Reviews

This is really a spectacular film. I know I'm going to have to see it at least once more, because there's so much stuff going on that it's impossible to give Stay the attention in deserves in one viewing.

First and foremost, although I won't give away the plot here, I'll say that the movie (thankfully) does not rely on a surprise ending for the totality of its impact. In fact, if you're paying attention, you can pretty much figure out (mostly) what the situation is before you get too far into the movie. Unlike some of the worst examples of this genre (i.e. The Sixth Sense), Stay is not a film that "hides the ball," but instead presents you with characters and a storyline, and asks you to draw your own conclusions.

That said, there isn't an obvious solution to the movie. While you may be able to explain the film after viewing it (which is trickier that it will seem at first), you may realize that the real brilliance of this film is in the levels of its narrative. At its core, it is a basic psychological thriller. Simultaneously, and perhaps subconsciously, it also meditates on weighty issues of reality and identity- consider what the imperative "Stay" means to different characters at different points in the film, and it's almost like you're watching an entirely different movie than you originally thought.

Finally, the visuals in this movie provide their own context and narrative regarding the fragile nature of human memory and perception. This is the best looking movie I've seen in a long time, and the fact that it's combined with such a great story and cast makes this a rare treat.

If there is a weak link here, it's probably Gosling, who I think missed some opportunities to really dig in with his character and creep us out. Still his acting is better than that of most of Hollywood's garbage these days.

Final verdict: if you want a smart and unsettling film that will spur a serious discussion, watch this. You won't be disappointed.

Tim Burton's Corpse Bride is by no means a bad movie- indeed, it is much better than most schlock these days- but it is part of a growing category of films with a very specific problem. It does not seem to have a specific audience in mind, or if it does, it is not approaching that audience in the proper way.

Most people will see this film because it is to all appearances the follow-up to The Nightmare Before Christmas. Visually, this is true- Corpse Bride looks and feels very similar to the older film, although computer animation makes this one look even better.

However, whereas The Nightmare Before Christmas maintained a jovial, family friendly theme and plot (complete with misunderstood heroes and dastardly villains), Corpse Bride gives us a quiet little story about three young adults who find themselves in an impossible moral situation. Promises are made which must be kept, and out of three people, one must inevitably end up heartbroken. The three central characters are all exceedingly likable- although one may believe Emily is to be the villain of the piece, she consistently demonstrates as much humanity as anyone.

Ultimately, the film is about one very difficult moral choice that has to be made by one of the characters. The choice is made and the movie ends, but unless you're paying really close attention, it's difficult to understand why the characters act as they do, and why the film has the ending that it does. While not giving anything away, I'll say that in this sense, the third act of the film presents a very mature dilemma that children (and many adults) are not going to appreciate.

Of course, the frustrating thing about this movie is that so much time is spent on song and dance numbers that the moral and romantic elements never really get fleshed out. As such the film (like Victor) is stuck between two worlds, and never really makes up its mind where it wants to be. On this point, then, it fails.

It's probably still worth watching, although Tim Burton has done much better in the past.

Okay. The game's up. Despite what you've seen on TV, The Exorcism of Emily Rose is not really a horror film. Approximately half of the film has elements of what are best described as horror, but the other half is mainly a legal drama with heavy theological and ethical implications. It's not really not a horror film any more than it's a film on legal ethics, a subject to which the film devotes almost as much time as demonic possession.

Make no mistake, though: this is a great film, and will be recognized and remembered in the way very few films are. Kurosawa's Rashomon was groundbreaking in its own moral and philosophical musings, and until now, the potential of that film has never been explored.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is the next logical step after Rashomon- that is, a film which explores the nature of truth and moral responsibility in the subjectivity of human experience through the blending and clash of two disparate movie genres: a horror film and a legal thriller. The Exorcism of Emily Rose, rather than being part of either of these genres, uses them to illustrate the absurdity of our search for truth (or in the case of a homicide, an explanation).

Whereas the characters at the end of Rashomon despaired that they would never know the truth of a murder, this film wisely suggests that perhaps, in the end, obtaining an explanation is not the point. It suggests that truth may in fact be something deeper and less tangible, which a hard-nosed insistence on the "facts" cannot hope to touch.

In year of one disgustingly bad film after another, this is the best by far.

*one minor spoiler* I just saw Land of the Dead, and I'm horrified. But it has nothing to do with zombies.

As a tremendous fan of the original trilogy, I was really looking forward to this film. Until this point the Dead films were intelligent horror, pitch-perfect social satire, and scathing critique all rolled into one.

Land of the Dead, however, is just a mess that was thrown together to cash in on the renewed interest in the genre. I honestly wish this film had never been made.

I knew I was going to have problems when not 20 minutes into the movie we have product placement- yes, ***product placement*** in a Romero film- as a character loads Pepsi Cola (tm) onto a truck to ship back to the other humans. Pepsi makes at least one more appearance front and center amid all the carnage, as do several brands of liquor and champagne (one of which, if I'm not mistaken, was Malibu (tm) Coconut Rum).

This alone is unacceptable. But it gets worse.

The story has no discernible direction, and ultimately flails while trying to make some scatterbrained points about homelessness, social class, and terrorism. Unlike its predecessors, Land of the Dead has no central theme or soul- it just knocks around 3 or 4 omnipresent social issues, trying to look important and meaningful between zombie battles.

The actual film itself is made up of scenes from Dawn and Day, both of which were far better movies. In fact, there's one scene (you'll know it when you see it) which appears to have been pulled directly from Dawn of the Dead.

The characters are flat, soulless caricatures: a hooker with a heart of gold, a working man who has been exploited by those in power, and (worst) Simon Baker, perhaps the blandest actor since Keanu Reeves, offering absolutely nothing other than the fact that he's a good-looking white boy that looks like he should be in charge. Shameful, Mr. Romero.

And the zombies. I never thought I would roll my eyes at a Romero zombie film, but here I did it numerous times. The character of Big Daddy (and the other Constant Zombies) is ridiculous in how he persists for the entire movie without getting his head blown off, despite numerous attempts by numerous characters. The fact that he lives through the film is not only statistically improbable. It's stupid, unnecessary, and insulting, not to mention antithetical to the spirit of the first three films.

Finally comes the unkindest cut of all- Romero abandons the long-time fans of the franchise. Rather than continue the story of the Dead films as he did with Dawn and Day, Romero sets this film in (approximately) modern day America, and the zombie attack has happened recently, within the characters' lifetimes (recently enough that the Pepsi (tm) in the films looks like the Pepsi (tm) you'd see at the grocery store today. Just in case you want to buy some after the movie.) Any fan of the originals will recall that the original zombie attacks took place from the late 60's into the 70's- meaning that the characters in this film, with a few exceptions, would not have been able to witness the first zombie attacks. Which would make sense, given the way the social structure in the film is so different from our own . . .

. . . except, there's the Pepsi (tm).

Shame on you, Mr. Romero.

I have a lot of sympathy for this film, and I really wanted to like it. Kudos to the writer/director for attempting to make a serious supernatural horror film in the tradition of the shining with spectacular visuals, an intriguing story, and a low body count. This is the sort of film that the Japanese are becoming very good at and American films need to begin emulating. Good casting choices, particularly in Olin and Paquin.

But . . . does it have to be so . . . incredibly . . . BORING? This movie is the filmic equivalent of a sleeping pill. The writer/director, in a misguided attempt to build suspense, keeps too much of the central plot away from the audience for too long while laying far too much exposition. Even if we are absolutely saving the supernatural fiasco for the finale, I would have liked to see more of a Jack Nicholson-style family breakdown originating from the father. (I never really felt threatened by Iain Glen, and I think that detracted from the experience).

The film also suffers from Blair Witch Syndrome, which is the commonly held misconception of "The less we tell you, the scarier it is." No no no. Horror is an intellectual exercise- if you give us nothing to work with in our heads, all we have is a bunch of gory images and loud noises. That's not scary; it's just jarring. The RULE is that you show and tell only what you NEED to, and nothing more.

Unfortunately, this film suffers and ultimately fails because it was made by people with no understanding that horror is ultimately an intellectual genre. Horror films require more careful crafting and attention to detail than perhaps any other genre. This film has some of that style, but not nearly enough to stop it from being a 100+ minute soporific.

***Update from the following evening***- okay, I'll just say that maybe I was too hard on this movie before. I actually did have nightmares as a result of this movie. For me that bumps it from a 6 to a 7, although I still maintain my original position that the pacing is abysmal.

*spoilers . . . you can't really discuss this series without spoilers*

Okay, let me start by saying I love David Lynch. I also love Twin Peaks, what it was aspiring to, and how often it met those aspirations.

Unfortunately, TV sets some pretty low standards. Despite the fact that Twin Peaks was a great TV show, it had *huge* problems.

The show starts as a murder mystery, and as such, introduces us to a gargantuan cast with colorful characters. Each character has his or her world view and a possible motive for having done the deed. This structure is typical for a murder mystery.

However, another typical feature of the murder mystery is that it has GOT to narrow down and start telling the story at this point. Round about episode 13 or 14 you'll start to realize that 70% of the characters and situations in the series are not germane to the story Lynch was originally trying to tell. Worse, some of them turn like sour milk and take on gruesome lives of their own. Frankly put, I don't *care* if the orphan is a prototype problem child, I don't care *care* that the idiot millionaire is stuck in some stupid Civil War reenactment, and I *certainly* don't care what's going on with the frigging Packard saw mill and the whole real estate development business (which incidentally didn't even make sense from day one, except as a possible murder motive).

Simply put, this series has too much dead weight. The love stories are interesting, but often irrelevant (e.g., Ed and Norma). The ones that are relevant (e.g., Donna and James) suffer because they have to compete for time with all of these absurd subplots.

This series is about the death of Laura Palmer, the discovery of her killer, the implications of that discovery, and the fallout on the people surrounding these events (Cooper, Donna, James, Windom Earle, Annie, etc. etc.). The shows that managed to do this make some of the best TV I've ever seen; "Lonely Souls" is one of the best episodes I've ever seen of a TV show ever. Unfortunately, three episodes later I was wondering what happened, and why my show had become such complete garbage. Then it picked up again as the real plot started moving.

The reason this show got canceled and X-Files was on for eight years was that X-Files actually had some focus and a clear idea of the story it wanted to tell. It's a shame that this couldn't have continued- I really wanted to know what happened with the Black Lodge and the White Lodge . . .

Watch it and enjoy it. Prepared to get VERY bored for the next few episodes after 16.

I'm feeling generous today. M. Night Shyamalan gets a 3/10 from me because this movie had some decent visuals and a neat beginning concept. Everything- EVERYTHING- else about this movie is terrible.

The story has been beaten to death so many times elsewhere that for me to do it yet again here would just be cruelty. Suffice to it say that the plot of this film is neither suspenseful nor well-written. Unlike M. Night's earlier transgressions, this one is almost devoid of ALL interesting moments including the patented M. Night Shyamalan Cheap Sound Effects Scare (tm). As I sat there for what seemed like eternity, I was practically bored to tears on several occasions.

The acting. The acting. The acting. I have the idea that M. Night thinks it's funny to collect a superb cast and then give them all a terrible script and worse stage direction so that everybody not only turns in the worst performance of their careers, but sound like they are rehearsing a high school play. I honestly thought for the first half of the movie, "No, surely the acting cannot be *this* bad by default. He must be doing it on purpose." However, the jilted line delivery, wooden acting, and transparent facades of emotion from such cinematic greats as Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt (and promising newcomers such as Bryce Dallas Howard) continued unabated throughout the entire film. This is the most painful part of the film, and perhaps M. Night's worst offense yet to American cinema.

Because the acting is so terrible, any emotional effect whatsoever that would have been present in the movie is drained. I simply didn't care whether anyone lived or died, and frankly thought the "creatures" were the most interesting thing to look at (if one can properly say that- I won't spoil it here, but suffice it to say that if you go to this movie expecting an in depth exploration of the supernatural, you are going to be angry.)

M. Night's latest trend is to include at least one thing in his movie so idiotic that he completely insults even the most basic audience member's intelligence. Here, he manages to offend through the character of Ivy (to say she was played ineptly by Howard is to be luxuriously kind to both Howard and Shyamalan), who although blind, manages to run though field, woods, and houses without much trouble, can instantly locate any item she needs, looks people in the eyes when talking to them, and can "see colors" despite he blindness. In some scenes, Howard even appear to have forgotten that her character is blind.

Shyamalan: Are you serious? Am I actually to believe that this was a serious attempt at an adult film (let alone a thriller?) after Signs, I simply called you a bad film maker. Now, I'm beginning to wonder whether you might actually be mildly retarded. I hope you're not serious.

This is a good movie. It may even be better than the original, which incidentally I liked very much. (I will say, though, that it's a crime Katharine Ross was asked back for this one- maybe for the Glenn Close role?)

And now, the part so few people want to hear.

This is, as has been mentioned elsewhere, more comedy than horror. Most fail to realize however, that it's more satire than either comedy or horror. Such *nasty* satire at that, that the humor becomes almost serious by the end of the film, and we should be left realizing that the first 15 minutes are meant to be as disturbing as the last 15 minutes.

HELLLLLOOOOOO America! Stepford is supposed to be us. Worse, it *is* us. Put down the popcorn and think about it, because despite the laughs, this is a very serious movie.

The original film was made during a time of radical social change in the sexual arena. Feminism and sex roles were revolutionary concepts, and were thus best presented in a horror film, with the main character teetering on the brink of the unknown, unsure of the fate which awaited her, until she was eventually consumed by her existence.

This film is made during yet another time of social change: although we have largely accepted that gender roles and stereotypes are idiotic, we nonetheless cling to them because we don't know what else to do. Take a look at our country's division over same sex marriage- do you think it's an accident that they put a same sex couple in the forefront of this film?

Stepford *is* America, a land where we have two kinds of people: men and women. The men act like men, and the women act like women. Anyone not fitting into the pattern will be *forced* to fit the pattern, because deviations . . . well . . . they're just not very nice.

Are you still laughing? I hope you like irony with your popcorn.

I enjoy Hartley's work. I found _Trust_ absolutely fantastic. I am also thoroughly disenchanted with the media and the society that it greats. What I'm trying to say here is that I wanted to like this movie. However, after sitting through it not once but twice in the same evening, I'm afraid that _No Such Thing_ is subpar at best.

My biggest complaint comes from the script, which feels clipped and constrained in the 100 minutes or so the movie takes. Too often, the story moves us and the characters from one locale or situation to another with little or no explanation how we got there (for example, when the monster is first in an experiment room and then in a filthy alley with no connection between the scenes). The dialogue, usually razor sharp and the highlight of Hartley's films, often falls flat and stops short of articulating the meaningful points that Hartley no doubt understands and desperately wants to communicate. The characterization suffers either from being much to heavy handed (as with Beatrice's boss, who goes so far over the top even satire is offended) to choppy and uneven (as Beatrice herself, who flucuates from nice girl to martyr to party animal to nice girl to martyr without a breath. At least one character (Artaud) had an accent so thick that it was nearly impossible to tell what he was saying (see: _Cold Mountain_), and I get a feeling from what I understood that his character was central to the message of the film.

There were some high points. Burke is fantastic as the monster and provides the most enjoyable moments in the film with his cynical, resigned brand of dark humor and philosophical undertones. I've never met an immortal monster that existed since time began, but if I did, I'd be willing to bet that it would be a lot like this guy.

Polley also does a good job with the bizarre material she's given, especially in the beginning and the end of the film. It is to her credit in the middle that she does not make the script seem ridiculous at all, even though objectively it is.

For the part she gives us, Mirren is also wonderful as Beatrice's cold hearted boss. She's obviously having the time of her life in this role.

Final analysis: this is for Hartley or Polley completists, and not really for anyone else. Another entry in the book of disappointing films.

When folks call a film "pretentious," I usually believe it's just because they don't wish to take the time to understand it. That said, this film catapults beyond pretentious straight into downright hostile. Haneke, in a spasm of lazy, uninspired filmmaking, has chosen to make a film so utterly incomprehensible that even David Lynch fans such as myself will simply scratch their heads and wonder, "Now *what* was the point of all that?"

Yes, yes, yes. I know. It's called Code Unknown, not Code Obvious. So, supporters will argue, this should be a difficult film. Frankly, it ridiculous to suggest that a film should somehow resemble the concept it is trying to communicate. (Incidentally, how can a film ever successfully resemble a *concept*? But I digress . . .)

The editing, though clever, completely detaches us from the characters emotionally. That's a good thing though, because with the exception of Binoche you will see them so infrequently you'll forget they were even a part of the film. The conclusion is anti-climactic, absurd, and (you got it) pretentious. The only thing I got was this film was a major freakout from the little deaf girl at the beginning. I *never* want to see her face on my TV screen , shaking her head in that disapproving way again. Brr.

Leave this one alone.

What could have been: a serious, scary meditation on the issue of identity, and what someone would do in order to change themselves in the eyes of society.

What this movie is: a callow piece of crap, with no innovation or style whatsoever. This is a retarded "Seven," if you get my drift.

This movie is bad.

Rather than focus on an interesting idea (i.e., a serial killer that takes the identity of others), this film chooses to be about Angelina Jolie looking sexy and thus looses any sort of appeal/suspense value that it might have. I was bored throughout the entire experience.

Ethan Hawke is either terrible or brilliant, depending on your point of view. I can't tell you why without giving something away. Please just stay away from this film for your own sake.

Maybe "romantic comedy," "screwball comedy," or "farce" aren't the best ways to describe a film that includes a nearly five minute monologue reflecting on Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" in other people, as well as the destructive effects of cynicism.

Wait a minute, says the audience. This is a comedy. George Clooney must be using all of these big words because he is being funny. Let's all laugh REALLY loud so everyone else will know we got the joke.

*Disgusted sigh*

I really did like this movie. It just makes me angry that it is necessarily forced into the Hollywood mainstream and audience tastes, so that whatever artistic vision is lost in the idiotic guffaws of an audience that describes this movie as "cute" or "hilarious."

While it does have its share of undeniably funny moments, Intolerable Cruelty is neither cute nor hilarious. In fact, the humor and theme play like an odd moebius strip: the second you get what the film is trying to say, 90% of it will cease to be funny. There's a strong, subtle message here about love, REAL love, and how fragile it can be in a world which refuses to acknowledge its existence. The title of this movie is not ironic; to destroy such a beautiful thing is certainly the most vile act of cruelty one can imagine.

The leads are both fantastic. After countless T-Mobile commercials, I developed a healthy dislike for Catherine Zeta Jones, but this film really redeemed her in my eyes. Clooney is even better- he is able to persuade us that his character is really, finally, becoming human. The changes both of these characters undergo are fascinating and beautiful to watch, and certainly required the top notch talent that the Coens recruited.

Certainly worth seeing, but don't be fooled. You'll have to think if you really want to enjoy this movie the way it conceived. Do not, repeat, DO NOT check your brains at the door.

Combining elements of drama and horror, Ring 0 is a very worthy installation of the indie horror franchise. This film really starts, though, as a drama, telling us the story of Sadako in a very linear fashion (which, deliciously, has become the more difficult and confusing path to take, since we already know the end of the story). We see Sadako as a human (!) who is not scary or evil at all but actually seems rather pleasant and almost painfully shy. A while later in the film, we see that Sadako is actually warring desperately with herself . . . and is losing. Her eventual slide into the monstrosity of the first and second Ring films is a sight to behold (and, hardcore fans will note, is echoed by a similar fall of Ando Mitsuo in the less popular Rasen).

The social overtones of this film are also outstanding and a fine addition to the series. Whereas the first two films are more exercises in combining psychological terror with techno-horror, Ring 0 takes a more Romero-esque approach to the social aspect of Sadako's transformation, meditating on the cruelty of her peers and the burning need for revenge of one journalist that brings the whole tragedy crashing down.

Incidentally, although it takes some time, this film WILL scare the hell out of you at the end. Just wait for it.

Very, very good. See it.

I will say that I am certainly a fan of all the Ring films. Even at their most obscure, they give the horror genre a shot in the arm that is has needed for a LONG time. Also, the general concept behind these films (a post-Rosemary's Baby/Omen horror story) is pretty darned brilliant.

But, this. Wow. I'm just so torn. On the one hand, Rasen has some very good scenes that are missing from the other Ring films. Most notably, it doesn't shy away from human emotion. The fascinating juxtaposition of the suicidal Dr. Ando and a videotape which can kill its viewers almost passively makes for a very interesting story. Throw into the mix the sexual element (i.e., sex/death/intimacy and the relationships among them) and you have a very complex film. Rasen further shines as the story of a man who begins with the most honorable of intentions, only to find out, to his utter horror, that he has betrayed everything he thought he stood for.

BUT, on the other hand, there's the last 30 minutes or so of this film, which just left me scratching my head. Why do we need all this bizarre junk science thrown at us. What is Sadako up to? Is Ryuji a good guy or a bad guy? For that matter, why does everybody act like HE has all the answers? WILL SOMEBODY JUST STOP JABBERING FOR A MOMENT AND EXPLAIN THIS WHOLE LOOPY, HALF-BAKED PLOT FOR WORLD DOMINATION?!?!? PLEASE??!??!?

I can't reconcile any of this in my head. I know there's a way to make this movie great, and I think it involves re-writing the last half. Hey, Hollywood! Remake this one and see if it can be a little more palatable.

Every once in a while in a horror franchise, a sequel comes along which arguably surpasses the original, as with Frankenstein/Bride of Frankenstein and Hellraiser I/II. There isn't much room for argument here- Ring 2 is simply outstanding and outshines the original by a mile.

The best element here is the fact that we now have character driven rather than situation driven horror. Takano Mai is a much better heroine than Reiko ever was (the latter often giving off a distinct "Shelley Duvall in The Shining" vibe). Mai's actions come about in this film out of an overwhelming sadness at Ryuji's death; accordingly, she often acts erratically, irrationally, and emotionally to things she hasn't the will or time to comprehend. The other characters are similarly situated and nicely contribute to the flow of the story (the subplot with Okazaki and Kanae is particularly ingenious.)

The psychic elements of the film are more consistent and less jarring in this film than in the first. It is to the film's credit that for the first time *ever* I was finally able to understand the "virus" analogy in terms of emotion and psychic phenomena. Bravo.

Incidentally, this film *will* scare the hell out of you a few times. There's one scene in particular with Sadako climbing up the side of the well. . . brr.

See it however you can.

Lynch is really good at what he does. Although most don't consider FWWM to be his best film, I'd argue that it's definitely up there, surpassing _Blue Velvet_ and possibly _Eraserhead_ (this latter being probably the only movie that beats this one in terms of obscurity).

This film is probably the most rewarding one I've seen from Lynch. His typical M.O. is to obsessively circle on one idea for an entire film. While this works very well sometimes (_Eraserhead_, _Mullholland Drive_), it and also lead to dead ends (_Blue Velvet_). However, this is NOT the case with _Twin Peaks_. In fact, there are so many ideas and levels here that the whole experience is almost intimidating, leading many to denounce it as incomprehensible garbage. This is unfair. FWWM *does* have a story, firmly rooted characters, and so much emotional intelligence it should embarrass anyone connected with mainstream Hollywood film.

I saw this movie before the TV series, and so my judgment is somewhat shaped by that. Know that this is much darker territory than what we see on TV; however, that's also a theme addressed by the film that has gone unnoticed by virtually all the critics. The first half (with the autopsy of Teresa Banks) is cute and lighthearted, because the ugliness (a murder) has already happened. When you're on the other side of a murder (Laura's story) things are understandably much nastier.

Terrific.

This is a very unusual film. If you pinned me down and forced me to say one way or the the other, I guess I'd have to say I enjoyed it, because I did. However, I also have *serious* problems with this movie, which, oddly enough, are completely different from my problems with the first one.

The good:

• The philosophy of the film is no longer stupid. The first was amateur at best and was often so grating I felt like the script had been written by 18 year olds overly stimulated by their first philosophy class. Problem solved here. This is a much more intelligent film than the first one, with some fairly deep meditations on free will and the social/personal nature of love (although the latter was thrown in almost at the last moment and didn't get the coverage it deserved). Well done.

• Special effects. Well, poop. It's _The Matrix_. They're awesome. What did you expect?

• The acting. Generally better all around, except for our friend Keanu. Fortunately he's either wearing sunglasses or generally not speaking most of the time. We are spared the unintentional hilarity of another "I know Kung Fu" moment. Thank God.

The bad (and this is BAD):

• What the film says about us as a society. Am I the only one who noticed that this film is telling us there are only two bases for a relationship between human beings: sex and violence. Think about it! The only time Neo and Trinity (the "love story" of the film) are EVER examined with any depth is when a) they're having sex or b) one of them is about to die.

No, wait. It gets worse.

Naiobi is not merely a friendly and concerned individual; she's Morpheus' old lover. Again with sex. As if that's the only reason you'd help someone.

Link, walking into his home after a long deployment, is expecting to see his wife. The first words out of his mouth, which I won't repeat here, should be offensive to all women and any men who don't like to think of themselves as disgusting sexual stereotypes.

Not to mention the nearly 10 minute long Zion dance sequence, which is probably the closest thing to pornography you're going to see in a mainstream film (and I saw this having seen _Irreversible_ earlier this year). All the cool kids are having sex. Why? Because they're cool.

*Sound of head banging against keyboard.*

Go see it. You're probably going to anyway. And it's good. Just remember what this film is trying to tell you about yourself, and make up your own mind.

*spoliers*

Why oh WHY does the romance genre do this to us?!?

Either we are subjected to sugary cute Meg Ryan-esque romantic comedies with little or nothing of the true complex emotional range of human interaction, or we get films like _The End of the Affair_. Up until its last twenty minutes or so, this movie had me convinced that it could very well be the best romantic drama of all time. However, then I was operating under the assumption gleaned from a hideously misinformed source that Jordan's film ended happily.

The emotional and spiritual aspects of the film are intricate and wonderfully refreshing. They are matched only by the superb performances of the three leads. WHY, though, must EVERY serious romance end with a death? Is there some rule I don't know about?

"Don't be so dense," you say. "Love lasts forever, even beyond death." Blah, blah, blah, yadda yadda yadda and all that rubbish. I'm not an idiot. Hollywood's been drilling THAT little doozy into my head for over 20 years now. Wouldn't it be nice for a change just to see a romance end happily? Isn't that, in the end, more realistic anyway? Or is the truth maybe that we are all bitter old farts who want to think that true love can only exist in some sort of existential vacuum?

ENOUGH ALREADY. This is depressing. Do it again.

_The Shape of Things_ is just brilliant. I honestly can't think of a way to make it better. La Bute's screenplay is so good it actually hurts at the end; the development of Evenly and Adam is so complete and convincing that it's impossible to argue with. The film even goes so far as to innoculate itself from criticism when La Bute comes dangerously close to inserting himself into the story.

Here, La Bute is using a powerful theme- lack of reflection- and showing us just how destructive it really is. By the end of the film, he shows you are picture of yourself. I fear most people won't be open to the experience.

There's just not much to it- if you like films that make you think and you're not afraid of moral responsibility (*are* you?) then you'll like this. If not, well . . . watch it anyway and please tell me what you think.

Bret Easton Ellis is a fantastic writer. The film adaptations come as no surprise; his book almost scream to be made into movies. However, I have yet to see a single Ellis-book-inspired-film that actually has a clue as to what Ellis is really doing. _The Rules of Attraction_, although a brilliant satire and overall good film, suffers from this same curse.

Roger Avary (the director) constantly refers to this as a "college film," stating the he remembers feeling this way "back then." No offense, Mr. Avary, but this is as much of a college film as _American Psycho_ was feminist literature. (For those of you who say, "Ah! But it WAS feminist literature!" I am sorry to say you have already missed the point. Run along.) The whole idea behind this film is that there are (like it or not) seemingly universal "rules" that govern how human beings approach relationships, and that those rules are extremely maladaptive. The college setting makes the most sense for the theme (since for most it is the *real* beginning of sexual identity.) Ellis' satire, though, cuts much deeper, to the heart of society (as it always does).

Ellis' characters are crazy/funny/sexy but only inasmuch as we ourselves are crazy/funny/sexy. This isn't meant to be an exhilarating film as much as it is an exercise in self-reflection. Unfortunately, neither the director nor the targeted audience is aware of that. When I've seen him interviewed, Ellis is smiling. I have a feeling I know why: he likes to see satire in action, and that's what this film will give you.

Technically, very nicely done. Van Der Beek is good beyond belief. The rest of the cast, largely unknown to me, was certainly adequate. The camera work will be of great interest to some (e.g., the Sundance channel), but I personally found it the least interesting part of the movie given the morally complex story.

If you're going to pick up this movie anyway, you'll no doubt like it, regardless of your reason for picking it up. But please remember the entire time: ELLIS IS MAKING FUN OF YOU.

The question is: What kind of person is going to love _Identity_?

The LA Times review says that you would never just be able to guess the ending of this movie. Well, five minutes in, I guessed it. I'll be the first to admit that _Identity_ does have potential: a taut psychological thriller based on Christie's _Ten Little Indians_. Sartre even makes a brief appearance, leading one to hope that this film could give us a meaty existential meditation on the meaning of identity as well a few good scares.

Don't get your hopes up. _Identity_ does all the work for you, requiring zero thought and even less of an attention span. I actually found myself making the story more interesting as I watched. The ending, which is supposed to be a plot twist (though I can't see how your average 12 year old couldn't see it coming a mile away, given the structure of the film) just falls flat and left me with an empty kind of "Is that all?" feeling. I got the feeling that the writer thought he was being original. Negative on that, sir: see _Lost Highway_, _Mullholland Drive_, and _Passion of Mind_ for better variations on the final twist.

That said, most of the audience did not feel as I did about the film, instead chuckling with amazement as they crooed:

"THAT person was the killer? How wacky and original?"

[insert sound of me slapping my forehead- HARD]

With all of that in mind, the performances are all really good. It's nice to see John Cusack getting work. Ray Liotta does the same role he always does, so you can pretty much take it or leave it. Alfred Molina once again changes himself completely and leave me wondering what his real accent actually is.

The look and misé en scène of this film was fantastic. Maybe next time we can have a story.

So, the only way to really enjoy this film is to be too smart for your average Hollywood fare and too obtuse to see the point that the film is trying to make. I'm sure there are people like that out there, but I don't care to meet them.