bad. (On DVD, February 2007)

CRANK (2006, Action): "Gloriously insane" is how I would start to describe this film, which seldom hesitates to use showy cinematic techniques whenever it gets bored, which is about once every twenty seconds. This meshes unusually well with a concept that goes straight to the heart of the modern action film: If you stop, you die. The director uses just about every single trick in the book to keep the film hopping and if the action scenes themselves aren't all that spectacular, the mash-up of images, techniques and approaches makes for a deliriously cool viewing experience. Think DOMINO, RUNNING SCARED and a bit of SAW and you'll be in the right ballpark. Jason Stratham is fabulous in the main role (the movie wouldn't have a worked as well as it does without his pure action personae), but the real star of the show is the director and his catalogue of effects. Small touches like video-game graphics, satellite-picture scene transitions and gratuitous public sex basically ensure that I'll pick up this title at least once on DVD, especially if it has an audio commentary by the directors. No, there's nothing respectable or admirable about this mixture of nihilism, misogyny and absurdity. But damn if there isn't something in this film to appeal to the baser instincts of the action crowd –or the postmodern hipster sensibilities of those who think they're above all that. Surprisingly, CRANK may actually be a lot more clever than anyone is willing to acknowledge. (In theaters, September 2006)

DA VINCI CODE, THE (2006, Thriller/Adventure): This film is as critic-proof as they come, what with its built-in audience, puffed-up controversy and all-star cast and crew. No matter what anyone say, it'll make zillions and find a modest place of some sort in film history. Stripped of the hype, though, it's no surprise to find that THE DA VINCI CODE is merely an average thriller, competently made but hardly innovative. In many ways, it's fitting that two of the blandest Hollywood stars of the moment, director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks, would help in delivering the epitome of mass-market cinema entertainment. Perfectly blending French and American cinema, THE DA VINCI CODE delivers endless conversations rudely interrupted by car chases and modest gunfights. Of the actors, only Ian McKellen is any fun at all as a mischievous historian with a flamboyant streak: Tom Hanks, Paul Bettany, Jean Reno and Audrey Tautou are wasted in roles that either don't suit them or are cut short without much conclusion. But the film's most distinctive trait is how it alternates between talky exposition and very average thriller episodes. To be fair, the book was just as bad, except that the roughshod charm of Dan Brown's clunky-but-earnest prose had a forward rhythm of its own. I expect a huge number of academic papers to be written on the adaptation of this story from one medium to another, especially when you consider that the book seems faster-paced that the film. While the critical knives had been drawn in anticipation of this film, the end result in no way deserves a critical savaging: in most aspects, it's perfectly serviceable, with a tiny thrill of irreverence considering the subject matter. I've seen both better and worse this week. In the end, most people will find this film to be a mirror of their own expectations: Fans of the book will be pleased, curious film-goers will be satisfied and literary critics will find another reason to call Dan Brown the Anti-Christ. Now that's entertainment for everyone! (In theaters, May 2006)

DEATH OF A PRESIDENT (2006, Thriller): I'll say it right away: Don't expect too much from this film. Yes, it's about George W. Bush getting killed, but leftist members of the audience ought to calm down and take a chill pill, because this film is about the least partisan film one could make about such an event. Executed as a mock "documentary from 2008" relating events in 2007, DEATH OF A PRESIDENT fails to deliver on the promise of its title. Yes, the president is killed, and Stuff Happen. But despite touching upon themes of restricted civil liberties, anti-Muslim profiling, violent activism, class warfare, racism, the war in Iraq and other contemporary issues, the film seldom delves deep into its subject. That makes it a thematic failure, but worse yet is the increasingly irrelevant dramatic tension of the film, at least in its second half. The first half, before the shooting, effectively cranks up the tension and shows how the situation spins out of control. The second half, unfortunately, is reset into a whodunit that never completely works, especially given how the identity of the assassin is revealed to be someone who barely blips up earlier in the film. It doesn't help that, for all of the mesmerizing quality of the archival footage cleverly cut into scenes specifically shot for this film, the film never feels completely authentic as a documentary: The tension feels artificial, the talking heads are obviously actors and the amount of information withheld until late in the film goes contrary to what we expect from non-fiction pieces. Too bad: For all of the nerve of the film's premise, one would have thought that the filmmakers could deliver on their promises. (In theaters, October 2006)

DEJA VU (2006, Crime/Science-Fiction): The good news are that director Tony Scott has stepped back from the brink of madness: After MAN OF FIRE and DOMINO, DEJA VU looks positively restrained even as it starts messing with the fabric of time and space. Denzel Washington is up to his usual screen presence in a role seemingly tailored for him. The technical savvy of Scott and producer Jerry Bruckheimer is on full display, with enough techno to please any geek in the audience, and that's not even talking about the cool conceit at the heart of the story. The premise leads straight into, by a significant margin, the best car chase of the year, a masterful segment that positively shakes with energy. Alas, the film chokes upon its own high-concept, taking it a step too far and ending on a far more conventional note than you'd expect from the middle section of the film. The rules change arbitrarily, and the screenwriters go straight for the tragic conclusion that clears the way for a romantic finale. That the film is incoherent from premise to details is too bad, because its beginning is promising and it contains a number of neurone-sizzling moments. Fortunately, the problems can't overwhelm the idea that this film is worth a look... and maybe even a second one. (In theaters, November 2006)

DEPARTED, THE (2006, Crime/Drama): We've been waiting a long time for the 2006 Oscar contenders and now that fall is here, they're finally starting to come out of the woodwork. First up: A gritty Boston-flavoured remake of the fabulous INFERNAL AFFAIRS by none other than Martin Scorsese. For once, the remake is worth it: The plot beats remain intact but the sequences are generally different, the Boston setting infuses every character and the dialogue is beyond delicious. While the impact of the concept is wasted on INFERNAL AFFAIRS fans (I do miss the conference table scene), the pieces of this intricate double-cross game are moved with skill and the film-making aspect of the end product is very slick. Mark Whalberg and Alec Baldwin are flashy with their aggressive dialogue, but even they take a second role to the combined star power of Matt Damon, Leonardo Di Caprio and Jack Nicholson: For once, the hype is real and the actors truly live up to their reputation. This may or may not be Scorsese's best film since CASINO, but it's certainly in the top list for 2006. (In theaters, October 2006)

DESCENT, THE (2005, Horror): The advance hype of this film was frightful, so let us correct one misconception from the start: This is not one of the greatest horror films of all times. It is, on the other hand, a very decent entry in the genre, and that's not bad considering the adolescent dross that usually gets released in theatres as "horror" nowadays. As far as premises go, writer/director Neil Marshall knows where to go: By locking up his feuding heroines in a cave along with a bunch of monsters, he gets claustrophobia, paranoia and terror all wrapped up in a neat package. People who are afraid of the dark should stay away: once the rocks fall, the monsters emerge and old feuds are uncovered, don't bet on anyone making it to the end credits without severe damage. Alas, if the film may work as a thriller it's somewhat limited in other aspects. While the script designates Shauna Macdonald as the recipient of our sympathies, my own affections lay firmly with can-do Asian cutie Natalie Jackson Mendoza, dividing the impact of the inevitable face-off between the two. I also suspect that I'll be in a minority in shaking my head at the ecosystematic unlikeliness of the monsters and how their population is completely unsustainable in this given environment. Then there's the growing repetitiveness of the last act: monsters, girls, death, repeat. Still, while these flaws may damage my enjoyment of the film, they don't take away from the fact that Marshall has crafted a better-than-average horror film. THE DESCENT may be completely humourless, but it's earnest in its intent to do anything to scare its viewers. Some jump-scares are effective and others aren't (much like the quick-cutting works in some instances and not in others). While THE DESCENT won't leave any lasting chills (for that, the US distributors may have considered keeping the original longer ending), it's a respectable entry in the horror genre and not one of those made-for-retarded-teens films that can be dismissed even as they're rolling. It certainly makes me curious about Marshall's next effort. (In theaters, August 2006)

DREAMGIRLS (2006, Musical/Drama): The post-MOULIN ROUGE resurgence in movie musicals has been good for adapting Broadway plays to the big screen, and DREAMGIRLS is the latest to make the transition. As with the other ones, DREAMGIRLS is an effortlessly enjoyable piece of work, with a good mixture of drama and song and humour. Well, ok, not too much humour: Following the template of Motown's history, DREAMGIRLS does the usual VH1 biography scenario and manages to shoehorn a happy ending in there anyway. Beyonce Knowles and Jamie Foxx may be the film's putative stars, but most of the attention goes to Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson in scene-stealing roles. Otherwise, the other highlight of the film is the “Cadillac Man” sequence, destined to be replayed in high-school classrooms whenever the subject of cultural appropriation comes up. Otherwise, well, there isn't much to say: The film may not be the Oscar powerhouse everyone was expecting, but it's good enough and “good enough” seems to be the rule for the new musicals. (In theaters, January 2007)

EL LABERINTO DEL FAUNO (aka PAN'S LABYRINTH, Mexico, 2006, Fantasy): Guillermo del Toro may not make masterpiece after masterpiece (HELLBOY, anyone?), but he's consistently fascinating in what he can turn out. His habit of alternating between glossy Hollywood movies and more personal films seems to be good for him in both directions: His Hollywood films are quirkier and more interesting, whereas his home-grown films are slicker than ever. So it is that PAN'S LABYRINTH is unmistakably a successor to EL ESPINAZO DEL DIABLO: The children-in peril motif is back, and so is the historical framework and the humans-are-the-monsters theme. Perhaps the most distinctive thing about the film is its mixture of an adult theme with a childish perspective: There an ambiguity to the story that contributes to its impact rather than obscure it: its most likeliest explanation is also the cruelest.. Otherwise, there little to say about the slick polish to the film, the excellent acting and the sensibility of the special effect. Del Toro may mis-step when drawing villains (defining them with the crudest elements), but the rest of his script is sure-footed. Where the film may lose a few viewers is in how, for a while, it's not clear if it's a film for kids or featuring kids: by the time the film settles the question, the younger members of the audience may have irreversible nightmares. Good for them. (In theaters, January 2007)

ERAGON (2006, Fantasy): There it is: one of the first explicit LORD OF THE RINGS rip-off that exists because of the other film and is just as ridiculed because of it. There's no doubt that the financial success of Peter Jackson's adaptation trilogy unlocked the coffers for this film. Alas, the same trilogy provides a far better point of reference for all critics: ERAGON is derivative trash, incompetently made and crammed with talent that can't do anything with the material it's given. Bad fantasy films aren't anything new, as veterans of DRAGONHEART or KULL will attest, but THE LORD OF THE RINGS now acts as a reference to prove that, yes, it's possible to make good fantasy films. ERAGON isn't merely a pleasant derivative work like NARNIA often felt: it's minimum-effort film-making with a blatant disregard for its audience. The dialogue is particularly trite, with lines that you can anticipate (and ridicule) well before their utterance. Not that the plotting is any better, as severe suspension of disbelief or mild mental retardation is required to accept the plot cheats required for the story to go on. It speaks volumes that midway through the film, I found myself thinking that any slash fanfic coming out of this film is bound to be more interesting and entertaining than the source material. By the time the credits rolled, I had even started to giggle at the obvious slash hooks in the story: the protagonist is so not interested in the girl. Given the good odds that she may end up being his sister, it's probably a good thing that he's not into females without scales, wings and fire breath. (In theaters, December 2006)

FAST AND THE FURIOUS, THE: TOKYO DRIFT (2006, Action): There's something about this series, I don't know what, that hits all of the buttons that come pre-installed with the Y chromosome. I'm no car freak, and yet plunk me in front of a FAST AND THE FURIOUS instalment and watch me drool over the hot cars, the race sequences and the kissing girls. (It's not a FAST AND THE FURIOUS film if there are no kissing girls.) Here, the action takes us to Japan, a move that plays heavily on the cultural dissonance and the most outrageous aspects of Tokyo culture. Here, drift-racing clubs take on the air of an cosplay convention and some movie-magic transforms drifting from a tire-squealing risky manoeuvre to a romantic, even heroic endeavour. The film makes no sense, of course, but that scarcely matters once the action has begun. Yup, the hero is a moron; sure, he looks twenty-five; no, he couldn't have done all of that without being Pearl-Haboured by the Yasuka. But who cares: There are cars, there are girls (whoo, Nathalie Kelley), there are races and there is plenty of fun. As a B-movie, it's remarkably successful... and it's even better than 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS. (In theaters, June 2006)

FEARLESS (HUO YUAN JIA, China, 2006, Action): If Jet Li sticks to his promise and truly retires from martial art movies after this one, it will be a perfect capstone to a career that spans films such as ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA and HERO, other historical martial epics with a fierce nationalistic spirit. Somewhat more accomplished that the usual martial arts film, FEARLESS gives itself permission to explore the darker side of an accomplished martial artist, and the redemption that must follow excess. It can often feel like several movies blended into one, but it's seldom less than interesting, and the conclusion does play into the "Jet Li's final film" hype. There's plenty of historical content for history buffs, and the fight scenes are often thrilling (with a special mention to the fight taking place on an elevated platform, though I doubt that the crowd on the ground would have been so thrilled.) A solid film, not the classic that was HERO, but a suitable last chapter to Li's martial-arts phase. (In theaters, September 2006)

FIREWALL (2006, Thriller): Action grandpa Harrison Ford is back throwing punches in this limp thriller, at a time where even his stunts doubles are more likely to worry about broken pelvises than landing a good hit. Yet another suspense film in which a man must save his family from ineffectual criminals, FIREWALL gamely tries to get on with today's technology, but only succeeds in highlighting how silly it is. The technical details are wrong (Hurrah for continental wi-fi coverage!), but even nit-picking IT jargon pales in comparison to the script's other problems. Paul Bettany's villain is weak enough to be stopped by a good spanking, but Ford himself doesn't look so dynamic at an age where he should be contemplating retirement-home hobbies. (We'll let the whole marrying-a-woman-twenty-years-younger shtick slide on the basis that Hollywood producers are always fond of wish-fulfilment fantasies, and that Ford himself seems to be having no problem dating younger women.) Actually, Ford isn't half bad as either a security expert or an older family man, but it's when he starts playing the action hero that FIREWALL becomes very amusing: a better script would have recognized the problem and played the character to his strengths. But that's a tall order for a script that simply goes through the motions of a thriller without much conviction, peppering the dialogue with technical terms it doesn't understand and making only the most cursory efforts at drawing credible characters. Some twists happen too late for us to care, which is to say that FIREWALL can't hold anyone's interest for more than a few minutes. It may do if all you're looking for is a very conventional thriller... but otherwise, forget about it. (In theaters, February 2006)

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS (2006, War/Drama): History is fine and war history is even better, but mixing the two is a risky prospect. The battle of Iwo Jima was due for a post-SAVING PRIVATE RYAN retelling. Unfortunately, his FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS often feels like the mash-up between two or three movies that might have been better left separated: First, you have the spectacular historical recreation, depicting men at war with the realism that only CGI reconstruction can provide. This section of the film is easily its highlight: It's tense, chaotic, confusing, exhilarating and feels extraordinarily real. The famous raising of the flag itself is excellent, even if it's not quite what we expect... and definitely doesn't mean the end of the fighting. But this war drama is only less than half the film. The other almost-half of the film follows some of the flag-raisers as they're brought back to the United States in an effort to promote War Bonds. While more thematically interesting, this section of the film is generously spliced in between the war fighting, giving the false impression of a deeper structure pulling it all together. Finally, the rest of the film is dedicated to a contemporary framing device that gives context, but also an unfortunate dose of on-the-nose "Greatest Generation" melodrama. And though, taken separately, most of FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS' segments are skilfully executed, their union somehow feels lesser than the sum of its parts. Part of it, I suspect, is that the filming took place simultaneously with another film, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, telling the same battle from the Japanese side of the events. Maybe we'll have to wait until that film to drawn our conclusions... or maybe we'll be able to mix-and-match segments from two films in order to tell four stories! (In theaters, October 2006)

FLUSHED AWAY (2006, Kids/Comedy): Aardman's studio first CGI film is a smashing delight: While it doesn't have the classic status of Wallace & Gromit, FLUSHED AWAY has learned all the good lessons from its more famous sibling: the action sequences are furious, the world-building is inventive, the sight gags are numerous and the entire production has a charm that makes it impossible to resist. The characters are realized in typical Aardman-clay style, with intentional surface texture defects and the characteristic eyes we've come to associate with the studio. The humour may be a bit more juvenile, but one of the surprises of the film is how successful it is even when it's using naive gags: One gets the sense that the writers are almost apologizing for the clichés even as they milk them for all they're worth. Visually busy and not one minute too long, FLUSHED AWAY is a solid hit: not a classic, but a title well-worth revisiting. Who would have thought that slugs could be such a hoot? (In theaters, December 2006)

FLYBOYS (2006, War): Alas, another good concept that flounders on the actual execution. There is nothing wrong about a WWI movie about the Lafayette Escadrille squad. (Well, nothing except side-step the real story of most WWI pilots, because there wasn't anything ordinary about Lafayette Escadrille.) But when it's leadened with some of the worst structure and dialogue this side of the STAR WARS prequels, it's really hard to appreciate the whole. The word "excruciating" was invented to describe the feeling the audience gets while watching James Franco romance a French Girl (who's not, as the movie takes particular pain to explain, a prostitute) –and it's even worse if you do understand French. At least the historical recreations are interesting, and some of the dogfights are very cool despite the video-game aspect of the zeppelin scene. Structurally, the script is a trite collage of old-fashioned clichés, but some individual moments stand out... though it will take a masochist to watch the film over and over again. (Especially given how it lasts no less than two hours and twenty interminable minutes.) Worse, at least to modern audiences, is the lack of self-awareness about war and its toll on the men fighting it: the worse we get for the pampered flyboys of Lafayette is a man losing his nerve long enough to sustain dramatic tension. (And even that doesn't work, as viewers can count down to his re-appearance in the story.) In the end, I suppose that FLYBOYS' greatest success and biggest failure can be described as having the same effect: It will make everyone realize their unfulfilled need for a really good WW1 dogfighting epic. Comparisons with PEARL HARBOUR, though insulting, are not unfair. (In theaters, September 2006)

FOUNTAIN, THE (2006, Science-Fiction): Brilliant or pretentious? Fabulous or dull? Too-simple or cryptic? There's no easy answer with Darren Aronofsky's latest film, which steps boldly into experimental film territory with all the predictable consequences: Lush visuals, skilled direction and a disregard for anything approaching narrative coherence. Thematically, it's a big blender of Important Themes: Death, Love, Life, Monkeys, etc. That it's brilliant is undeniable. That it's a mess that cares more about its director than the audience can be argued. Those who know they love these films can already go and get the damn DVD: everyone else looking for more conventionally entertaining material can go stare at swirling paint for an hour and a half. Martin Scorsese could have directed this as a short film and still have time to put in a Mafia subplot: Here, we're stuck along with the important music, important visuals, important camera angles and important themes. Every year sees its own "you must be this masochistic to see this film" entry, and THE FOUNTAIN is it. Genius, yes, important, maybe, but that doesn't necessarily translate in anything like satisfaction or even lasting reputation: Who remembers Soderbergh's SOLARIS even four years later? (In theaters, November 2006)

FREEDOMLAND (2006, Crime/Thriller): Frankly, I'm still not too sure what to make of this film. An uneasy hybrid between drama and thriller, with a sprinkling of social issues that never completely melts into the main plot-line, FREEDOMLAND attains a remarkable middle ground between quality and boredom. Some parts are so familiar that they play on auto-pilot: Samuel L. Jackson turns in another effortless performance as a intense policeman, and Julianne Moore delivers yet another performance as a bad mother who can't find her child. The dialogues are similarly cut from other films of the same genre, while the direction, especially when it works, has no distinguishing characteristics. But it doesn't always work, and FREEDOMLAND ofter veers into self-serving stylistic moments that seem consciously tacked-on. It doesn't help that Julianne Moore's character immediately evokes feelings of loathing: that the film then spends its duration proving us right is no recipe for surprising twists. But worse is the feeling that some weighty issues about racial tensions, middle-aged alienation and criminal tendencies are raised in service of an insubstantial story. FREEDOMLAND brings to mind weighter fare such as MYSTIC RIVER or L.A. CONFIDENTIAL is how it does not manage to successfully integrate wider social issues in a thriller template. Indeed, FREEDOMLAND feels somewhere between drama and mystery, not as a successful hybrid, but as a failed attempt that couldn't commit to either one of those storytelling poles. Even CRASH, as wildly preposterous as it was, ended up being a far more satisfying film. (In theaters, February 2006)

GOOD SHEPERD, THE (2006, Drama): Given the traditional association between spy stories and popcorn movies, it's a surprise to find that this historical drama is far more interested in the emotional burden of espionage than in gunfights and thrilling chase sequences. Matt Damon is surprisingly restrained in the lead role, even when surrounded by a fabulous cast that includes director Robert De Niro, Angelina Jolie, Alec Baldwin and many other familiar names. But this restraint has a point: the script is an intricate mixture of secrets, betrayals, codes and detection: Closer to John LeCarré's brand of dreary spy fiction, THE GOOD SHEPERD is a grown-up entry in the spy genre. But like many films dedicated to an older audience, it's also dull, dreary and far too long for its own sake: Clocking in at a languid two hours and a half, THE GOOD SHEPERD tests its viewer's patience without mercy. Self-consciously ponderous and deathly serious (there's maybe three laughs in the entire picture), it's not without qualities, but it really requires its audience to work in order to get at them. CIA history buffs will appreciate, but others are likely to keep staring at their watches. (In theaters, December 2006)

GRANDMA'S BOY (2006, Comedy): Every so often, it's a treat to find out a little-regarded film that actually manages to deliver a better-than-expected performance. Coming from Adam Sandler's "Happy Madison" production house, no one really expected nothing from GRANDMA'S BOY, and indeed it doesn't deliver much. But it manages to be a decently entertaining stoner comedy, and that's not too bad considering the material it had to work with. (The film's comic highlight is a vacuuming scene.) Fratboy comedies can be painful to watch, but this one isn't too bad as long as the concept of stoned elderly women can manage to get a smile out of you. The look inside the universe of video-game designers is good for a giggle or two, and the pacing of the film leaves little room for boredom. There are better choices out there, but this is still a way above the bottom of the barrel. (On DVD, May 2007)

HAPPY FEET (2006, Kids/Comedy): This film may be many things, but it's certainly not what you're expecting. Those who go in expecting another one of the many, many CGI-animal-comedy films released this year will be surprised by the action scenes, the explicit environmentalism, the romantic drama, the religious satire, the ethnic references, the soul/rap soundtrack and the often unusual turns of the plot. Technically, it's a stunning piece of work: The Antarctic landscape is fabulously well-rendered, and the animators work miracles with the relatively limited constraints of penguin anatomy. The direction, by MAD MAX alumni George Miller (who's no stranger to off-beat family films such as BABE II: PIG IN THE CITY), is slick and never hesitates to use the possibilities of CGI to its fullest extent. The action scenes alone are surprisingly enjoyable. But it's on a story level that HAPPY FEET is most audacious: The film meanders here and there on the emotional map, opting for segments that range from amusing to nightmarish: The density and variety of the story makes the film feel considerably longer than its 108 minutes. Unfortunately, it also gives it a disconnected, almost incoherent feel: by the time it pulls itself together for a toe-tapping finale, it feels as if the film pulls itself out of a corner by jumping out the side window. Perplexing, but still more interesting than most CGI film released this year. The music alone makes it all worthwhile: Beyond the MOULIN ROUGE-esque musical sampling of the first few minutes, the latter segments all lift the film well above its usual level and are guaranteed to make you smile... and tap. (In theaters, December 2006)

HOLLYWOODLAND (2006, Crime/Drama): As historical Hollywood crime dramas go, this one doesn't have the insane pyrotechnics of THE BLACK DAHLIA, but it may be just a bit better in the end. Certainly, it's a slog to make it to the conclusion: Taking place on an intimate scale, this examination of George Reeves' mysterious death isn't particularly fast-paced, nor rich in dramatic action. On the other hand, the look at the life of TV's first Superman is full of details, and even compassion for the characters. But what truly makes the film, beyond a number of solid performances (and yet another proof that Diane Lane get sexier with age) is the conclusion, which wisely presents no explicit explanation to the mystery of Reeves' death, but does tip the scale toward an explanation that negates this film as an investigation. Gutsy move, and one that makes this film rank reasonably high on the historical accuracy charts. A generally solid, unpretentious film.

IDIOCRACY (2006, Science-Fiction/Comedy): The danger in making a film criticizing idiocy is that the effort itself may feel, well, pretty idiotic itself. Mike Judge's first film since the wonderful OFFICE SPACE doesn't entirely avoid the charge: Nominally about a normal contemporary man waking up in a future where the average IQ has plunged downward, IDIOCRACY isn't as smart as it should be. The first few minutes aren't too bad, as they graphically explain how dumber people have more children than smarter ones. (Yes, unacknowledged echoes of "The Marching Morons") But once it's in the future, IDIOCRACY lets itself go in raunchy bad language, easy caricatures and cheap plot mechanics. The low budget doesn't help, but neither does the sub-standard script and the pandering attempt to present an intellectual argument without annoying the none-too-smart people who could see the film. IDIOCRACY plays a risky game: how do you criticize stupidity without looking like an arrogant fop? Alas, it runs too far in the other direction: Lead actors Owen Wilson and Maya Rudolph may be sympathetic, but they're stuck in a bad script that wallows in its own naughty words. Worse: the story almost ignores its female protagonist despite her being just as intellectually qualified as the male one. Through IDIOCRACY does have its generous share of rude laughs, it eventually suffers from its own contradictions. No wonder it went almost directly to DVD; it's just about worth a marginal rental. (On DVD, February 2007)

ILLUSIONIST, THE (2006, Drama): On paper, this film can't miss: turn-of-the-nineteenth century magicians, Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jessica Biehl, etc. The trailer looked fabulous and yet... the film fails to elicit any enthusiasm. Why? Well, for starters, it's a caper film where -even from the onset- it's clear that nothing is quite what it seems. Alas, it's far too easy to guess a good chunk of the ending before it happens, and the film doesn't give you much on top of that to keep your mind occupied. Worse: in a film about stage magic, it would be reasonable to expect actual stage magic and not a reliance on CGI. But THE ILLUSIONIST lacks the guts to either sustain or explain its lesser illusions. As a result, the film almost announces itself as untrustworthy from the first few scenes, and that eventually takes its toll. Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti are fine in their respective role, but they can't transcend the screenplay. Much to my dismay, I realized that I found Jessica Biehl less attractive as the film went on, which bodes nothing good at all. In the end, she proves to be as disappointing at THE ILLUSIONIST as a whole: a good film that could have been a lot better. (In theaters, September 2006)

INSIDE MAN (2006, Thriller): Once past the initial shock of surprise (No way! Spike Lee is trying for a mainstream movie! And look at that cast!), the best things about INSIDE MAN is how it doesn't disappoint. Oh, the script is generously riddled with embarrassing holes and arguable developments, but it's so well-rounded with spicy characterization that it's hard to care. What's more, the dream-project cast is a sheer pleasure to watch, from the sheer coolness of Denzel Washington and Clive Owen to the brainy iciness of Jodie Foster all the way to head-turning screen-melting performances by newcomers Samantha Ivers and Florina Petcu. (The cast is so top-heavy that even solid players such as Willem Dafoe and Christopher Plummer get barely a passing mention.) The accumulation of details and quirky character moments is what truly makes this a solid thriller, helping in overlooking a familiar premise and story problems. It helps that both the script and the director wholeheartedly embrace New York in all of its cosmopolitan quirkiness, lending a very modern feel to the whole thing. For the first ninety minutes, INSIDE MAN is a thriller at the top of its genre, moving quickly and efficiently with considerable wit and charm. It does lose a lot of energy during its last thirty minutes, bogging down in details that seem redundant and laboured after its excellent start. But no matter: Despite the flaccid last act, all that remains is a solid thriller, a fabulously entertaining movie and some of the best work in a while for all the names involved in the film. This is top-notch studio entertainment: I'll let other decide whether Spike Lee has sold out or not, but as far as I'm concerned, I can only ask for more. (In theaters, March 2006)

LADY IN THE WATER (2006, Fantasy): I have written elsewhere that with every passing film, M. Night Shyamalan's directing skills grow better even as his scripts are getting worse. LADY IN THE WATER may present a pause, but it's certainly no improvement of either aspect. Billed as a modern fairy tale, it may be more appropriate to call it a modern mess: All sorts of mythical allusions, but hardly any substance under the surface. While the direction is still effective (though missing the cleverness that so bolstered THE VILLAGE and SIGNS despite everything else), the script goes nowhere and can't be bothered to deliver an epilogue to wrap everything up. It opens with dispensable narration and thrives on minutiae, blithely passing by moments that should be important. It recycles the old "traumatized protagonist must do something good to redeem himself" shtick that Shyamalan has seemingly adopted as his leitmotiv. There isn't much suspense, and whatever sympathy we have for the characters seems deliberately forced by Shyamalan's heavy-handed touch. It's not a complete failure: the multicultural cast is great (w00t for Sarita Choudhury), the images are often nice and it's hard to fault any of the actors –including po-faced Shyamalan himself. A number of the film's ideas have potential, and the character of the Film Critic is a lot of (wasted) fun. But in the end, it comes down to Shyamalan and his own self-indulgence. When it works, it works but when it doesn't... --hey, look at the pretty pictures! (In theaters, August 2006)

LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA (2006, War/Drama): This flip-side to FLAGS OF OUR FATHER is a better film in most respects: the structure is tighter, the characters are more interesting, and there's definitely more dramatic tension amongst a band of soldier historically fated to lose. The film, taking place almost entirely in Japanese, nevertheless feels immediate and relevant: Director Clint Eastwood was able to accomplish a film that transcends linguistic borders without even seeming to. The battle of Iwo Jima is fascinating regardless of which side gets the spotlight, but there's an extra dramatic dimension in seeing it from the “other” point of view. The historical recreation is impressive and so are some of the scenes. What I really would like to see, though, is a mash-up between Eastwood's two Iwo Jima films, an action-oriented war film presenting a look at the battle from both sides, wrapping up in under 90 minutes. (In theaters, January 2007)

LITTLE CHILDREN (2006, Drama): I have a particular loathing for the "suburban adultry" sub-genre of melodrama, enough that I try to avoid them unless they're (inevitably) nominated for the Academy Awards. Imagine my surprise, then, at how LITTLE CHILDREN turned out to be an almost enjoyable example of the form. It's not nearly as clever as it thinks it is: the ponderous narration is almost completely useless, bringing little to the film that we can't already see for our own. But the same narration gives a pretentious degree of self-importance to the film, one that takes it into a darkly comic realm. Oh, sure, it's not laughs from beginning to end: the film's most consistent thematic motif is how it keeps playing with expectations: just as you think the story may aim toward redemption, it twists the knife again, transforming heroes into heels, losers into bastards and bored housewives into masters of manipulation. LITTLE CHILDREN, at the very least, won't allow you to get too comfortable, and that very well may be why I respect it despite my complete lack of interest in what it has to say. After all, how can one dismiss a film that includes the line "Madame Bovary is not a slut, she's one of the greatest characters of Western Literature!"? (In theaters, February 2007)

LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE (2006, Comedy): "Independent comedies" are hit-and-miss affairs. Though their "independent" nature ensures that they'll be quirkier than conventional studio fare, that same quirkiness either works to viewer's sensibilities or doesn't. In this case, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE doesn't look all that funny for a long time. Suicidal Proust expert? Foul-mouthed grandpa? Loser-writer trying to get a publishing contract? Not exactly the stuff laughs are made of. It doesn't get any better as the film becomes a road trip film, as it plays as a humiliation comedy, as characters die and others are pushed even further in depression. But something strange happens near the end of the film, as viewers finally click to its peculiar view of the world and as the dramatic arcs of the characters reach a meaningful conclusion: LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE becomes, well, a ray of sunshine. The end dance number is terrific: the film earns its comedic release far more than in a film where nothing is risked or loss. A surprise finish for a film that takes its time to put all the pieces together. (On DVD, February 2007)

LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN (2006, Crime/Drama): There are two good films in this movie, but their union is far less impressive than the sum of their parts. First up is a sympathetic crime comedy, in which an amiable protagonist (Josh Hartnett, playing up his usual lack of passion) see himself stuck between two competing crime-lords. As a fluffy premise, it works well and earns a few laughs, bringing to mind some of the least-annoying post-Tarantino criminal comedies. Plus it's got Lucy Liu: I could watch her in just about anything, but she's particularly appealing here as the frazzled-hair girl next door. But this seemingly amusing caper is leading toward a twist loudly foreshadowed by curious ellipses and a number of nonsensical details. When the plot twist comes, it changes the nature of the film, turning it in a story of violent revenge that leaves few threads untied. Taken in bits and pieces, LUCKY NUMBER SLEVEN isn't bad at all. The impressive cast (featuring Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, Ben Kingsley, etc.) often makes it appear as being much better than it actually is, as do the occasional good lines and arresting set design. There is enough quirkiness in the first half to give the impression that it's leading somewhere fun. But in the final analysis, LUCKY NUMBER SLEVEN looks like a twist in search of a script. Whatever good ratings it gets are mostly based on potential, because the execution can't fulfil initial expectations. (In theaters, April 2006)

MARINE, THE (2006, Action): For once, the trailers weren't lying: If you thought that dumb action movies starring bodybuilders went out of vogue with the end of the eighties, take heart in this renaissance. THE MARINE is exactly the type of movie where stuff blows up real good, allowing the hero to escape with only nanoseconds to spare. The plot is as simplistic as it can be (robbers kidnap hero's wife; chase ensues) and the action never attains a superior level of interest, but the film proves to be relatively enjoyable on its own terms. The car chase is particularly fun, and the dozens of explosions never get old. What helps is the film's self-awareness: It's stuffed with small inconsequential scenes that almost act as self-parody, from a car-shop discussion on the inappropriateness of minivans to the villain flirting with the heroine in the middle of a chase. Small nonsense touches such as an "Al Quaeda compound" with tanks and the South Carolina Highway patrol force using a high-performance sports car as a cruiser (!) add to the fun. Two of the film's best gags come from a mirror glance and a small musical cue, both meant as references to classic films. Robert Patrick chews scenery like he's enjoying the raw taste of it. Still, what keeps THE MARINE from being considered a classic guilty pleasure is that despite the potential of its elements, it keeps holding back on its own insanity. Worse: it's never entirely tonally consistent, goofing up by (for instance) making a bad guy somewhat sympathetic before killing him thirty seconds later. Oops. Action fans craving some old-school payback action will find a lot to like here, but I suspect that the film will have no cross-over appeal for anyone else. (In theaters, October 2006)

MATADOR, THE (2006, Comedy): On paper, this has all of the characteristics of a quirky black comedy: An ordinary man accidentally meeting a neurotic assassin, joining forces in order to solve each other's problem. It's not difficult to imagine the kind of riotous material that could come out of this premise. Alas, THE MATADOR falls flat more quickly that you can imagine, neither stretching nor embracing the limits of its own tunnel vision. While Pierce Brosnan turns in a fabulous lead performance as an amoral assassin on the precipice of self-destruction, his character transcends the film around it, making the rest look hollow and faded. Hope Davis makes the most out of a thin character, but she and Greg Kinnear are pretty much the average couple they're supposed to portray, and that's part of the problem: For all the uncouth world-weariness of Brosnan's anti-hero, THE MATADOR grinds to a halt whenever Kinnear is involved. More sarcasm, more self-awareness might have helped, but instead we're stuck in low-budget, low-imagination limbo. The film chuckles over its last bit of edginess, not realizing that it had created higher expectations for itself. (In theaters, February 2006)

MIAMI VICE (2006, Crime/Drama): This is not HEAT, but it sure looks a lot like COLLATERAL. The grainy digital look is back, but what looked like a justifiable cinematographic choice in Michael Mann's previous film now looks like a self-conscious affectation. For a while, it works mostly because the script doesn't allow you one moment's worth of respite: MIAMI VICE launches almost in mid-sentence, and the first act forces you to pay attention through bad audio, cryptic dialogue and a reassuring lack of hand-holding. But that initial interest soon peaks and fades as soon as a romance is hammered in place for no good reason except for the demands of the third act. At least Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx are tolerable as the leads: they don't really take over the roles of Sonny and Crockett, but that's in large part due to the fact that MIAMI VICE shares only a title, a premise and character names with its TV series namesake: The rest is all brand-new, and unfortunately it recalls fonder memories of the BAD BOYS series more than anything else. (The shadow of Michael Bay is obvious during the gunfights: they're not particularly coherent, but they're very very loud.) But this being Michael Mann, even his misses are more interesting than other people's successes. What's more, the film is partially redeemed by its female performances: While most male viewers will focus on Gong Li's appearances, Naomie Harris handles part of the film's emotional appeal, while Elizabeth Rodriguez is blessed with the film's best line of dialogue. Ultimately, the film's sputtering rhythm only serves to build interest in the inevitable Director's Cut DVD. (In theaters, July 2006)

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3 (2006, Action): Sure, Tom Cruise is a loon. But now that we've disposed of the obvious, let's look at MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3 as a movie rather than a star vehicle. It's certainly a different film from the first two movies in the series: Here, the IMF team is back in action, leading to a number of crunchy heist sequences that don't just bask in the glory of Tom Cruise. Similarly, we can sense that some care has been given to the script underlying the entire film: Director J.J. Abrams is a veteran of such TV shows as ALIAS, and this go-for-broke intensity is one of the most pleasant aspects of MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3. As the often-ludicrous twists pile up, the film speeds up and acquires a pleasant velocity. It brings some of TV's best tricks to the bigger-budgeted world of action movies and at least gives the illusion of doing something new. Seymour Philip Hoffman's villain is a case in point: a role that may have been ridiculous in the hands of another actor is here exploited to its most vicious extent by an Oscar-winning actor seemingly having some fun. Even the dramatic underpinnings of the story make sense (though that's not always the case with the details) despite overly-maudlin romantic moments and some eye-rolling twists. From the electric opening sequence to some of the best action scenes of the year (that Chesapeake Bay Bridge action sequence, complete with armed UAV and palpable desperation, is a piece of art), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3 is a crowd pleaser that delivers exactly what it intends. Heck, it even has the potential to revive a moribund franchise. (In theaters, May 2006)

MONSTER HOUSE (2006, Comedy/Kids): The good news, I suppose, is that this film definitely has its moments: As an animated feature, it's perfectly poised to exploit its premise of a monster house, from its ambiguously unnerving introduction up to and including the stomping crashing conclusion. There are a number of dynamic set-pieces, decent one-liners and imaginative details. Unfortunately, MONSTER HOUSE definitely leaves audience asking for more, and for better: The back-story is weak (even more so when it seems to belong in a different genre), the script doesn't seem to know what to do with its female characters (who are far more interesting than its male protagonists) and there are some annoying lengths here and there. The animation is generally decent, though the character design never loses its innate plasticity. It's not really a bad film, but it shows just enough of its cards to whet our appetite for a tighter, leaner, more clever work. Oh well: at least the sound mixing is good. (In theaters, August 2006)

MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND (2006, Fantasy/Comedy): Note to twenty-first century filmmakers: If you have a clever premise and you're capable of a pleasant execution, make damn sure that the core of your film isn't based upon a festering pile of misogyny. In this case, consider the potential of a superhero film mixed with a romantic comedy. Now consider the skills of Ivan Reitman and Luke Wilson, neither of whom could offend anyone even under an extreme case of Tourette's Syndrome. It all points to a nice little comedy fit to counter-program against SUPERMAN RETURNS, right? Well, half-right: MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND is considerably more interesting than the latest Superman, and most of its gags are perfect summer fare fodder: slightly naughty, accessible to everyone and completely innocuous. But don't look too closely at the female characters because once you do, the ugly core of the film comes exposed: Females either come as humour-impaired harridans, pliant male-toys or hidden psychos. (Not the mention the old exasperating "brunettes with glasses are less attractive than blondes" clap-trap.) In your life, you probably know that guy who dismisses all of his girlfriends with the easy slam "she was psycho" caricature, not realizing that the insult tells us more about him than her. Well, MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND is a lot like that, exposing the core of misogyny that is still embraced by many so-called men out there. As a guy who really does like girls with backbones, I sat aghast at a third-act development in which the male characters actively conspire to rob the titular ex-girlfriend of her superpowers: why not throw in a lobotomy and a club-sized bottle of Prozac if you really want her to be so meek and compliant? Eeek. If I manage to stop hyperventilating, it's true that the film eventually finds a harmless way out and a fun conclusion. But it takes a very unpleasant path to get there, and never quite shakes off its ugly side. Given that the rest of the film is so unremarkable (only a high-rise shark attack stands out as a sequence worthy of the film's premise), let's just say that this is one movie where occasional flaws more than manage to overwhelm the general amiability of the whole. (In theaters, August 2006)

NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM (2006, Kids/Comedy): See Ben Stiller mug for the camera! Mug, Ben, mug! Oh, no, now here comes Robin Williams! Mug, Ben, mug, Robin! Now here are dinosaur-shaped special effects! And Egyptian warriors! And cowboys! And romans! And monkeys! Wow, that's whole lot of stuff! But who can't stop mugging? It's Robin! It's Ben! This is a kid's movie, because it hits adults over the head until they're as dumb as kids! Yaaay, dinosaurs! Yaaay, monkeys! (In theaters, January 2007)

NOTES ON A SCANDAL (2006, Drama): As we all know, it doesn't take a crime to be a bad person and NOTES ON A SCANDAL seems fascinated by this idea. Though there is a nominal crime at the heart of the story, it seems minor in comparison to the twisted mind games played by an older woman (Judi Dench) on a younger one (Cate Blanchett). Though the film disappoints in how it refuses to be spectacular, there is an unnerving quality to the film's banal betrayals and how it represents the kind of toxic relationship that sometimes contaminate lives. Visually, there's little to distinguish the film: It's strictly movie-of-the-week territory. But the performances are interesting, and the "banality of evil" theme is unusual enough to warrant some attention. (In theaters, February 2007)

OVER THE HEDGE (2006, Kids/Comedy): Kids, computer animation and suburban animals: three things that go well together. It helps that PDI/Dreamworks have been improving their non-SHREK movies since A SHARK'S TALE and the underwhelming MADAGASCAR. Learning from earlier mistakes, OVER THE HEDGE is almost free of pop-culture references and feels fresher for concentrating on the character comedy between a bunch of newly-suburbanized animals. The voice talent errs toward celebrity stunt-casting, but those actually fit: hearing William Shatner over-emote death sequences over and over again is such a natural match that it's a wonder it hasn't been done before. (Although considering Shatner's long self-deprecating streak, it just may have been.) Still, the movie belongs to Steve Carrell's "Hammy" as a hyperkinetic squirrel who would be unimaginable without the wonders of modern computer animation. The film's most memorable scene features the world from his point of view and it a sustained thirty seconds of payoffs on various gags set up earlier in the film. The technical aspects of the animation are excellent (So much hair!) and the creative direction certainly helps: During its most inspired moments, OVER THE HEDGE has a classic Warner Brothers feel. Unfortunately, not all of the film is like that, and it so happens that the movie occasionally skips a beat for thirty seconds, in a drawn-out effort to teach kids the Family Is Important. But, hey, it is a kid's film: I suppose we should be lucky that it's accessible to adults. (In theaters, May 2006)

PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST (2006, Fantasy, Adventure): Hail to the king of the summer, baby: This sequel has everything a blockbuster needs, and maybe even twice that. All of the characters are back, and while it's hard to focus on the bland Bloom/Knightley lead couple when Johnny Depp keeps stealing the show, everyone gets a good moment this time around. (Even Jack Davenport's Norrington gets a beefed-up role in this sequel.) The adventure/fantasy aspects of the tale are pumped up, leading to a different atmosphere (one where everyone acknowledges the supernatural from the get-go) but one that is conductive to a succession of thrills. The direction is crisp, the script is tight and the special effects are astonishing even at a time where we think we've seen everything. Bill Nighy's "Davy Jones" has the potential to become a cultural icon and the meshing between his performance and ILM's special effect team is a huge part of this effectiveness. For the rest, well, what's left to say? Johnny Depp outshines all of the special effects, Naomie Harris is lovely as Tia Dalma and the film ends up on a fascinating cliffhanger. Don't miss any opportunity to see the first film shortly before seeing this sequel, as the Elliott/Rossio screen-writing team were able to refer to several events and jokes from the first film. (In theaters, July 2006)

PRESTIGE, THE (2006, Drama/Science-Fiction): Yes, I just spoiled a good part of the film by classifying it as "Science Fiction". One wouldn't think, for instance, that SF would apply to a tale about feuding magicians at the turn of the nineteenth century: But by telling you that Nikola Tesla is involved and that the film is adapted from the novel by renowned SF author Christopher Priest, I'm not exactly revealing anything that can't be deduced from the movie poster. Yet THE PRESTIGE is such a sure-footed piece of cinema that I could tell you the ending right away and you would still enjoy the entire film. It gives you enough clues to figure it all out, sometimes through heavy symbolism, but the way it's all put together is nothing short of amazing. There's some serious skill at work here, from the direction to the set decoration to the writing: At some point, the film delves into three levels of flashbacks yet still makes perfect sense, playing back and forth with dramatic irony, multiple diaries/narration, fascinating details about the stage magic industry and a wonderful small role for David Bowie as Nikola Tesla. Though the take-no-prisoners ending relies too much on its tricks and not enough on its emotional content, there's a lot to like here. The images are gorgeous, the acting is fun (fans of Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman will not be disappointed), the direction is slick and the story is mesmerizing. (In theaters, October 2006)

RUNNING SCARED (2006, Crime): This film is trash from beginning to end and I loved it. Seemingly written by an European screenwriter whose only understanding of America comes from true-crime stories and Tarantino films, RUNNING SCARED drops us in a pocket universe of roughly twenty awful people who never, ever sleep as their destinies clash on a night where a stolen gun is the object of all desires –and the root of all evil. Nice description, but even I don't believe it: it's easier to see this as an exercise in style, loosely hung together with some of the most outrageous writing in recent memory. Gun-runners, killer couples, child abusers, sadistic hockey players and two kinds of mafias abound in this dark fairy tale: even a chance slip into a van to avoid danger bring a character to horrors scarcely imaginable. It works only because the execution is as wild as the script, with plenty of delicious shots to keep things hopping. The film is as manipulative as it's exhilarating, reaching for DOMINO-style excess well after it has pummelled its viewers in insensibility. There is a particularly affecting scene involving snuff-making pedo-serial killers (no less) that is unbelievably preposterous, yet gripping even as you realize you're being played. It's easy to dismiss this film as nothing more than a self-indulgent mess, but it's a lot more fun to go along with the ride and whoop it up as the atrocious coincidences and the impossible twists just keep piling on. Throw a challenge at the film: dare it to lose you. I may be a minority of one on this, but I would rather be prodded by a bad film than bored by a good one. RUNNING SCARED certainly won't be for everyone; I can only hope you'll be one of the lucky few who get the joke. (In theaters, February 2006)

RV (2006, Comedy): Sometimes, I wonder at what can happen between the time a lead actor reads the script and the moment where the audience stares wide-eyed at the disastrous mess spooling away. What was Robin Williams thinking? Couldn't he see that R.V. had all the ingredients of a cheap straight-to-video mess from the words on the page alone? It's obvious that nothing in the latter production of the film actually improved the results: As a "family goes travelling" film, it still gets mauled by NATIONAL LAMPOON'S FAMILY VACATIONS. Heck, watching people get their luggage at the airport is funnier than RV. Perhaps the nicest thing one can say about it is that it's completely harmless: indeed, even the copious scatological humour is more exasperating than offencive. The overall dramatic arc is a mish-mash of trite family values and hypocritical warnings against the evils of working too hard –something the filmmakers have obviously embraced. RV would be instantly forgettable if it wasn't for the reminders that ten years ago, the news of a Barry Sonnenfeld starring Robin Williams would have been awesome. Right now, it's just something to be ignored as long as possible. (In flight, August 2006)

SCARY MOVIE 4 (2006, Comedy): Roughly similar in tone to the previous SCARY MOVIE 3, this one is a comedy grab-bag that chiefly goes after (in decreasing order of importance)WAR OF THE WORLDS, THE GRUDGE and THE VILLAGE, with other assorted pokes and tweaks at other films (SAW, MILLION DOLLAR BABY and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN) and pop-culture icons. SCARY MOVIE 4's biggest problem is that it's quite happy to pastiche other films, but seldom goes for the jugular: Movie critics had funnier jabs at WAR OF THE WORLDS during the summer of 2005 than the parody ever manages to put together. (The constantly-screaming little girl shtick isn't even mocked.) SCARY MOVIE 4, alas, is almost completely bloodless in its parodies: it recreates the original with some goofiness but seldom more. (This being said, the production values are often impressive, especially considering the short shooting schedule) Even the rare political gags only make us wish for much more. It's no surprise, then, if some of the film's cleverest moments stand completely apart from previous films. As for the actors, well Anna Farris is still cute in an increasingly irritating clueless shtick, while Craig Bierko does well with the thankless task of parodying Tom Cruise. Still, it's Regina Hall who steals the show as the insatiable Brenda: her arrival in the movie kicks it up another notch (plus, doesn't she look unbelievably cute in founder's-era clothing?) Yes, SCARY MOVIE 4 will make you laugh. Dumb, cheap, easy laughs but still; consider it your reward for slogging through endless mainstream horror films. (In theaters, April 2006)

SCOOP (2006, Comedy/Crime): As a standalone film, SCOOP is rather nice and innocuous, dipping in magical realism to deliver a serial murderer comedy. Still, it finds its best resonance when compared to other Woody Allen films. Most of the comparisons will focus on MATCH POINT, a film to which SCOOP almost acts as a counter-point: Both are set in London and feature Scarlett Johansen, of course, but they almost act as thematic mirror images to each other: While MATCH POINT was a deadly serious thriller with occasional moments of deep humour, SCOOP is a crime comedy with occasional moments of deep darkness. The use of outmoded supernatural devices also refers to THE CURSE OF TEH JADE SCORPION. But SCOOP also refers back to classic Woody Allen in how it allows Allen to ride his old stand-up routines once again, fully playing up to the neurotic personae he created for himself early in his career: There an undeniable pleasure at seeing Allen hamming it up, perhaps for the last time. His script and direction are impeccable, particularly so during the no-nonsense first act which roars from scene to scene by taking supernatural shortcuts and cutting away all the superfluous material. In this light, it's a shame to see parts of the script make less sense as the conclusion wraps up. (Ask yourself who murdered the secretary, and why an oar wasn't used at a crucial moment.) Scarlett Johansen also seems to have so much fun as a young journalist that it almost feel curmudgeonly to point out the film's contradictions between crime and comedy, or the fuzzy third act. After MATCH POINT, it's certainly another very pleasant work by Allen, who finally seems to shake off the creative doldrums that afflicted him so visibly since the mid-nineties. If nothing else, he has the decency to cast himself as Johansen's father rather than his lover: small favours, but we'll take it. (In theaters, August 2006)

SENTINEL, THE (2006, Thriller): It had been a long time since the last thriller set in the White House, and THE SENTINEL is a good return to the sub-genre with a welcome emphasis on Secret Service characters. While the film can never completely shake off the shadow of IN THE LINE OF FIRE, it's not a bad take on the same elements. What is a bit more distracting is the presence of two TV mega-stars in important role. "Desperate Housewives" Eva Longoria is Teh Cuteness, but her casting here seems more like a stunt given how that role could have been played by just about any actress in Hollywood. Meanwhile, Keifer Sutherland reprises a role very, very similar to the one he plays on "24", constantly welcoming comparison to the TV show's intensity. Alas, it's a comparison that often works to THE SENTINEL's disadvantage: loosely adapted from a novel by Gerald Petievich, the film moves well but doesn't have the same breakneck pacing nor surprising plot twists. Which isn't to say that the script holds together: There are a number of troubling implausibilities through the entire film. Almost entirely bereft of humour, THE SENTINEL will still amuse Canadians given how the last act is spent shooting and running near the Toronto City Hall. Director Clark Johnson does an unspectacular job: whatever stylistic flourishes there are in the movie disappear once the film's second act is well under way. While this certainly won't go down in history as anything more than an adequate thriller, THE SENTINEL delivers what's expected from a genre B-movie: It's the cinema equivalent to a decent beach-side page-turner. (In theaters, April 2006)

SLITHER (2006, Horror/Comedy): Horror/comedy hybrids aren't rare, but given how they tend to flop at the box office, seeing such an unabashed monster comedy like SLITHER is always something of a wonder. Boldly indulging in the limits of its R rating (except, alas, for the nudity), writer/director James Gunn delivers a movie that would make his old Troma pals proud. (It's no accident if there's footage of THE TOXIC AVENGER on a TV screen midway through the film) SLITHER isn't really interested in horror, but it's keen on grossing you out; indeed, one could argue that it's even more interested in showing gore than in making you laugh: This is a film where the one-liners are tossed off with negligent verve, but where every single gunshot takes off a chunk of flesh. The overall impact of the film will be amiable for gore-hounds, but a bit puzzling for civilian moviegoers: too much yuck, not enough yucks. Otherwise, well, Nathan Fillion retools his FIREFLY persona to good effect and Elizabeth Banks does her best to be as innocuous as possible. Frankly, it's a measure of the film's good-natured tone that it doesn't leave much of an impact despite some truly stomach-churning visuals. But don't get too excited: in the genre, it's not up to EIGHT-LEGGED FREAKS, and nowhere near the classic TREMORS. (In theaters, April 2006)

SNAKES ON A PLANE (2006, Action): Yes, the joke is old and tired. But it has, at least, sprung for a decently entertaining B-grade movie, and justified a fully-loaded DVD edition that fully acknowledges the silliness of the premise. Far from the hype, SNAKES ON A PLANE still succeeds at entertaining its audience, and even the dumbest plot twists are acknowledged with a wink. Goofy fun, perfect for an unpretentious evening. The DVD comes complete with an above-average number of special features, the best of which has to be a lively commentary in which Samuel L. Jackson truly earns his salary as an enthusiastic cheerleader for the project. Other extras will answer every single question you may have entertained about making a movie with snakes, and give a glimpse into the Internet fan phenomenon that SNAKES ON A PLANE sustained up to the moment of its release. Me? I still like it. (Second viewing) (On DVD, June 2007)

SNAKES ON A PLANE (2006, Thriller): The best news about this film are that it delivers exactly what you'd expect from the titles. There are snakes, there is a plane and the snakes are on that plane. Genius. But beyond the best pop movie title since DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR?, there's actually a decent B-grade monster movie in here. Thriller fans will fondly recall director David Ellis' previous CELLULAR and rejoice during the film's first few minutes as the plot is set up with a ruthless efficiency just so we can get to the creature feature. At least the payoff is fabulous: When the snakes start attacking, the film goes crazy for a few moments and truly earns its title. Samuel L. Jackson plays a caricature of his own film personae with relish and the other actors wisely stay out of his way. Alas, SNAKES ON A PLANE stumbles with a sad attempt at a third act, which is almost a preordained problem given how the entire "snakes on a plane" conceit can only be milked for so many victims. The third act is weak, resorting back to cliché with some typical winking but few surprises left in store. Don't fool yourself: this isn't some minor classic nor even a particularly noteworthy thriller. But for a one-joke film, it's a good joke and the storyteller has some talent. Ideal for a B-movie marathon. Just don't bring expectations. (At the Gruman's Chinese Theater in Los Angeles, August 2006)

SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006, Fantasy): Far from successfully reinventing this particular superhero franchise, SUPERMAN RETURNS made me realize how much I loathe the character of Superman. It's not the goody-goody two shoe routine that gets to me as much as the character's complete lack of self-awareness and emotional maturity. He's either a well-meaning twelve year old or a retarded thirty-year old: not, in any case, someone you would feel comfortable saddling with a son and the responsibility to save the world. And yet the film skirts all around this issue, going so far as to give Superman a number of creepy peeping scenes and romantic moments that are fit to cause more discomfort than endearment. There's small comfort to be found in the film's lavish visuals or envelope-pushing effects: Once the character is found worthless, the rest of the film soon follows. Kevin Spacey is easily the most enjoyable character, but his Lex Luthor is saddled with the lamest evil plan ever deemed fit to figure in a blockbuster. The less said about Kate Bosworth's wimpy character the better: her performance recalls not Margot Kidder, but Katie Holmes's similarly-ineffectual performance in BATMAN BEGINS. Worse: the dumb-as-dirt script can't effectively maintain suspension of disbelief as is flies from one bit of silliness to the next, flagrantly ignoring how people actually react and how things actually work. For the first time in a long while, I kept being thrown off the film by its casual disregard for physics, journalism or even common sense. Not that it does better in terms of pacing or originality: It's a good thing that Superman can lift heavy objects, because all of the problems he faces in this film can be solved through that particular talent. It all adds up to a dull and vaguely insulting film, one that actually takes away from the Superman mythos more than it adds to it: By skirting closer to the edge of reality, director Brian Singer invites greater scrutiny that the film can't sustain. Give me an op-ed page, and it will be titled "The World didn't need this SUPERMAN, and it sure doesn't need another." Oh well; everyone who was waiting for this summer's big blockbuster failure can now stop looking. (In theaters, July 2006)

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING (2006, Comedy): Christopher Buckley's satiric novel had me pleased, but hardly bowled over. The film adaptation produces a similar effect, though the sardonic tone of the narrator seems to work better in a cinematic context, especially when it's strengthened by some clever direction. But after a promising start, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING gradually settles in a comfortable groove, a move that's not helped by changes bringing this film away from the thriller plot-line of the book to a more conventional "moral redemption on the kid's behalf" third act. But even those changes fail to do much damage to the film: Aaron Eckhart does really well with a role that allows him to caricature his squared-jawed all-American looks; other supporting players do just as well. While THANK YOU FOR SMOKING fails to make any lasting impression, it's a pleasant time at the movies and plays well enough to satisfy anyone. (In theaters, April 2006)

THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA (2006, Comedy): Terrific actresses, sharp details about the world of fashion and easy-flowing direction more than make up for easy targets and a familiar dramatic arc in this surprisingly entertaining comedy. Anne Hathaway is adorable as usual in the role of a brainy writer forced to fend for herself in the world of high fashion. But it's Meryl Streep who really runs away with the film as the hard-driven empress of a fashion magazine: brassy, ruthless and too busy for social niceties, she is both detestable and alluring in a plum role that would have been wasted on a younger actress. (The Oscar nomination was well deserved.) The cynical look at the insanity of the fashion industry is expected, but it still works well. What doesn't work as well are the forced romance and the predictable conclusion. But THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA runs along smoothly, and that's pretty much all it's required to do. (On DVD, February 2007)

THE GOOD GERMAN (2006, Thriller): Steven Soderbergh strikes out as often as he hits home run, but THE GOOD GERMAN ends up being a solid triple: not quite what we'd expect, but not a bad effort. There's something lovely about his intention to direct a film as if this was 1945, with limited camera tricks, luscious black-and-white cinematography and classical staging. But this intention eventually clashes with the harsh language, explicit scenes and darkening geopolitics that eventually come to dominate the film. Though the clash is deliberate, it's not entirely successful: Ironically, I think that the bitter denunciation of American post-WW2 power plays could have played well had the film toned down the more superficial language, sex and violence. More subtlety would have gone a long way... exactly like it did back then. Otherwise, George Clooney and Cate Blanchett are successful in roles seemingly tailored for them, while Tobey Maguire looks like he's having a lot of fun as a repellent character far removed from his usual goody-goody heroes. Not a bad film, but certainly a let-down in how it does so many things right only to be defeated by the few things it does wrong. (In theaters, January 2007)

THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND (2006, Drama): The “African thriller” sub-genre picks up another good entry with this dramatic version of Idi Amin's reign of terror. Here, a young Scottish doctor stands in for an audience both fascinated and then repelled by Amin's garrulous charm and utter lack of conscience. The protagonist's gradual descent into Amin's madness is reflected in the visual tones of the film, which gets darker and darker as the film advances. This isn't the only subtle trick played on us: The camera gets noticeably more jittery whenever Amin's on screen, almost as if the power of the character couldn't be contained on mere film. (Forrest Whittaker's turn as Amin is hypnotically compelling, a sure case for an Academy Award nomination.) It all adds up to a small but very effective film, one that manages to use fiction to give us a glimpse at the truth. (In theaters, January 2007)

THE QUEEN (2006, Drama): As someone without excessive affection for either Diana Spencer, Tony Blair or the entire monarchic system, I was surprised to discover some entertainment value in THE QUEEN. Oh, it's certainly nowhere to be found in either cinematography, special effects or action scenes: Perhaps the most damning criticism of the film is that it's a movie-of-the-week written large, accidentally released in theatres. It aspires to quasi-documentary recreation, and scarcely anything more. As the story describes the aftermath of "Princess Diana"'s death on the Royals and Tony Blair, it also allows something like mutual respect to grow between the two after a rocky beginning. Ultimately, it's the human element that forms the cornerstone of the film: The exceptional performance of Helen Mirren as the titular Queen is respectful and revealing. The rest of the players do just as well. If the film can often feel a bit long, it's definitely headed in the right direction throughout. Not spectacular (and definitely overrated by contemporary reviewers), but reasonably good. (In theaters, January 2007)

ULTRAVIOLET (2006, Action): Well, I'm not watching this film again anytime soon. Though I could recognize a number of flaws during the original theatrical viewing, another visit to the DVD edition really doesn't enhance anything. The dialogue is still as trite as ever, and the action scenes don't seem any better once you start picking apart their mechanics. The design does hold up, but that's about it: The rest of the film flops aimlessly and fails to engage. Though billed as "the director's cut", this DVD edition adds preciously little in terms of enjoyment, and the disappointing making-of material never gets past the "huh, interesting" level. Worse yet is the sparse insight-free audio commentary by Milla Jovovich, who seems far more interested in her dog than in filling any space on the commentary. I still think it's a better film than AEON FLUX, but let's just say that the distance between the two is a lot smaller now. (Second viewing, On DVD, September 2006)

ULTRAVIOLET (2006, SF/Action): I really wanted to love all of this movie; I'll settle for liking parts of it and ignoring the rest. Writer/director Kurt Wimmer's follow-up to the fabulous EQUILIBRIUM ends up feeling like a self-indulgent remake that has forgotten all about pacing. The opening comic-book-covers credit sequence sets a tone that, unfortunately, isn't sustained by the failed earnestness that follows. Oh, the design is terrific, the gadgets are lovely and the action scenes are pure lightning. Sadly, the dialogues are fit to make anyone howl, and the story is instantly familiar –and not in a good way. Too bad; Milla Jovovich turns in an iconic performance... but the rest of the film around her is often too repetitive to be interesting. I really hope that Wimmer gets some solid supervision before his next project... which I'm still anticipating with some interest. (In theaters, March 2006)

UNDERWORLD: EVOLUTION (2006, Action/Fantasy): I like to start movie years with an indifferent film that resets my expectations for the next twelve months. Given that goal, I couldn't have found better than this limp sequel to remind me of how ordinary movies can be. If you liked the first UNDERWORLD, this is pretty much the same thing: Vampires, werewolves, automatic weapons, a vague East-European setting (though less urban this time around) and Kate Beckinsale in tight clothes. On paper, it founds fabulous. On screen, though, it just doesn't work. Despite Beckinsale's form-hugging costumes, this film, like the first one, can't be bothered to develop anything past banality: even the action scenes are dull. There's a semi-neat five minutes at the end, but that's about it. Fans of the first film (there are a few) will note how this sequel is tightly integrated with its predecessor's plot, but everyone else will spend half the film figuring out how's who, who wants to kill who and, most importantly, why we should care. The flat bichromatic palette doesn't help, and neither does the indifferent direction. The first film didn't deserve a sequel, especially if it's going to be a lackluster effort like this one. On the other hand, consider my movie-critic sensors properly calibrated for the rest of 2006. (In theaters, January 2006)

UNITED 93 (2006, Thriller): And so there it is: The first widely-released motion picture explicitly about September 11, 2001. And a curious piece it is, consciously eschewing glossy movie-making in favour of a quasi-documentary approach that cranks up the intensity to a level that will be unbearable to some. As it stands UNITED 93 is a bit of a schizoid film, starting in techno-thriller territory along with the air traffic controllers, to end as a claustrophobic thriller aboard flight 93. But regardless of the split, UNITED 93 works when it should: Director Paul Greengrass' shaky camera, so annoying in THE BOURNE SUPERMACY, works exceedingly well here as he captures an "over the shoulder" approach that skirts a fine line between exploitation and glorification. His script similarly presents the event in a matter-of-fact, quasi-documentary approach, only deviating from knowable facts in the final minute. (In an attempt to provide catharsis for its audience, UNITED 93 has the passengers break into the cockpit, whereas black box recordings suggest this never happened.) But as a piece of cinema, its artistic worth almost becomes irrelevant to its place in history as "the first of those films." For non-Americans, it mark a welcome step toward the "acceptance" stage of America's national grief after a rather long "anger" stage. (In theaters, May 2006)

V FOR VENDETTA (2006, Science-Fiction): It may be too early in the year to talk about 2006's best films, but it's certainly not too early to say that this is the first good movie of the year. I'm always a sucker for tales of insurrection against totalitarian government, and this one is slicker than most. Somewhat faithfully adapted from the graphic novel, V FOR VENDETTA remains faithful to the spirit of the original, and delivers a tighter, more cohesive take on the basic story: the film is likely to become my preferred version. (Alan Moore may pout and fume about Hollywood betrayal, but this one's really not that bad.) From a cinematographic standpoint, the film is gorgeously designed and directed with a great deal of self-confidence: James McTeague may be overshadowed by the Wachowski producers, but his work is crisp and clean. Blessed with capable lead actors, V FOR VENDETTA showcases some fantastic mask work by Hugo Weaving and one of Nathalie Portman's best role yet. Despite the lack of action set-pieces (don't believe the trailers), the film has considerable forward momentum and only falters slightly late in the film. Politically, it's a loud scream against the dangers of totalitarianism, and successfully manages to integrate the Thatcher-era fears of the original with current-day concerns over the so-called War on Terrorism: If it touches a nerve, it's only because there is something to be concerned about right now. Otherwise, unfortunately (and there's my biggest problem with the film), it remains quite literally a comic-book fable that tackles ideas in a stylized fashion, but falters on the follow-up: Totalitarian regimes never spring up completely without popular roots, and are seldom defeated by a grandiose gesture. V FOR VENDETTA, hobbled by the necessities of a feature film's running length and the low bandwidth of cinema, does not seriously engage with the demands of political thought, or the solutions required by real-world trade-offs. It's all well and good to scream revolution, but it's not going to do much good unless there are solid alternatives behind the reform. (And it's what distinguishes comic-book-reading teenagers from adults used to the real world). But I'm being overly harsh: After all, I didn't say such things after EQUILIBRIUM, right? But if V FOR VENDETTA is going to propose itself as a bold political thinking piece, it better withstand the scrutiny it invites. That rabid political point aside, there's little doubt that V FOR VENDETTA is going to be one of 2006's good films. Now let's see the competition before deciding if it's one of the best. (In theaters, March 2006)

WHEN A STRANGER CALLS (2006, Thriller): Some movies don't have a reason for existing, and this is one of them. A limp thriller that takes far too long to get to the point and then does nothing with it, WHEN A STRANGER CALLS is mass-produced entertainment for the undemanding teenage audiences. Don't worry, though; even the stupidest teenager won't be fooled by this slick and lifeless rehash of a punchy urban legend. Audiences nowadays are familiar with the "...inside the house!" punchline, and making them wait 65 minutes for it is just another mark of incompetence in a long list of problems for this film. Director Simon West has done some acceptable work before (CON AIR, THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER), but even a good grasp of technical fundamentals can't mask the lack of thrills in this thriller. While the set design is fabulous (WHEN A STRANGER CALLS is yet another film where the house is more interesting than all the characters put together) the rest is so obvious that audiences are constantly smarter than the screenwriter. The discovery of an underwater corpse is more likely to evoke a sense of expectations fulfilled than anything approaching horror. Don't worry if you're reading this and can't remember even hearing about this remake: given how it failed to find a reason to exist, how can it even find a way to aspire to posterity? (In theaters, February 2006)

WORLD TRADE CENTER (2006, Drama): Five years after "the day that changed everything" (yeah, right), movies about 2001-09-11 are finally emerging out of the woodwork. I suppose that radical or even subversive takes on that day will have to wait a bit: In the meantime, we're stuck in the first stage of recovery: recognition. WORLD TRADE CENTER is a surprise in that it's just about as anti-political as it's possible to be. Like UNITED 93, it focuses on the real events of the day and dramatizes what happened to real people. But unlike UNITED 93, it's a slick and glossy piece of Hollywood film-making that never hesitates to ham it up on the altar of family, religion and good old American values. That's an issue for sophisticated moviegoers, but it's nowhere near as annoying as the movie-of-the-week script that buries its characters in the rubble for what feels like the 18 hours they spent there. To be entirely truthful, the first act of WORLD TRADE CENTER is gripping stuff: As the day begins and the event start to unfold, we're stuck along the uncomprehending characters, swept along the flow of history as the towers start to burn and then fall down on our characters. (The boom-Boom-BOOM sound of the towers pancaking over the protagonists echoes one of my particular nightmares about that day.) That part is handled with a deft hand and recreated with conviction. Unfortunately, all forward momentum stops dead in its track once the characters are stuck under the debris. From then on, it's protagonist-thinks-about-his-wife, cut to wife-worries-about-her-husband, repeat ad coma, occasionally leavened by a creepy Marine impostor who would be right at home in a serial killer movie. It gets old real fast, and for a long time the movie coasts on its association with events that still touch a nerve. But the script could have been retooled to be about miners stuck in a coal mine with very little effort, and that film would have been poorly reviewed even as a TV movie. If WORLD TRADE CENTER would have been the first one out of the gate about "that day", it might have gotten a slightly better rating. But UNITED 93 showed how it could be done, with intensity, respect and catharsis. While I suspect that most of us can identify with plane passengers stuck in a plane commandeered by hijackers, few of us will identify so readily with police officers rushing into a dying building. While I'm glad that Oliver Stone will get rid of his unfair "conspiracy nut" image with this apple-pie of a film, I wonder how a nervier directory could have handled the same material. Oh well; maybe in another five years? (In theaters, August 2006)

X-MEN 3: THE LAST STAND (2006, Science-Fiction/Action): If I actually cared about the X-Men as a comic book with a decades-long history, I may be peeved at the way they handled the "Dark Phoenix" idea. But given that I don't (and haven't even read the Dark Phoenix Saga), I thought the film was a good-enough summer action blockbuster and a good third instalment in the series. There is, certainly, a bit too much material and characters to handle gracefully: "The Cure" was a concept strong enough that the Dark Phoenix subplot wasn't strictly required, and some more time with the characters may have been beneficial. But when the leather hits the pavement, X-MEN 3 is a straight-ahead action locomotive: Brett Ratner is a better action director than Brian Singer, and the way he handles the rest of the film is unlikely to annoy anyone but the tedious anti-Ratners and the even more tedious X-Men integrists. Hey, it's not deep cinema (despite the deeper-than-usual thematic resonances, simple concepts such as "succession planning" still seem to elude Professor X) and the only yardstick required in this case is the good old "was I entertained?" question. Of course I was. End of story... but don't bet on this "last stand" being the end of the series: Peek at the end of the credits to understand why. (In theaters, May 2006)