Click Clicks, Clacks Then Clicks Again

     Click is a pretty good movie. However, its premise ultimately leads to a cinematic dilemma. See, the movie’s action revolves around a universal remote control – one that controls one’s universe. With nothing more than a “point” and “click,” the magical device not only changes channels on a television and opens a garage door, but also makes it possible to mute a barking dog and pause life itself. Therefore, it is also possible to use the remote to fast forward through boring or otherwise unpleasant periods of time – like many of the scenes in the middle of the movie itself.

     Yes, a remote control would be rather useful while watching Click since there are a number of scenes that are innately annoying. For example, anyone familiar with Adam Sandler flicks wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Click is chock-full of potty humor. For a family film, Click really pushes the limits in featuring several pooches that become aroused by plush animals and other sexually charged moments. These things are not only inappropriate but they are also about as funny as a number ten envelope. There are only so many times that you can watch the same old dirty jokes before they just become dull.

     Fortunately, the beginning of Click is actually funny and the ending of it is genuinely heartfelt. The middle of it all just gets in the way. This includes all of the would-be-humorous things that Sandler’s character does with the remote control. If you’ve seen the trailers for Click, you have seen most of the gimmick-produced gags and already have an accurate idea of just how lame they are. For starters, I could think of a few better things to do with a universal remote control than pause my boss to slug him in the face or shuttle a jogger into slow motion to get a better look at her chest. Many of the gags act as filler, adding absolutely nothing to advance the story.

     On the other hand, Click is much more touching than your average Sandler comedy. In fact, the end is likely to have you balling. In a way, the heart saves Click from becoming a very unremarkable comedy. Instead, it is worth seeing and worth getting wrapped up in. It has an important message that may not be fresh at face value (think everything from It’s A Wonderful Life and A Christmas Carol to The Family Man and, in theatres now, The Devil Wears Prada) but it is still just as poignant. It also goes to show that Sandler is a better dramatic actor than he is a comedic one.

     In Click, Sandler plays Michael Newman, a father of two children and husband to Donna, played by Kate Beckinsale. Michael, who puts his job ahead of his family, becomes frustrated with not being able to figure out which remote controls which device and takes a late-night trip to Bed, Bath and Beyond in search of a universal remote. When he enters a backroom of sorts, Michael meets a strange man named Morty, played by Christopher Walken. Morty gives Michael a universal remote control free of charge and warns him that the item is nonrefundable. Michael takes the remote home and suddenly discovers that it controls much more than he ever imagined.

     At first, Michael uses the remote for simple things to enhance his everyday life. Then he learns how to use the fast forward function and, in turn, in able to skip everything from a fight with his wife, a traffic jam and even foreplay. Some periods of time that usually require a dose of patience, such as waiting for a promotion, take a bit longer than Michael would hope, though. When the remote control starts to fast forward on its own, Michael misses some very important moments in his life and those of his family members and could end up at the end of his rope sooner than he expected.

     There are some terrific performances in Click, including one by Henry Winkler who plays Michael’s father (not to mention a variety of entertaining cameos by David Hasselhoff, Rob Schneider, Sean Astin and Jennifer Coolidge). A word of warning, though: don’t pay very close attention to the first part of Click. If you do, it will be blatantly obvious what the future will bring. I caught on rather quickly and the majority of the movie became a waiting game. The emotion is sure to run much higher if you don’t figure out the catch.

     Still, whatever the circumstances may be when you see Click, you will definitely laugh, definitely cry and definitely wish the movie theatre came with a remote control to help you fast forward through the bad parts because, unlike Michael’s life, you wouldn’t miss anything important.

The Devil Wears Prada Conventional But Cool

     The Devil Wears Prada hits pretty close to home for me. The movie, which is based on the novel of the same title written by Lauren Weisberger, carries the basic plot of a girl trying to advance her journalism career in New York. Since I just graduated from college and am currently trying to jumpstart my career in the mass media, I can relate to the main character’s struggles. The important thing, though, is that the movie is able to transcend that minimal connection and reach the general public. Despite touches of predictability and a relatively simple story, the movie can definitely entertain the majority of moviegoers and teach them a few significant life lessons in the process.

     The morals of the movie are best left a secret as to not give away the ending, but I can say that their fairy tale ways help reduce the damage that the lack of surprises and the deficiency of a complex plot do to the The Devil Wears Prada. It is obvious where the feature film will take its characters from the vast number of other flicks with similar designs. Everything that happens seems to lead back to the same place many movies before this have. Still, one can hope for something out of the ordinary, chiefly because the movie’s villain is so Byzantine.

     I am sure that said villain, Miranda Priestly, was written very well but I believe that most of the credit belongs to the fabulous Meryl Streep. Streep has played a large variety of roles in the past. She can also currently be seen (and heard) in A Prairie Home Companion. However, the role of Miranda is something particularly different for Streep. The actress not only gets to play mean, she gets to play evil. Streep usually gets to look glamorous but she has never looked so fashionable. Miranda is made very animated by Streep while retaining a certain amount of veracity.

     The Devil Wears Prada introduces audiences to Andy Sachs, a college journalism graduate played by Anne Hathaway. Andy has a nice group of friends and parents that love her but she hasn’t quite landed a job yet. Hitting several dead ends in New York, she finally walks into an interview at Runway, the nation’s leading fashion magazine. The position Andy hopes to fill is that of the second assistant to the magazine’s editor, Miranda Priestly (Streep). Miranda’s first assistant, Emily, played by Emily Blunt, greets Andy but scoffs at the idea of her working at the fashion magazine. When Miranda arrives, she has the same attitude, noting that Andy has “no style or sense of fashion.”

     Despite all of this, Andy’s strong personality wins her the job. She doesn’t fit in with the rest of the staff, though, so she enlists coworker Nigel, played by Stanley Tucci, to increase her chic. This works on the exterior but Andy must still learn how to meet Miranda’s impossibly high demands without sacrificing her own previously established values. Andy’s friends and family begin to play second fiddle to her professional life but she is determined to stick with it because the achievement could mean a position at any paper she so chooses.

     The entertainment in The Devil Wears Prada really depends on the actors’ performances. I’ve already mentioned how Streep works her magic on the role of Miranda, but it must also be known that Blunt and Tucci give it their all and shine. Blunt’s Emily is the perfect assistant to Miranda and acts as the ideal anti-friend to Andy. Tucci’s Nigel is constantly funny and eventually becomes the character the audience cares about the most. This is a bad thing for Hathaway, who, for all intensive purposes, should have been the star of the movie. She is overshadowed by Tucci, Blunt and especially Streep. Then again, Hathaway’s Andy is not too much different from the actress’s breakout role as Mia in The Princess Diaries.

     Still, The Devil Wears Prada is one of the best comedies of the summer. It is not strictly for fans of the novel that it is based on. It is not just for women. It is not only for those pursuing their own career in journalism. Rather, the movie is for anyone ready and willing to laugh, learn and remember the good time for years to come.

     That’s all.

Gasoline Prices Too High For The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift

     The problems with The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift are plentiful.

     For starters, the lead role is played by Lucas Black, an actor whose performance is better only than his southern accent. He’s a decent good guy and someone that you can root for without hesitation, but it always feels as though he’s not all there. Of course, the rest of the cast is hardly any better with Bow Wow playing the wisecracking sidekick and Brian Tee playing the lead villain. There is a light spot on the cast, though, in the form of Brian Goodman. Goodman only has a small role as Black’s father but he’s the best of the bunch which only makes it easier to make comparisons to the rest of the cast.

     There isn’t much depth to the movie, which is basically a showcase for drag racing. The characters are two-dimensional and the story is relatively flat and unoriginal. There isn’t much to latch onto in The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift. The flick is not that thrilling, either. The drift that the title refers to is a sometimes artsy driving technique. This makes for a lot of showing off and not much action. Aside from the grand finale and a few other select sequences, the movie settles for the glitz of the dangerous sport instead of the excitement.

     That is where the movie makes its fatal mistake. As many problems as The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift has, the worst is its adoption of The Fast And The Furious title. The film is the third in the franchise and it features an entirely new cast (save for a special appearance at the end). The cars take on characters themselves so that is a constant in all three installments but my qualm lies deeper than that. The Fast And The Furious and its sequel 2 Fast, 2 Furious were pretty explosive motion pictures. While the second was a step down from the first, it was still an entertaining event for moviegoers.

     The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift sours the franchise’s reputation for being your one-stop shop for fast and furious fun. It is the action equivalent of the American Pie Presents label for straight-to-DVD comedies. Had the flick dropped the first five words of the title and stuck with Tokyo Drift, it would have been an above average flick. However, as is, it begs to be compared to its two predecessors and this allows its failures to shine through – and, as I’ve explained, there are a lot.

     The sequel picks up with Sean Boswell (Black), a high school student who has a passion for fast cars. (Sidenote: None of the high school students look nearly young enough to even be in college.) When a race through a new housing community goes bad, Sean finds himself in trouble with the law for the last time. His mother sends him to Tokyo, Japan where his father resides. Sean’s father warns him to stay away from cars but, of course, he doesn’t listen. He meets Twinkie (Bow Wow) and is suddenly thrust back into the world of racing.

     His skills are lacking, though, since everyone in Tokyo takes pride in their ability to drift – a technique that helps drivers maneuver difficult turns. Han, a talented driver with all the right connections played by Sung Kang, takes interest in Sean and begins to teach him how to drift. This partnership combined with Sean’s growing affection for a girl named Neela played by Nathalie Kelley pits Sean against the Drift King (Tee), the nephew of a Tokyo mob boss. Now, even Sean’s fast driving and Han’s fancy tricks may not keep them alive.

     The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift is not a waste of time but it never really kicks the action into drive. When the filmmakers decide to utilize the title of a high-octane franchise, they should have injected the flick with enough adrenaline to keep the audience on the edges of their seats. This sequel simply doesn’t do that. It is like we are sitting at the traffic light and, when it turns green, the movie stalls. If they were going to use a new cast, you’d think they would have at least made sure the movie had a full tank.

Garfield: A Tail Of Two Kitties A Prince To Its Pauper

     What do you get when you cross a below average flick from 2004 with the basic plot of a Mark Twain novel? By the looks of Garfield: A Tail Of Two Kitties, you actually get a slightly better sequel. Now, the result isn’t life-altering or worthy of praise, but it is hardly repulsive enough to warrant harsh criticism. The truth is, the movie isn’t that bad of a choice to see with your kids. They are guaranteed to purr over the myriad of talking animals and you won’t mind the outlandish humor one bit.

     The original Garfield, which was based on Jim Davis’s comic strip, was a disaster – too stupid for adults and too boring for children. Garfield: A Tail Of Two Kitties utilizes the storyline of The Prince And The Pauper and it is almost as if all the characters needed was a decent story. Of course, there are several other differences between this movie and its predecessor including a change of setting and many more talking animals. It isn’t a classic of its kind like Babe but it is fun for the whole family for the time being.

     The movie picks up with the tabby cat Garfield’s owner Jon Arbuckle played by Breckin Meyer preparing to propose to his girlfriend (and Garfield’s veterinary doctor) Liz played by Jennifer Love Hewitt. Liz has other news for Jon that precedes his question, though. Liz has been asked to deliver a speech in England as a result of a last minute cancellation. Jon follows her to England, without her knowing, and Garfield, whose voice is again provided by Bill Murray, and
dog Odie sneak along as well.

     Meanwhile in England, a very wealthy woman passes away and leaves her entire estate to her beloved feline Prince who looks remarkably similar to Garfield. The woman’s only surviving relative Lord Dargis played by Billy Connolly is unhappy with this, though, and schemes to do away with Prince so that he can have the fortune for himself. Lord Dargis captures Prince and tosses him into a river. Someone finds Garfield in the streets of England and mistakes him for Prince while Jon mistakes Prince for Garfield.

     Now, each cat must live the others’ life. There is a catch, though: Lord Dargis is furious when he sees who he believes to be Prince back on the estate. A dog and a bunch of farm animals figure out Lord Dargis’s plan and, fearing their own pending homelessness, they do their best to protect Garfield despite their knowing that he is not Prince. Garfield must learn to live the life of luxury (while eluding the grasps of the evil Lord Dargis) and Prince must acquire a taste for lasagna.

     This leads to a whole bunch of nonsense but at least it is entertaining nonsense. The most outrageous scene, one in which Garfield teaches the farm animals the art of cooking his favorite Italian dish in a kitchen, is also the most memorable. There is just something amusing about watching a pig slide across floor tile, a dog wear a chef’s hat and a ferret make pasta. The scene may be the oddest thing you’ll see all year but you have to admit it keeps your eyes glued to the screen.

     That describes all of Garfield: A Tail Of Two Kitties. It carries no value except that of having fun. Such a value isn’t that insignificant, though, is it? Packaged within a sequel that is better than the original, the importance of enjoying yourself is nothing to condemn. Garfield: A Tail Of Two Kitties is nine lives away from classic literature, but it is lands on its feet as a family flick.

The Lake House Better Off At The Bottom Of The Lake

     It has been 12 years since Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock costarred in the runaway-bus blockbuster Speed. Judging by their newest project together, The Lake House, that certainly isn’t nearly long enough. Speed was one of the greatest action flicks of all time but The Lake House, which slows things down, is one of the most confusing romances you’ll ever see. It is also trite, predictable and hopelessly dull.

     Bullock stars as Kate Forster, a woman living in Chicago in 2006. She often visits a lake house and suddenly receives a letter in the mailbox from Alex Wyler. Alex is played by Reeves and lives in the lake house… in 2004. While neither of them understand it, Kate and Alex exchange notes in the mailbox despite the time difference. They accept the oddity, share stories about themselves and eventually start a long-distance romance. Even their friends and family seem to allow the relationship - Kate’s mother played by Willeke Van Ammelrooy says that the time difference is only a detail.

     Kate helps Alex prepare for the past while Alex helps plan Kate’s future. Then, Alex finds Kate in 2004 and things start to make sense. Of course, Kate doesn’t know anything about their romance in that time so Alex must stay at a distance as to not come off as a lunatic. The couple finds difficulties in their relationship, though, especially when they try to plan a meeting. As always, time becomes the ultimate test of their love for one another.

     It is hard for me to write about The Lake House since I knew what it was all going to come down to within the first few minutes. The big twist isn’t that hard to spot from the beginning and thus the movie becomes a waiting game. This wouldn’t be so bad if the time we had to wait was even a little interesting. In fact, the movie becomes extremely boring – especially during the scenes that Bullock and Reeves share together in 2004.

     The one thing that The Lake House does well is the feeling of longing. While Bullock and Reeves share a few moments together in the same time, they are mostly two years apart so when we see them onscreen together there are certain visual effects to help us remember that they are really times apart. Instead of making moviegoers read their notes to each other, the filmmakers intelligently decide to have the characters act out monologues in the form of dialogues. It is a nice touch, but it can’t save the movie.

     The gimmick of the plot is terribly corny at first glance but it could have worked had it not been for the very confusing path the screenplay takes. I’m still baffled by some of the specifics but this may not be a matter of understanding but more one of logic. There are several moments in The Lake House that just don’t make sense. They don’t make sense in the real world and they still don’t make sense in the romantic fantasy world in which the motion picture takes place.

     It is nice to see Reeves and Bullock together again since they do have chemistry. However, The Lake House suggests only one thing about their relationship: It should have stayed on the bus.

Well Marketed The Omen Doesn't Earn 6 Kernels

     The Omen is a good movie but it is an even better marketing ploy. The remake of the 1976 horror flick with the same title opened on Tuesday, June 6, 2006. For those in need of a more obvious date, that’s 06/06/06 which refers to 666 – the universally acceptable sign of the devil. Movies normally open on Fridays or Wednesdays so it was quite different that The Omen opened on a Tuesday. That did not stop moviegoers from taking the day off of work to see the movie on its clever premiere date, though, as it climbed its way to the highest grossing Tuesday debut. The Omen raked in $12.6 million on just its opening day.

     Many people were expecting something unpleasant to happen on June 6, 2006. Although nothing wicked happened, perhaps the inexplicable craving for fear pulled people to the theatre that day. Since it worked for the movie, a marketing ploy should work for its review. Instead of a normal critique, I’ve decided to apply the 666 concept. First, I will detail the plot of The Omen in six sentences. Then, I will specify six positive elements of the flick followed by six negative elements. This will not likely earn me $12.6 million, but it will definitely make for an interesting read.

      (1) The Omen stars Live Schreiber and Julia Stiles as Robert and Katharine Thorn, the parents of a newborn baby boy named Damien. (2) Only a small handful of people know, Robert included, that Damien is not Katharine’s baby but actually the baby of a jackal. (3) Five years later, Robert and Katharine begin noticing strange behaviors in Damien, played by Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick. (4) Having knowledge that there are signs of the apocalypse among us, a priest played by Pete Postlethwaite tries to warn Robert about the child’s destiny. (5) Robert refuses to listen, though, giving Damien time to kill his nanny as well as bring possible harm to Katharine. (6) Now, it is up to Robert and a photographer played by David Thewlis to stop the antichrist and his new demonic nanny played by Mia Farrow before the balance of good and evil is tipped in the devil’s favor.

     Now for the six positive elements:
(1) The greatest quality of The Omen is Damien. Davey-Fitzpatrick was perfectly cast as the evil little boy and he sent chills down my spine each time he sneered at the screen.
(2) He is almost upstaged by Farrow, who goes from unsettling one moment to downright manic the next.
(3) Fans of the Final Destination films will certainly appreciate the death sequences in The Omen, which, may not be as elaborate as the ones in that franchise but are just as clever and gruesome.
(4) The Omen is not all about gore, though, as there are several startling moments that are guaranteed to have you jump right out of your seat.
(5) The cinematography is also noteworthy, especially a particular pounding camera technique near the end of the movie.
(6) Then there is the cameo by Harvey Stephens, Damien from the 1976 version of The Omen, that is a nice little touch for fans of the original.

     Finally, the six negative elements:
(1) Davey-Fitzpatrick’s expressions may be eerie, but they are also rather comical. He is certain to evoke laugher, especially during his last moment on the screen.
(2) He is not the only funny thing about The Omen, though. There are several more laughs in store for audiences including certain plot points (a jackal!) and some of the acting.
(3) There are several slumps in the flick, too, that focus on the religious backstories. These can get quite boring and make the moviegoer impatient to see Damien.
(4) The Omen also suffers from predictability. The screenplay is pretty much a play-by-play of the original therefore anyone that has seen that won’t be in for any surprises.
(5) Speaking of which, better horror flicks offer more surprises and there are plenty out there. The Omen is the only movie from the horror genre in theatres right now but it is important to note that we’ve seen better this year – namely Hostel, Final Destination 3 and See No Evil.
(6) Then there is the fact that The Omen is basically just a means of making money. There is no doubt in my mind that The Omen would not have been remade if we were not approaching 06/06/06. The principle of it all may bother some folks looking for quality movies made for more than just commerce.

     So there you have it – my ode to all that is 666. This may not be my best written review but if you’ve read this far the marketing ploy of it definitely worked.

Nacho Libre Nada Mucho

     Nacho Libre is an example of what happens when a movie studio tries to recreate the success of an independent motion picture by snatching up its director. It looks promising – the director of Napoleon Dynamite (Jared Hess) and the writer of School Of Rock (Mike White) teamed up to make this flick – but it is a disappointing failure. Not only is it completely devoid of any laughs but it actually annoying.

     A lot of this comes as a result of Jack Black starring in the title role. You can always recognize a good actor by his or her ability to become someone else. Joaquin Phoenix became Johnny Cash in Walk The Line. Meryl Streep becomes Yolanda Johnson in A Prairie Home Companion. Adam Sandler became the spawn of the devil in Little Nicky. The only thing Jack Black becomes in Nacho Libre is a slightly more irritating Jack Black. Developing a Hispanic accent doesn’t exactly relieve an actor from doing the other work required to bring a character to life.

     Yet, blaming the entire catastrophe on Black would be completely unfair. The writing and plot of Nacho Libre are also at fault. As I’ve stated, Black stars as Nacho, a friar who has always dreamed of becoming a luchador (wrestler). Unfortunately for him, his religion prohibits one from even watching the wrestling matches let alone partaking in them. Nacho’s duties to an orphanage include preparing the meals and taking care of those who pass away but he aspires to make a difference for the children. This ambition leads him to find a worthy tag-team partner and participate in his very first wrestling match.

     Nacho and his partner are not very good, though. Even after much training, the duo is easily defeated in the ring. However, the audience likes them and so they receive a cash reward just for trying. Nacho uses the money to buy the children a decent meal for once. The leftover cash is used to supply he and his partner with costumes for their next match. They lose time and time again and begin making enough money to enjoy a taste of the good life (which apparently includes corn on a stick). On the other hand, since they always lose they receive no respect therefore Nacho hatches a plan to fight the greatest luchador of all… Ramon.

     The music in the flick is unique and there are a few things that remind us of what made Napoleon Dynamite a hit (unusual items like that corn on a stick, a date over toast and a very peculiar motorcycle). Still, the atmosphere of a movie does not add up to much when the story stinks, the screenplay lacks funny jokes and the leading man is a joke himself. No matter how much you liked or disliked Napoleon Dynamite, there is just no way you’ll want to sit through this terrible feature film. Even kids, which Nacho Libre is aimed toward (it’s a Nickelodeon motion picture), will be utterly bored with this material.

     Ultimately, Nacho Libre is a one-joke flick. This guy with a heart of gold doesn’t have the brains or brawn to make it in the luchador world. Watching him get pummeled over and over can hardly be considered entertainment. You probably won’t laugh at all while watching Nacho Libre and you likely won’t even smile more than a few times. Even a crippled attempt at a romantic subplot between Nacho and a beautiful nun can’t salvage this train wreck.

     If your friends ask you to go see Nacho Libre with them, it’s best just to say adios.

Get Your Kicks With Cars

     Some folks might argue that the best scenes of the new computer animated Disney/Pixar collaboration Cars are the ones that take place on the racetrack. While it is true that these scenes are stunning and it would make sense that they are the highlight of a movie with this title, my favorite scenes are those that take place in Radiator Springs. They slow the movie down so that you can enjoy the landscape – a detail that is the key ingredient to Cars’s fuel mixture.

     Just as Finding Nemo made moviegoers think they were underwater, Cars makes them think there is such a town as Radiator Springs which is somewhat of a throwback to Mayberry. In reality, there are no towns like that anymore. Even the smallest towns are becoming poisoned by large developers and the ones that are being left alone so far are not populated by the optimistic group of characters from this flick. Towns like Radiator Springs simply cannot survive in our world (I would know… I live in one).

     Yet, that is kind of the point of the whole movie. Owen Wilson provides the voice of Lightning McQueen, a racecar that has had a stellar first season. He is on the verge of winning the Piston Cup but has one more hurdle to jump – a tiebreaker race against two other cars. Lightning is full of himself, though, and he doesn’t even thing he needs a pit crew. On his way to the big race, something goes awry on the highway and he ends up on the wrong road – Route 66. Soon, Lightning becomes completely lost. When he runs from the law and demolishes a road, Lightning lands in a heap of trouble.

     Now, Lightning is in Radiator Springs, a small town located off Route 66 and populated by a small handful of hopeful cars. He is ordered the road that he destroyed before leaving the town but he thinks he is too good for the job. After a few unsuccessful attempts to escape, Lightning realizes the only way out is to fix the road. Meanwhile, he begins to get to know the townsfolk including the kindhearted Sally Carrera, a Porsche voiced by Bonnie Hunt, and the fun-loving Mater, a tow truck voiced by Larry The Cable Guy. Lightning couldn’t be more out of place until he learns the secret about Doc Hudson, a 1951 Hudson Hornet voiced by Paul Newman, and then it seems Lightning’s detour is exactly what the mechanic ordered.

     Cars is filled with the charming characters that we’ve come to expect from Disney and the spectacular animation that we’ve come to expect from Pixar. It is an unbelievable achievement in filmmaking and one of the must-see movies of the summer. Still, the story, which isn’t as transcendent as some of Disney/Pixar’s previous motion pictures, isn’t nearly as impressive as the film’s other elements. That, combined with the unnecessarily long running time, pulls Cars just below Finding Nemo and Toy Story. Nevertheless, there is no shame in that. When the bar is set high, it is difficult to rise to the occasion.

     As I’ve said, the characters of Cars are delightful and it is easy to fall in love with each of them. They are a memorable bunch that offers plenty of laughs and a whole lot of fun. However, the real star of Cars and the thing that director John Lasseter should be proudest of is Radiator Springs. The town takes on a life of its own, especially in the later scenes that feature everything from waterfalls to neon lights. The fictional town feels more real than cities like Chicago and New York do in live-action flicks. People of all ages would be able to map out the buildings of the town since the gorgeous little locale becomes imbedded into moviegoer’s minds. It’s just that amazing.

     Then again, so is all of Cars. It is an exciting movie that is not afraid to slow things down. Places like Radiator Springs may not exist anymore but it is nice to believe that they do. If it takes slapping faces on a few cars to materialize that belief, I’m willing to shift into cruise control and enjoy the drive.

A Prairie Home Companion Therapeutic, Sensational

     A Prairie Home Companion is old fashioned. Its plot doesn’t have any rules, continuous folk music is playing in the background (and, in many cases, foreground) and the only way to enjoy it is to fully submerge yourself in the world the movie creates. For those very same reasons, A Prairie Home Companion is a movie that you can (and will want to) watch over and over again. In many ways, the movie is therapeutic – the perfect remedy to every infirmity. It’s also the best movie of the year so far.

     A Prairie Home Companion is based on the radio program of the same name created by Garrison Keillor. Keillor also stars in the film along with several A-list celebrities like Meryl Streep, Woody Harrelson, Lily Tomlin, Kevin Kline, Lindsay Lohan and John C. Reilly. The movie takes place during the fictional final episode of the radio program and focuses on the events that occur behind the scenes and the relationships between the stars and staff of the show. The program is coming to an end, in the film, at the hand of the Axe Man, played by Tommy Lee Jones.

     The rumor of the show’s end slowly echoes through those involved with the show during the live broadcast, which is performed in front of a studio audience. Still, the show must go on so everyone performs as usual, giving their most heartfelt (and sometimes controversial) performances to date. The only person that appears impervious to the news is Keillor, who asserts, “Every show is your last show. That’s my philosophy.” Meanwhile, a mysterious woman played by Virginia Madsen shows up on the set and begins affecting each of the stars and staff members.

     It doesn’t take long for A Prairie Home Companion to affect everyone in the audience. It is a sensational cinematic masterpiece that will have you in tears one moment and laughing out loud the next. Being a fan of the radio program is not a requirement to appreciate the movie. You need not have even heard of the show to become instantly engulfed by the high entertainment value. The motion picture may attract an generally older audience, but moviegoers of all ages that are willing to completely give in to a movie are guaranteed to fall in love with A Prairie Home Companion.

     The most infectious quality of the flick is the music. The folksy sounds of Red River Valley and Frankie and Johnny will stay with you for a long time after leaving the theatre. However, the most memorable tune is definitely Bad Jokes, which is basically a collection of corny stories sung by Harrelson and Reilly. It is impossible not to yearn for the soundtrack to listen to this wonderful blend of songs that are sure to cheer anyone up.

     All of the stars of A Prairie Home Companion are truly talented but it is Streep who gives the most genuine performance. Her character can hardly be considered glamorous (in fact, she’s a bit ragged), yet Streep is as beautiful as ever. Her gossip with Tomlin’s character seems absurd at first but once you allow the dialogue to wash over you it is absolutely brilliant. At least some of the credit belongs to director Robert Altman, though, who keeps the movie undulating between characters and musical numbers without ever allowing the flick to become dull or outlandish.

     A Prairie Home Companion is unlike any other movie you’ll see this year. It is something you won’t ever forget and won’t want to, either. This is the feel-good movie of 2006. No matter what you’re in the mood for, the very magically uplifting A Prairie Home Companion will keep you company, touch your heart and send music, comedy and romance through your soul.

Keeping Up With The Steins Keeps It Bland

     Keeping Up With The Steins can be categorized as an independent feature film. In most cases, such flicks open to limited theatrical releases and can only be found at one or two venues per big-market city. Down In The Valley and Hard Candy are two recent art-house flicks that are worth every effort made to seek out and see them. They are special enough that, even on the longest drive back home, the moviegoer feels confident that they made the right decision to gamble their time. That feeling cannot be applied to Keeping Up With The Steins, which is about as special as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

     Don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. They’re there when you need them and they’ll get you through your hunger phase. However, like Keeping Up With The Steins, they are kind of ordinary. Keeping Up With The Steins is not a movie you can hate, by any means. It never offends you, it will keep you from feeling blue and it never becomes too complicated to follow. Yet, that is what is wrong with it – the movie never makes use of its art-house genre. It is completely flavorless!

     In fact, Keeping Up With The Steins feels like an insipid rip-off of Malcolm In The Middle or Everybody Hates Chris destined to debut on public television. It has a sitcom-like style to it complete with lazy fade out / fade in scene breaks just perfect for the insertion of commercials. Even the various tribulations the main character goes through (nearly getting caught drinking alcohol with his pals, being afraid to talk to his narcissistic female classmate, etc.) are commonly repeated situations on television programs. If this is all the flick has to offer, why not just stay home and channel surf?

     Keeping Up With The Steins stars Daryl Sabara of the Spy Kids trilogy as Benjamin Fiedler, a Jewish teenager on the edge of adulthood. Benjamin is about to celebrate his bar mitzvah but he doesn’t have a clue what any of it means. He is having a terrible time memorizing his speech and he doesn’t even know what he wants the theme of his party to be. To add to his troubles, his father Adam, played by Jeremy Piven, is constantly trying to outperform their friends the Steins. Arnie Stein, played by Larry Miller, just threw his son Zachary a Titanic themed bar mitzvah and so Arnie feels pressure to do something extravagant for Benjamin’s bar mitzvah.

     All of this gets to be too much for Benjamin to handle so he sends his distant grandfather Irwin, played by Garry Marshall, an invitation to his Bar Mitzvah two weeks early as a distraction. When Irwin shows up at the Fiedler’s door with his girlfriend Sandy, played by Darl Hannah, Arnie recalls the anguish of watching his father abandon he and his mother Rose, played by Doris Roberts. Despite Rose’s forgiveness of Irwin, Arnie still holds a grudge and the two of them don’t get along at all. Meanwhile, Benjamin develops a bond with Irwin. As Benjamin’s bar mitzvah draws nearer, his father and grandfather act like children and he himself isn’t any closer to adulthood.

     The cultural theme evokes memories of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, another independent flick with sitcom qualities. The difference between the two is that My Big Fat Greek Wedding was unique while everything about Keeping Up With The Steins screams bland. Still, it is impossible to hate the movie because it is so darn likeable. It delivers entertainment, just not the same level of excellence we’ve come to expect from other limited releases.

     The question remains: Why go out of your way for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when you can have Basilicata pasta salad? The only way that you won’t be wasting your time seeing Keeping Up With The Steins at your local art-house venue is if you have already seen Down In The Valley, Hard Candy and the many other independent feature films that dare to travel outside the box.

Controversial Hard Candy Psychologically Grisly

     Given the subject matter, it is tempting to say, "Stop. Don’t do that to yourself," to anyone thinking about seeing Hard Candy. After all, the motion picture features a few scenes that are bound to make just about any male squirm uncontrollably. Yet, the basic construction of the independent movie is dialogue. Without a screenplay filled with effectively engaging dialogue, Hard Candy would be nothing more than a controversial horror flick. Instead, it works on several different tiers of art and entertainment.

     Hard Candy begins with an instant messaging conversation on a computer between Thonggrrrrrl14 and Lensman319. Soon, we meet these two main characters (actually, aside from a few very brief appearances by minor characters, these are the only two characters): Jeff, a 32-year-old photographer played by Patrick Wilson and Hayley, a 14-year-old honor student played by Ellen Page. Jeff and Hayley have been getting to know each other via the Internet and now they are finally meeting in person at a diner. Jeff mentions a particular song that he has by one of Hayley’s favorite musical artists and she agrees to accompany him to his apartment to copy the song.

     Once at the apartment, Hayley takes notice of Jeff’s walls which are decorated with samples of his work – photographs of half-naked, underage girls. Jeff mixes screwdrivers for the two of them but Hayley refuses, referencing, "They teach us in school that at a man’s house we should never drink anything we haven’t mixed ourselves." If Jeff were an intelligent man, he would take similar advice but, instead, Jeff allows Hayley to mix the drinks. Soon, Jeff collapses to the floor and loses consciousness. When Jeff comes to, he is tied to a chair and a sinister Hayley stands before him. The possible pedophile finds himself at the mercy of what would have been his next victim.

     The movie makes use of several metaphors that represent the complicated relationship between predator and prey. For example, when Jeff first meets Hayley, she is wearing a hooded red sweatshirt similar to that of Red Riding Hood. Red… er… Hayley meets the wolf, Jeff, and instead of falling for his disguise as a charming, well-behaved gentleman, she turns the tables on him before he can do her any harm. The only thing more disturbing than a 32-year-old man preying on a 14-year-old girl is the idea of said girl hunting said man. It is made rather clear that the wolf was really Hayley all along.

     The verity that Hard Candy is really just an extended dialogue between two people may be a drawback for some moviegoers, but the film couldn’t be any more compelling because of it. Rather than being mere characters, Jeff and Hayley are symbols and their discourse represents the complex nature of their affiliation. The power constantly changes hands throughout the running time (which, by the way, is a bit longer than it needs to be – the only true weakness of the flick) and it can be successfully argued that there is no concrete villain or hero here.

     In fact, of the many questions Hard Candy leaves unanswered, the extent of both of the characters’ sins is the vaguest. We don’t know who either of these people really are or what they are ultimately capable of due to certain events which I believe are best discovered by the individual moviegoer. Allegations are made but the film ends with very few revelations. Hence, the cause is not nearly as significant as the effect in Hard Candy. A detail that cannot be disputed, though, is the way in which Hard Candy is psychologically grisly.

     Yes, the temptation of warning folks about Hard Candy is overwhelming. "Stop. Don’t do that to yourself." Then again, those that heed said advice would be missing one of the best movies of 2006.

The Break-Up Too Ugly To Watch

     Breaking up is hard enough to do when you are one of the parties involved. Why would anyone desire to watch another couple in the process of such a painful affair? Well, the folks behind The Break-Up are banking on the curiosity factor to pull moviegoers to the new comedy. While it begins as a fresh take on the traditional romantic comedy, The Break-Up eventually feels more like a horror movie – complete with vindictive acts and more uncomfortable scenes than most people can stomach.

     We’ve seen countless romantic comedies that follow the same old blueprint and it was about time someone did something out of the ordinary. The Break-Up is not the least bit romantic and that is perfectly okay. The problems arise when pessimism turns into sadism. This transformation eradicates the comedy portion from the genre and The Break-Up changes into something completely different.

     Different and ugly.

     The movie, which stars Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston as Gary and Brooke, respectively, opens with the two meeting at a baseball game. Somehow, Brooke falls for Gary’s obnoxious behavior and the flick speeds past their dating phase. Now, Gary and Brooke live together in beautiful condo in Chicago. The story narrows in on the fight that started it all (or ended it all, depending how you look at it). Gary arrives home from his job as a tour guide and hopes to relax while watching the game. Brooke becomes irate, though, when she discovers he brought home nine fewer lemons than she requested.

     Ultimately, the lemon debate brings out sour feelings and Brooke calls the relationship off. Brooke believes that this fight will force Gary to realize how to be a better boyfriend but she couldn’t be more wrong. Spiteful emotions rise within both of them and it appears as though their break up is final, although neither of them wants to give up the condo. They try living with each other (separate rooms being their individual domains, of course) but plots to get one another jealous and alienate the other from their common flock of friends prove too much for either of them to handle.

     Their spats were also too much for me to handle. At first, their squabbles feel like some maniacal game. It is kind of fun to see Vaughn and Aniston deal out the verbal punches… while it is still just an amusing competition. In due course, their break up becomes more serious and their actions cross over into a scary territory where both of them endeavor to emotionally harm the other one. It soon becomes apparent that Gary and Brooke are fairly mean-spirited human beings incapable of any compassion until they see the destruction that each of them has caused. Therefore, the game becomes a death-match and, theoretically, those aren’t that funny.

     What is funny in The Break-Up is Vaughn, who is the only upside to the entire flick. Unlike the bland Aniston who, by the way, offers absolutely nothing exceptional to the role of Brooke, Vaughn is a laugh riot. His thunderstruck facial expressions and speedy speech skills keep the movie rolling throughout the first act. This movie was Vaughn’s idea so it would be safe to assume that without him The Break-Up wouldn’t even exist. That isn’t that harsh of an alternative, but it is important to document that if there is one reason to see this motion picture, Vaughn’s your man.

     But that reason is simply not enough for me to recommend the flick which literally gave me a headache. There are too many arguments that we face in our own lives and there is an adequate amount of cruelty in the real world to have any interest in watching these two people duke it out. As the first third of the movie shows, when done right – with comedy – breaking up can be a fun subject. However, when comedy plays second fiddle to brutality, breaking up can be resounding torture.

Earth-Shattering X-Men: The Last Stand Doesn't Disappoint

     With a change of director, X-Men: The Last Stand flows smoothly into alignment with its two predecessors without skipping a beat. It would have been all too easy for the installment to crumble beneath the potentially awkward adjustment but the handoff from Bryan Singer to Brett Ratner is virtually unnoticeable. Ratner made an exciting summer blockbuster that will delight fans of the franchise without alienating newcomers.

     There must be newcomers to the X-Men ‘verse, too, since the threequel opened to an unprecedented $120 million Memorial Day Weekend box office. That number awards X-Men: The Last Stand with having the fourth highest grossing opening weekend ever. While I am not sure whether the movie truly deserves such a title, I will say that it is an explosive thrill ride that does not disappoint. There are a number of shocking moments in the flick that make for one earth-shattering event.

     I certainly won’t give away any of the surprises, but it is important to note what a tremulous world on which the X-Men live. The rules are always changing – something that kind of spoils the fun of anything momentous happening. Case in point: Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) died in X2: X-Men United, yet she returns in X-Men: The Last Stand to play an integral role. This was not exactly unexpected and, from the result, it wasn’t a bad idea, but it does give the series an unsavory soap opera trait.

     I’ve never seen a soap opera have so much action and special effects, though. The movie picks up where the last one left off – Cyclops (James Marsden) is still mourning the death of Jean. Jean mysteriously returns, but Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) warns his students of her split identity. He notes that Jean is the most powerful mutant of all and, if used for the wrong purposes, her powers could be very dangerous.

     Meanwhile, the government announces a cure for the mutant gene. This cure is met with much opposition, especially from Magneto (Sir Ian McKellen) and the rest of the Brotherhood. Magneto plans on destroying the source of the cure which happens to be a young boy nicknamed Leech. The X-Men prefer to deal with things in a far less violent manner. This leads up to a battle unlike any other between the Brotherhood and the X-Men.

     Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Storm (Halle Berry) are front and center in X-Men: The Last Stand but a few new faces are introduced as well. Kelsey Grammer fills the blue void where Nightcrawler once was as Beast and hardcore fans will definitely recognize Juggernaut and Shadowcat. There is a downside to establishing new mutants, though. As the cast of characters grows, the spotlight is aimed in too many directions – sometimes shining on the lackluster new characters like Angel (Ben Foster) instead of offering enough time to old favorites like Rogue (Anna Paquin).

     Fortunately, the action makes up for the movie’s few weaknesses. There is never a dull moment and, even with mutant casualties, the story moves full steam ahead. The colossal final fight sequence makes use of all of the mutants’ powers making for some electrifying entertainment. The special effects are outstanding throughout the whole feature and the characters are worth your investment of both time and interest. The X-Men franchise continues to be an absolute blast for audiences and darn decent cinema as well.

     While X-Men: The Last Stand is being billed as the final chapter of the X-Men trilogy, there never really were any plans of killing the franchise. Spin-off flicks are in the works for both Wolverine and Magneto and X-Men: The Last Stand undoubtedly leaves the door wide open for another sequel (see the remarkable final shot and stay for the coda – that hidden scene after the end credits). Given the movie’s massive leap out of the gates, I am sure FOX is more committed to a fourth installment than ever.

Inspirational Akeelah & The Bee A "Happy Movie"

     It is possible for one to stumble into a movie theatre showing Akeelah & The Bee, eavesdrop on the audience and vocalize their conclusion that "this is a happy movie." Their assessment couldn’t be more correct. It is, without a doubt, the most inspirational motion picture of the year. Who could have predicted that that label would be applied to a fictional flick about the Scripps National Spelling Bee?

     Akeelah & The Bee is about much more than just a spelling bee, though. It features values that are the primary focus of many of our lives. Themes of the importance of friends and the impact of mentors blended with the story of an underdog overcoming the odds make for a moving piece of cinema. It mixes all of these very significant elements without ever once sounding preachy or cheesy.

     The movie tells it to us straight. Akeelah , a young woman played by Keke Palmer, lives in a neighborhood stricken by poverty and goes to a school suffering from decreased funding. Despite many of her classmates’ lack of enthusiasm for learning and her own absence from classes, Akeelah has a talent for spelling.

     Without studying her vocabulary lists, Akeelah always earns perfect grades on her spelling tests. This gift gets the attention of her teacher and the school’s principal who both believe Akeelah has a decent chance at the school spelling bee. After much convincing, Akeelah participates in the school spelling bee and wins. However, her classmates make fun of her and Akeelah runs from the room.

     UCLA professor Dr. Larabee, played by Lawrence Fishburne, agrees to coach the girl, noting that she has a lot of potential but also has a few areas to work on if she wants to succeed at the higher level spelling bees. Akeelah & The Bee follows Akeelah’s journey from insecurity to confidence and how the right people in her life make all the difference in the world.

     Palmer is absolutely great as Akeelah. She has what it takes to that central connection to the audience, causing everyone to cheer for her. Fishburne is fantastic as well, revealing a not-too-often-seen side of himself as Akeelah’s mentor. Even the minor characters play essential roles, though, as we watch the entire community root for the underdog.

     At times, Akeelah & The Bee has an acute tendency to dip in and out of boredom. The flick never becomes uninteresting but these short scenes of tedium make the movie feel a little lengthy. Of course, this is an inexpensive price to pay to get to certain uplifting moments that depend on these moderately dull scenes to work efficiently.

     A second minor flaw is the movie’s predictable ending. Eventually, the suspense is pretty much eliminated as a result of what some of the characters say about the spelling bee. However, the themes are injected into the finale in a manner that is purely astonishing. It is the perfect way to bring audiences to their feet.

     Which is exactly what this feature film will make you do. I recommend that moviegoers of all ages buy a ticket to Akeelah & The Bee. It is a Popcorn Guarantee that nobody will be able to leave the theatre without wet eyes (the good kind) and an enormous smile. My reasoning is simple – Akeelah & The Bee is a happy movie.