Synopsis

I must be crazy, but I kinda liked Hulk! Although, this is coming from the kid who faithfully watched the old CBS show and loved every damn minute of it. When Universal decided they were going to make a big-screen adaptation, with a computer created green machine, so be it. I fell for the trailers, and everything else. So when it came out to theaters, it seemed like the consensus result was: �Blah!� in large part to said CG leading man/monster. But at the end of the day, it doesn�t seem like he takes up much of the movie, and the action scenes aren�t hurt by his presence, some of them look very good. Ang Lee (of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon lore) took the $100+ million production and made it a watchable film. Some scenes have comic-book paneling to them, either in a new scene altogether or a different angle of the same scene. Despite what some have said about this, I didn�t think it was so bad, and since it was done on mostly the action, they escape your eye quite a bit.

Well, it’s that festive time of the year, and what could be more appropriate than the remake of Black Christmas hitting the theatres on December 25? Now, I haven’t seen this film, of course, but the advance word is not encouraging. Head on over to www.dreadcentral.com and you’ll see that it seems that directors Glen Morgan and James Wong know how to do comedic horror (Final Destination), but have no idea how to play things straight. Sounds like we have another fine mess on our hands. But the remake has ...ad a good result in the re-release on DVD of the 1974 original. While the new version has lost some of the features of the previous release, it is now in 5.1. Whatever the home video version one watches, however, this is a terrific film, and perfectly perverse counter-programming.

Director Bob Clark has had an extremely eclectic career. Anyone who manages to have both Porky’s and the Sherlock-Holmes-versus-Jack-the-Ripper effort Murder by Decree on their resume isn’t in any danger of being stuck in a rut. But he also must be one of the few directors to have made not one but TWO significant Christmas movies: Black Christmas and A Christmas Story. Different enough for ya?

Everyone in the world knows about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. With films hitting the big screen in 2006, I guess the studios thought time enough had gone by to start making movies on the tragedy. World Trade Center is based on the attacks on the World Trade Center, as obvious by its name, but makes mention of the other attacks of the day. I can�t comment on the realism of the movie pertaining to the individuals depicted in the film (John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno) but they were involved with the production of the film, and since film is based on their accounts of the day I could imagine it�s very realistic. There are a few factual inaccuracies regarding some of the events of the day, but nothing major.

World Trade Center opens on the morning of September 11, 2001 when everyone was going about his or her life without any idea of the tragedy that was about to strike. You get a glimpse into the lives of John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Pena) two Port Authority police officers and family men as they leave for work. The two begin their day as usual patrolling Lower Manhattan until there is a loud thump similar to that of an earthquake. The officers rally back at their police station and together head to the site of the World Trade Center to help evacuate people. Along the way they get news of the second tower being hit, and debate whether or not that could have even happened. When they arrive they are asked to volunteer to enter 5 World Trade Center (a building part of the 7 buildings that made up the World Trade Center) and help people escape.

In case Rain Man didn’t give you your fill of films about autistic characters, Ron Bass, writer of Rain Man, has decided to give us an unnecessary sequel. OK, this isn’t really a sequel, but it might as well be. Honestly, this film has everything Rain Man had except for a good scripts, solid performances, and oh yeah, Dustin Hoffman. Still, this romantic nonsense utilizes the same theme. Unfortunately autism here is reduced at times to stereotyping that appears grossly unfair to the millions of people who suffer from the disability and their loved ones. Some of the actors appear to be having a blast with their portrayals. They should be ashamed of the glee they derive from these “crazy” routines. They are neither entertaining nor fair. I’m sure none of this was the intent of the filmmakers, but it is insulting just the same. This is a huge part of the reason this film never has or never will capture the critical acclaim of Rain Man. In fairness, the leads Josh Hartnett and Redhe Mitchell take the roles more seriously than the pathetic supporting cast. There isn’t enough compelling for any of this to work on anything more than an emotional level.

Guts may make a good first impression, but this film has neither guts nor a good impression. The film pretends to have incredible bravado, but the mask of cowardice prevails. Except for the romantic interactions of the leads, we are never allowed too far beneath the surface of any of these complex individuals. Because of this fatal flaw, the romantic quirkiness loses all of its charm. An over-explanation of who these people are is a not so subtle attempt to remind us these folks suffer from autism. Show me, don’t tell me, is what my writing teachers have always said. Bass might benefit from a refresher course. Quirkiness like this is much more interesting the less it is explained. Allow these limitations to be part of the character without so many “remember we have autism” lines. The title is very confusing until you get to a pivotal Halloween party. Life is far too accelerated to be appreciated here. Issues arise from out of nowhere and are just as quickly resolved or simply forgotten. Wherever this tale is going, it missed a connection somewhere up the line. Save your nickels and watch Rain Man again. You’ll thank me for it.

Don't pay any attention to the description on the back of DVD case. Described as "hilarious", this film is anything but. While it may have a few funny moments, we're talking about a serious drama. The Last Kiss is a cautionary tale about temptation. It presents the circumstances and life choices of 30-year-olds in an intense, honest way, which makes the film both completely engrossing as well as difficult to watch.

The story centres around Michael (Zach Braff), a 29-year-old architect, and his girlfriend of three years, Jenna (Jacinda Barrett). Jenna is newly pregnant, and Michael is scared. Michael's best friend, Chris (Casey Affleck), is having a rough time with his own wife and their baby. Another friend has recently split from a long relationship. Jenna's folks, Anna and Stephen (Blythe Danner and Tom Wilkinson), are also on the brink of a breakup.

What we have here are three films from Hollywood’s days before the Production Code kicked in, which show just how much the envelope was being pushed when it came to sexual subject matters. The recurring theme here is sex as a commodity, whether the situations beinig dealt with involve outright prostitution or not.

Outright prostitution is very much the issue in Waterloo Bridge (1931), director James Whale’s effort just prior to making Frankenstein. Mae Clarke (who would play Elizabeth in Frankenstein) is an out-of-work chorus girl during WWI, not a prostitute trolling for men on the titular bridge. During an air raid she runs into a young private from a good family (Kent Douglass). He falls in love with her, and she with him, and so she tries to push him away. This is a romance that is anything but glamorous, despite some scenes in the upper class household (with a young Bette Davis as Douglass’ sister), and the resolution is brutally downbeat.

Wii Straps a breaking, XBOX 360 Compatibility a adding, and a Ho Ho Ho a Packing - Welcome to the column that only gives and doesn't receive a darn thing known as Dare to Play the Game.

Director Ron Howard is quite the puzzling man. He surely knows how to direct a fine film like A Beautiful Mind or even The Da Vinci Code, but still knows how to give us that random piece of crap. When word came that Howard was going to adapt Dr. Seuss� timeless classic How The Grinch Stole Christmas, I immediately questioned why? After all wasn�t the TNT special that airs oh 40-50 times a year good enough? I guess not for Hollywood as the 2000 remake made some serious bank with Jim Carrey portraying the lead character. The only unfortunate part here is that the film is absolutely horrendous.

Obviously being billed as a kid�s movie, this 2000 remake attempts (key word attempts) to reach the level that the TNT classic has by telling us the basic story. The first major problem is that the original 26-minute version that honestly everyone has probably seen is stretched out over the course of some 90 minutes. You must be asking yourself how did Howard and company manage to do this? Well first they decided to cast normal great actor Jim Carrey in the leading role. The Grinch is a boring, old, foogie who hates Christmas. We never learn why he hates Christmas (even though in the cartoon version we can assume it may be because of the togetherness of the season). In this version, Howard decided to just assume we could figure this one out. Even though the Grinch does hate Christmas, I must admit that Carrey does what he can with the material at hand. He�s able to make the film slightly (SLIGHTLY!) entertaining with his interesting humor and quirky smiles.

A twisted twist on the zombie genre. Dellamorte (Everett) is a watchman of sorts over a small village cemetery. The problem is not so much with folks breaking in as with the dead breaking out. In this neck of the woods the dead arise within 7 days of their death. A simple shot in the head solves the rather pesky problem; however, it requires a certain amount of vigilance. Now so far none of this is terribly original at all. Things begin to change when Dellamorte becomes infatuated with a mourning widow. Their escapades at her husband’s grave literally wake the dead. Her deceased hubby’s attack leaves her apparently dead, and of course needing to be placed in a more permanent position by Dellamorte and his revolver. That might be that, as they say. It appears you can’t keep a good gal down, and the woman begins to reappear in many guises throughout the film. Here things get quite confusing, and it’s hard to determine how much of this is actually taking place. The film’s climax further complicates the question.

The film’s original title is Dellamorte Dellamore. If you are at all squeamish about in your face necrophilia, this one will make you quite antsy. Apparently you can really have a blast if you can keep your head about you. Francois Hadji – Lazaro steals the show in his role of Gnaghi, the Curley Howard-like mute but faithful sidekick with a head for romance. Anna Falchi plays the object of desire with skills more physical than not. The film utilizes a narrative style which never really captures the action. Perhaps the translation from Italian leaves holes not originally intended. While the film is originally an Italian film, many of the actors are obviously talking in English. It isn’t hard to conceive that Cemetery Man might have been some inspiration for Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride. Many of the visuals are starkly familiar. The theme is certainly rather similar. The zombie effects themselves are not terribly original, but many of the images are fresh takes on an old theme. With the help of clever set design, the atmosphere of the film is accomplished throughout. The film manages to be a black comedy while still satisfying the horror fan as well.

It started as “the show about nothing”, but we really know better. While some say it’s much ado about nothing, they’ve missed the point, haven’t they. Ask some folks, and they’ve got nothing to say. Well. If you can’t say something nice…

Jerry Seinfeld did what so many comics have failed to do well. It seems just about every stand-up out there thinks the stuff will work on television. Some of it does. Those that got the chance owe much to the success of Seinfeld. Like few sit-coms before it, the series was the hot topic at work water coolers. If you can measure a show by its contributions to the pop culture, then Seinfeld must be one of the best. Terms like “Yada Yada Yada”, “No soup for you”, and “Not that there’s anything wrong with that” have invaded the lexicon and endured. What made this show work, however, was no mystery at all. It was a smart cast put in situations that were character chemistry magic. So many shows attempt to create bizarre complicated scenarios, when it turns out the mundane is funny after all. What makes these guys funny isn’t the situations they are placed in, but their reactions to them. This show proved you can take characters like this and put them anywhere and they’ll be funny.