Reviews

When I saw the trailers for this film, I was under whelmed, to say the least, and hoped my kids wouldn't ask me to go see it. Amazingly, neither of them were impressed with the trailers either, and so they didn't.

But as fate would have it, I received free tickets to a sneak preview, and having nothing to risk except gas and popcorn money, decided to take the kids to see "Chicken Little." In short: I found the movie surprisingly enjoyable, and liked it a little more than the Wallace & Gromit film we saw just a week earlier.

As one might expect, the movie "Chicken Little" takes the concept of the "sky is falling" to a whole new level for the 21st century, this time involving aliens from outer space, baseball, and high school nerds.

The film is computer animated, but not a Pixar film. The look of the film is very "cartooney" and all the characters are various anthromorphized farm and woodland animals. The plot is simple and straightforward: Chicken Little (voiced by Zach Braff) is a nerdy little high school chicken/kid (though very cute!) who just can't seem to do anything right. Like in so many children's films, one, if not both parents are missing, and in Chicken Little's case it is his mother. So poor Chicken Little is stuck being raised by his father Buck (voiced by Garry Marshall), a one-time high school baseball hero who is often finds himself disappointed by the antics of his nerdy (but cute!) little son, a disappointment Chicken Little feels all too acutely.

The event that really strained their relationship is when Chicken Little sounded the town alarm after being hit in the head by "a piece of the sky." Sadly, this mishap happened under one of the town's stately oak trees, and so when Chicken Little's father comes to the scene, he insists that his son was just hit in the head by one of the acorns laying on the ground, and mistook it for being a piece of the sky. In other words, dad does damage control, and lets his son, along with his son's credibility, dangle in the wind. I'm afraid this review would give away a bit too much in stating what the "piece of the sky" actually is...

Because the event is not forgotten, but instead becomes the ultimate "in" joke, (even becoming a Hollywood movie!) poor Chicken Little is forced to live under the shroud of shame that the false alarm brought upon him. He then decides to find some way, some means to show himself worthy to his father, so that he might erase the shame of "the sky is falling" incident. That's were the baseball and the space aliens come in.

Chicken Little also gets a little help from his friends: the ugly duckling Abby Mallard (Joan Cusack), a fat pig named 'Runt' Of The Litter (Steve Zahn), and a cute, voiceless 'Fish' Out Of Water , who wears a special diving mask to help him "breath" on land—think the opposite of Sponge Bob's Sandy Squirrel.

"Chicken Little" starts rather slow, and is very dialog heavy for an animated kid's flick. The set-up is slow and deliberate, and there isn't much in the way of the typical slapstick and one-liners to keep things light. However, the long slow setup really pays-off at the end of the film, which is gut-busting hilarious! As a matter of fact, it was one of the best endings of a film I've seen since "Napoleon Dynamite." They climaxed the fun and excitement at exactly the right moment, and kept the ending very sweet and enjoyable. Too often, Hollywood films fail to end convincingly, or draw out the ending far too long; this film deftly manages to avoid either extreme.

There is a downside to "Chicken Little" however, and that is the strange fact that it's really not a kids' film, though there's nothing in it that would jeopardize the well-earned "G" rating. The film's core message is a child's need for unconditional love and support from a parent, especially a father. This is quite a powerful and heavy issue, and one that is difficult for young children to fully comprehend, let alone many adults! (Think of "Field of Dreams" in cartoon format.) Also, there are a lot of jokes that depend one having a fairly good knowledge of 70's and 80's pop culture and pop music (especially disco), which most people under 40 simply do not have. That makes the movie rather fun for the adults, but goes right over the kiddies' heads. My own children found most of the film rather boring, and only liked the ending.

One thing I especially enjoyed is a bit of voice-over work done by none other than Adam West, who is famous for playing Batman on the 60's era TV show by the same name. I recognized the voice immediately, and it made me smile, but my children wouldn't know Adam West from Mae West, and the voice-over work meant nothing too them. Again, it plays far better to adults than it does to children! But my kids don't write reviews for IMDb, and I do. And I liked the film enough to seriously consider buying the DVD when it comes out, even if I have to watch it alone!

Rating: A solid 7 out of 10.

"…nonviolence implies a kind of bravery far different from violence. In the use of force, one simplifies the situation by assuming that the evil to be overcome is clear-cut, definite, and irreversible. Hence there remains but one thing: to eliminate it. Any dialogue with the sinner, any question of the irreversibility of his act, only means faltering and failure. Failure to eliminate evil is itself a defeat…The greatest of tyrannies are all therefore based on the postulate that there should never be any sin." (Thomas Merton)

"Serenity" has more laughs than the best comedy, more action than the action flicks, and more substance than all the films released this year combined. Does it sound like I'm gushing? If it does, I must say this is one film worth gushing over.

Take all the movies of 2005, roll them up into a ball, and you still wouldn't get from that big wad of celluloid an entertainment experience that Serenity effortlessly offers up in any random ten minutes of viewing. Yes, the film is THAT GOOD.

The setting is a system of terra-formed planets somewhere in the galaxy, at at time 500 years in the future. Bullet firing sidearms are still the weapon of choice, and we get a very interesting mix of sci-fi high-tech mixed in with and old-west type of atmosphere. Think of "Star Wars" crossed with "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly."

The plot: Serenity is the name of a space ship captained by Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), a veteran of a civil war in which the Independents, or "Browncoats" (which he volunteered for) fought against the Alliance, which is similar, but not identical to the Rebel/Empire thing of Star Wars. But the Alliance is actually more like the Federation of the Star Trek franchise, without the alien life forms.

Reynolds fought for a single ideal: freedom to choose his own way of life. The Alliance is one of those capitalist/socialist conglomerations that seek to smother their citizens in an abundance of regulation and a promise to shelter everyone from all evil. Mal, and his sidekick Zoe (Gina Torres), who fought alongside Mal in the civil war, both realize it is better to die free than to live enslaved to a system that thinks it knows better than you do. Though the war is over, Mal and Zoe continue their own private little war against the Alliance by running a Robin Hood style outlaw organization that steels from the Alliance and gives to Serenity's crew. Think of it as a bit of pay-back for the hell the war put them through.

In it's adventures, Serenity picks up a doctor and his sister as passengers. It is only after they are aboard does the reality of their situation becomes known: they are fugitives on the run from the Alliance. The doctor's young sister, River (Summer Glau), who at one time was a brilliant student, was taken under false pretenses by the Alliance and mentally "re-engineered" to become a lethal weapon, in order to be used covertly against those hold-outs still bucking Alliance control. The young doctor, Simon (Sean Maher), uses all his money and influence in a plot to rescue his sister from the facility where she is being programmed, and the two of them make a run for it; Simon all the while trying to do what he can to help his now deranged sister regain her mental faculties.

Yet the Alliance is finally catching up to these two renegades, and it's up to Mal Reynolds and the small crew of the Serenity to keep the doctor and his sister out of their clutches.

While this might seem like just a sci-fi version of "The Fugitive", it is in reality much more than that. All really good science fiction is far more than just aliens and special effects, it is an examination of core philosophical and theological ideals which makes society what it is. In this film we are—amazingly—treated to a meditation on the meaning of love; and a blatant example of the fallacy that sin (evil) can be removed from a society through political/scientific endeavors.

The Alliance, in their bid to create the perfect Utopia, finds that they have created a horrendous hell instead. River, through her mind-reading ability, inadvertently discovers the Alliance's closet full of skeletons. It is the possible unmasking of this closely guarded secret that makes River and her brother high priority targets. It's hard to convince people that you are the ultimate system of benevolence when the hard evidence of social experimentation gone wrong demonstrates the opposite.

I don't know the political or religious ideals of Joss Whedon, the writer and director of this film, but one cannot help but to notice that Serenity is a powerful body-slam to the modern day liberal ideologues who think the road to perfect peace and happiness can be found in the next government social welfare program. It shows the empty promise of political utopias in a way that is so powerful, it will be a wonder if a left-wing, anti-war do-gooder will be able to withstand watching this film without self-destructing. We plainly see, just as we did in the classic film "Forbidden Planet," or in the wonderful book "1984," that the road to a political Utopia is paved with far more violence than that it seeks to eradicate.

For that alone, Serenity is the best film of the year, and easily one of the best films in the past five years.

I plan on seeing this film several more times; and I almost NEVER seen a film more than once in a theater. I may even go so far as to buy double the number of tickets I need, just because this movie is worth double the ticket price, even triple. Yeah, it's THAT GOOD.

My score: 20 out of 10.

I must admit I had low expectations as I walked into the theater to see Polar Express. I had seen 'The Incredibles' just a short time earlier, and was amazed at how good that film was, perhaps the best film of 2004. I did not think Polar Express or any other movie could possibly top it.

I was wrong. Polar Express may be the best movie of 2004, so far…

When creating a film from an incredibly popular and well-know book like Chris Van Allsburg's 'Polar Express,' I had wrongly believed that the Hollywood types could only screw it up, make it boring, and fill it with lots of Jerry Bruckeimer-type special effects that would only distract us from the wonderful story. Again, I was wrong.

The film 'Polar Express' does an absolutely wonderful job of capturing the two best aspects of Van Allsburg's book: the artwork and the message.

The computer techniques used to tell this story are, by far, the best use of computer animation I've ever seen. Nothing that Disney or Pixar has done even comes close. The look and feel of Van Allsburg's wonderful artwork is completely intact, and in some ways, even exceeded. It's like watching a beautiful oil painting come to life. The film, if nothing else, is an absolute feast for the eyes, I was completely in awe from the opening minutes to the closing credits. I truly did not want to watch this banquet of beauty and light to end.

But of course there's more to a movie than visualization, and the simple, but powerful tale of a boy out-growing the need to believe in Santa Claus is very well done. In the book 'Polar Express,' the boy-hero very much still believes in Santa when the train shows up in front of his house. In the movie version, we see a young boy who's begun to seriously doubt the Santa stuff. The change is a good one, in that most of the audience, especially the adults, will be able to relate to this change in perspective about Santa Claus that comes with the coming of age. The visit of the train to this boy's house is more than just the start of an adventure, it is the beginning of a mission of redemption, even if that redemption is only one's faith in a Jolly Old Man.

But that's why 'Polar Express,' first in book form and now a motion picture, works so very well. It' not really a story about Santa Claus at all, but about faith. The film drives home this message in a more heavy-handed way than the book does, but still without the preaching and condemnation that often comes from other Hollywood films that attempt to re-educate their audience.

Polar Express works on a much, much deeper emotional and spiritual level than does 'The Incredibles,' and will fit in very well with those other Christmas classics that are really parables about faith, like 'The Miracle on 34th Street,' and 'It's A Wonderful Life.' And to a lesser extent, even 'A Christmas Story.'

My seven-year old daughter, who saw both films with me, gave 'The Incredibles' a score of 9 out of 10. As we were walking out of the theater, I asked her if she liked 'Polar Express.' She told me 'Yes, I give it an eleven!'

My review of 'Polar Express' is of the 2-D version that will be seen on most screens. I have every intention of going to see it again, but this time making use of the IMAX 3-D version. Roger Ebert (film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times) saw the film this way, and said it was the best 3-D experience he's ever had.

I so wish the Polar Express would stop in front of my house this Christmas Eve.

My rating: 11 out of 10.

The easiest '10' I've ever given a movie on IMDb. 'The Incredibles' lives up to it's name, and then some…

Here we have Bob Parr (a.k.a. 'Mr. Incredible') and his wife Helen (a.k.a. 'Elastigirl') trying to live a comfortable life in the suburbs having been forcibly retired from their work as super-heroes. The reason for their retirement? Too many lawsuits from collateral damage caused by their super-hero activities. (Only in America…)

But Mr. Incredible just can't stay away from the hero business, and goes out saving people under the cover of 'bowling night.' He hates his job as an insurance claims agent, and just wants to go back to the fame, glamour and fun of super-herodom.

When a mysterious woman finally gives him a chance to get back into action, Mr. Incredible jumps at the opportunity, and the fun of 'The Incredibles' only begins.

Of all the movies in the Pixar stable, this one may be the most intelligent, best written and best realized since Toy Story. In some ways, it even surpasses it. The pacing, writing and visualization are all first-rate. Easily the best film of 2004, even with the likes of 'Kill Bill Volume 2' competing against it. No doubt this film will cater to a MUCH larger audience than Tarantino's recent masterpiece, and is actually much more fun to watch!

The style hearkens back to the days of the late 60's, early 70's, with a huge dose of James Bond influence, and a bit of the 'Bat Man,' 'Jonny Quest' and 'Thunderbirds' TV shows thrown in. Of course many people have mentioned the Fantastic Four connection, which is very obvious, though the trials and tribulations of the Incredibles are unlike anything the FF crowd ever had to endure.

But don't take my word for it, go see 'The Incredibles' for yourself, and enjoy the best treat that Hollywood has given us this year.

My rating: 10 out of 10.

Back in the mid 60's, British sci-fi buff Gerry Anderson (also famous for 'Space: 1999') came up with a concept for a futuristic TV show called 'The Thunderbirds.' The show was one of a bumper crop of very imaginative television shows which debuted during that time, and was noted for two things: first, the show used marionettes instead of human actors, complete with strings and all (Supermarionation!) Second, the sets were all highly detailed scale models, including some fantastic aircraft, ships and spacecraft. The icing on the cake was outstanding theme music and high-powered opening credits that made 'The Thunderbirds' one of the most unlikely cult classics to ever come out of the U.K. Though obviously a show targeted at children, it's imagination and intelligence made it popular with older folks as well.

It's now nearly forty years since Anderson's television series debuted, and we come to find out that Hollywood, which cannot help but ruining anything that was good from the 60's, has now decided to disembowel 'The Thunderbirds.' By all accounts, they have succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations.

In the movie version of the Thunderbirds, Jeff Tracy (Bill Paxton) and 'Brains' (Anthony Edwards) have teenage children: Alan (Brady Corbet) and Fermat (Soren Fulton). A character that was a beautiful young Asian woman in the TV series, Tintin, has been reduced to a teenager in the film (Venessa Anne Hudgens). For some reason the producers did not think that kids now-a-days could relate to the TV show's all-adult cast, so the entire focus of the film revolves around these three youngsters.

A villain introduced in the first episode of the TV series, 'Hood,' (Ben Kingsley) now has his own submarine, and has decided that he's going to take over Tracy's 'secret' Pacific island and commandeer the Thunderbirds for his own use. He disables Thunderbird 5 (the space station), using a missile launched from his submarine. The Tracy family then all rush to Thunderbird 3 (the rocket ship), and launch a rescue mission to save one of their own. But once Thunderbird 3 docks with the damaged space station, Hood takes control from Tracy Island, and keeps all the Tracy's locked up in outer space, by overriding all their controls, of course. And--you guessed it--the teenage Alan Tracy, home on spring break, is the only one who can save his dad and brothers from Hood's evil scheme, with the help of Tintin and Fermat. Later on, 'secret agent' Lady Penelope (Sophia Myles) and her chauffeur 'Parker' (Ron Cook) will also come to help rescue their friends.

A simple plot, but one very poorly done. The heart and sole of the Thunderbirds, Jeff Tracy and his sons, are locked up in the space station for most of the movie, leaving us to be entertained by the boy-band reject Alan and Ben Kingsley's imitation of a puppet. Big mistake.

The movie has absolutely NONE of the charm, intelligence or imagination of the original TV series-not that there was much there to begin with. The acting makes the original marionettes look like the Royal Shakespeare Company, and the writing and directing wouldn't pass muster for a Saturday morning cartoon.

Even worst, the creators of this film decided to introduce a healthy dose of slapstick into the feature-perhaps some of the worst, most cliché, stupid slapstick to ever be displayed on the silver screen. The TV series, while having some funny moments, relied mostly on the typical dry British sense of humor, but never-ever did anything remotely resemble the slap-stick idiocy that proliferates 'The Thunderbirds' movie. Note to director Frakes: when using slapstick, at least make sure its funny.

But the director certainly pays attention to detail--when he wants to--as is evidenced in a scene where Lady Penelope, Parker, and the teenagers are all locked into a freezer. As one would expect in a cold environment, Lady Penelope's nipples stand to full attention for everyone to see. As if that did not attract enough attention to her breasts, she then takes a support wire out of her bra for use to pick the lock of the freezer, while proudly telling the captives that she didn't require the support anyway. Not to be outdone, Tintin gets to show off her erect nipples during a scene where she jumps off of Thunderbird 2. Certainly can't have a proper kid's film without shots of erect nipples from the female cast members.

Much attention is paid to other useless details as well, like that given to the Ford logo that appears about every thirty seconds. Even Lady Penelope's famous pink, six-wheeled, very British Rolls Royce from the TV series has been replaced by a pink, six-wheeled Ford Thunderbird. (It's a Thunderbird! Get it?) I saw more of the Ford logo in this film than I did passing the local Ford dealer on the way to the cinema. It was surprising that the Thunderbirds did not display the famous blue oval as well…it would have looked good on the bright red paint of Thunderbird 3.

But worst of all is the idiotic patronizing, condescending, moralizing of the script. The typical 'kids are people too' message is plastered in our faces as if this were the newest revelation from Mount Sinai. Here we have children who are expertly handling multi-million dollar aircraft that would make the Space Shuttle look like the Wright Flyer. Sure, why not let kids--who don't even have a driver's license--handle large, complex, dangerous machinery? Makes sense to me….

If there's one thing that's good about this film, it would be that it makes the original 60's television show look like Masterpiece Theatre in comparison. Otherwise, this is a movie that should never have been made.

My rating: 0 out of 10.

Finbar McBride (Peter Dinklage) leads a very simple, quiet life. By day he is an employee at the Golden Spike Hobby Shop in Hoboken, New Jersey where he works diligently in a back room repairing old Lionel toy trains. By night he and the shop's owner (Paul Benjamin) sit atop the building, smoking cigarettes and watching the action at a nearby New Jersey Transit rail yard. For a really good time, they have a railfan meeting in the shop where the highlight of the evening is a home-made film of a Canadian steam train excursion. Not a life for everyone, but it suits Fin just fine.

Unfortunately, Fin's life gets derailed when the shop's owner dies unexpectedly. The hobby shop is to be sold and the inventory liquidated. Yet the owner remembers Fin in his will, and leaves him a half-acre of property in the town of Newfoundland, New Jersey. The centerpiece of the property just happens to be an old railroad depot, along with a handful of full-size cabooses and coaches that are parked forgottenly on an adjacent siding. The depot is in a fairly lonely place where passenger service disappeared a long time ago, though an occasional freight train does rumble by. For Fin, this is like inheriting a slice of heaven: a train depot complete with full-size trains, in an isolated spot in New Jersey, with no one around to interrupt his preferred monastic lifestyle.

Other than fellow train enthusiasts, Fin doesn't really like people very much. Not that he's a misanthrope, rather it's just that he was born with a physical defect that either prevents him from being noticed when he wants to be, or gets him attention when he doesn't want it: Fin is a dwarf. A dwarf who's heard one-too-many Santa Claus/Snow White/Munchkin jokes, and prefers not to be the object of the rest of humanity's amusements. Hence, he intentionally chooses a life that allows him to work and live out-of-sight of everyone else.

The old depot seems like the perfect place for a young, introverted dwarf to retire. However, Fin soon realizes that he will not be allowed to live in the peace and quiet he longs for.

`The Station Agent' is a wonderful study of loneliness, but done with a very light and very humorous touch. Unlike the much more well known dealing-with-loneliness film `Lost in Translation,' which is often just outright depressing, `The Station Agent' examines loneliness in a much more interesting and effective fashion, with plenty of light-hearted moments that keep one from getting stuck in the mire.

There are three main characters and two minor characters in this film that are dealing with loneliness, all for different reasons. Each character has their own way of wrestling with it, some making the most of it, others wanting to end it all.

First there's Joe (Bobby Cannavale) the Cuban hot dog vendor famed for the Café de Leche he sells out of his gaudy van. Joe is a very outgoing, joyous person, but is doomed to having to set up his mobile hot dog stand in a location right next to Fin's newly inherited train station. What is heaven for Fin, is hell for Joe. He doesn't get a lot of customers, and decides to strike up a friendship with Fin as a means out of his externally imposed isolation.

Olivia Harris (Patricia Clarkson) is a lovely, middle-aged artist who likes to stop at Joe's for a cup of Café de Leche, but who isn't looking for companionship--from him or anyone else. She is living a self-imposed isolation inside her beautiful house on the lake, trying to deal with the incredible pain of the accidental death of her eight-year-old son. She meets Fin twice in one day, both times by nearly running him over with her Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Then there is Cleo (Raven Goodwin), the little black girl who lives in a house near the depot. Not having any playmates her age, she comes to the depot to play trains with the full-size passenger coach and to work on her collection of railroad spikes. And then we have the young, blonde librarian (Michelle Williams) who is impressed with Fin's good looks, and longs for someone to simply love her.

All these characters have a need that, for some odd reason, only Fin can meet; a guy who's last desire is to be apart of someone else's life. Their interactions are often clumsy and painful, but it is to the film's credit that we aren't allowed to wallow in melancholy, but rather laugh and grin at their awkward moments. Through the clumsy attempts at friendship and intimacy, Fin begins to realize that perhaps the life of a railroad hermit is not all that it's cracked up to be.

There is a sweetness and goodness to this movie that one rarely sees in film anymore. Writer/director Tom McCarthy deserves a lot of credit for this very soft-spoken, steady paced film that is a study in quietness and solitude gone wrong. All the performances are absolutely top-notch, and though Patricia Clarkson has been singled out for her performance as Olivia (recognition well deserved), I found myself very impressed with the acting of Dinklage, who plays his part with a combination of seriousness and comedy that is truly first-rate.

Of special note is the cinematography and the score. The camera work makes this film worth watching all by itself, and the score is delightfully simple and done with a soft, accoustic touch. Every little detail of this film is a delight; for such a simple, straight-forward story there is a tremendous richness that one would not rightly expect.

Having seen ‘The Station Agent,' you'll be very glad that there is a strong, vibrant independent film industry giving us the kind of films that Hollywood doesn't seem to know how to make anymore. Highly recommended.

My rating: 9.5 out of 10

Just saw "The Passion" a little over two hours ago. In short, it was the most powerful film I've ever seen. Nothing else even comes close.

Watching "The Passion" is like watching the stations of the cross come to life. (Catholics will understand...) You get to see EXACTLY what Jesus went through during his last hours before death.

It begins in the Garden of Gethsemane where we find Jesus praying that "this chalice be taken away." We see Satan doing everything SHE can possibly do to prevent him from saying "yes" to the coming torture and crucifixion. Then the Temple guard, lead by one of Jesus' own disciples, comes to arrest Jesus, and take him before the Sanhedrin to be tried for various crimes, especially blasphemy. And so the passion of Christ begins, and will only end when Jesus breaths his last breath while hanging on a Roman cross. It is these last few hours of his life that the term "passion" has come to signify. And what an interesting choice of words "passion" truly is...

This movie goes beyond intellect, beyond cold, hard reason. It is intentionally emotional and very spiritual. You can only understand it and appreciate it on those levels.

Is there a lot of violence? Well yes, and it's all done to Jesus. But the truly amazing thing is that he doesn't fight back. He knew he had to go through with this terrible humiliation and death, and he never lifts a finger to prevent it. That's what makes it seem more violent than what it really is...Jesus never fights back, nor do his followers. We're not used to seeing that in a movie. (...or NOT seeing it...)

"Black Hawk Down," "Patriot," "Kill Bill," and countless other films are all far more violent than this film. What separates the violence in "The Passion" from your typical slasher or war movie is that in this film the violence is done to humiliate the victim, just as it really was intended back in Roman times. The crucifixion and flogging were not some neat little punishment where a couple of drops of blood were shed. The Romans had every intention of making flogging and crucifixion as bloody and painful as they possibly could, and the movie brings this FACT home in a very powerful way.

The Bible is very clear that Jesus knew well in advance that all this was going to happen to him, and he does NOTHING to prevent it! As a matter of fact, he almost seems to welcomes it!

Is it anti-semitic? No. Jews are shown in both a positive and a negative light in this film. Remember, Jesus and his followers were all Jews, and Jesus is the one who is the worst for it, especially after the Roman soldiers lay into him. The Sanhedrin of that day certainly played a role in his death, but that was then...and they were only doing it because they thought Jesus was a blasphemer. According to Jewish law, the penalty for blasphemy is death. No doubt they had political motives in their decision to go after Jesus as well, but there were lots of regular folks, all Jews, who tried to show kindness to Jesus as they saw him suffer under the Roman whip.

What I came away with after watching this film is a wonderful feeling of being unworthy. Yes, a WONDERFUL feeling of being unworthy! Why so? Because it is obvious that the real Jesus went through with all this pain and suffering because of his great love for us: all of us. Even those who don't believe in him; even those who killed him. There's simply no other explanation that makes any sense. Why does God demonstrate his love for us in such a painful, humiliating fashion? What caused Him to do this? I think he wants us to realize that his love is more powerful than death, more intense than torture. We can do what we like to God, but we can't stop him from loving us.

I'm not worthy of that kind of love. I don't want someone to go through torture and crucifixion to prove their love to me. But then it wasn't my choice...it was his...

I'm a better person for having seen this film. What more can you ask of a movie?

Rating: 10/10

We are blessed to be living in an era where we have two fantastic trilogies which are not only fun to watch, but work on multiple different levels. These two movie franchises being `Lord of the Rings' and `The Matrix.' Unlike the hopelessly irrelevant `Star Wars' prequel trilogy, which tries so hard to be more than it is but ultimately seems rather forced; the LOTR and Matrix trilogies were designed from the ground up with an eye on the classics, theology and philosophy. Both are far more messianic that the Star Wars prequel could ever hope to be, and both demonstrate how just one man (or one hobbit) can make all the difference in the world, quite literally. We are still living and contemplating the lives and the legacies of such great men of peace like Buddha, Socrates and Jesus, all of who were just men (or perhaps a bit more than just mere `men') who had a better idea of just how life should be lived, and two of them, Socrates and Jesus, ultimately paid the highest price for their `radical' ideas.

Now we have the final installment of the Matrix trilogy. It does a good job of tying up all the loose ends, and throws in a few more twists just to keep things interesting. Right up to the very end it is obvious that philosophy, theology and the classics are very much on the minds of the Wachowski brothers, as we watch them create a seamless garment out of three very different threads. In the opening, we see that Neo is trapped in the world of the `Trainman,' He's stuck at the Mobile Avenue subway station, waiting for his train to come in. This station is a `halfway' point between the human world and the Matrix, a kind of purgatory without the flames. We soon find out that the Trainman works for the Merovingian, and they both are very determined to keep Neo `waiting' at that station for a very, very long time.

Thanks to a word from the Oracle (who else?) who is now in a new `shell,' Trinity and Morpheus set out to confront the Merovingian and get Neo back into the Matrix, so he can get back into his body! From there, the story takes off, as we still have those pesky sentinels to deal with, who are getting ever closer to their goal of the complete destruction of Zion.

Much like the second movie, the third is filled with a cast of secondary characters that makes for a truly delicious movie going experience. We have some new characters: `the Trainman,' and a nice Indian family of programs Neo meets waiting for a train at the Mobile Avenue station. There is an expanded role for Seraph, the guardian of the Oracle. All of our favorites are back as well: the Oracle (in a new `shell'), Smith, Naobi, the Merovingian, Cornel West and so on. Never have I seen a film so filled with so many interesting and memorable secondary characters. Each so very unique and yet very likable --even Smith himself in his own quirky way.

It's in this movie, as is obvious from the trailers, that we have the ultimate showdown between Neo and Smith. But now we see each fully for what they are, and what their destiny is. Smith is the incarnation of post-modernism, the quintessential nihilist, who sees no meaning or purpose in anything. His only goal: to make everything over into his image-literally, and impose his idea of Utopia upon the entire Matrix, and the rest of the world as well. It's this type of philosophy that gives us Nazi Germany and Maoist China: sameness is good, diversity bad. Then we have Neo, the Zen Master Messiah, who refuses to jump into the tar pit of post-modern philosophical thought, but would much rather transcend it. He is the incarnation of faith, hope and love, `the virtue trinity,' embodied in one person. One of these belief systems, Neo or Smith, has a viable, dynamic future, and one leads down the path to entropy and Big Brother.

This film has a wonderful time mixing and matching pantheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and various philosophical viewpoints and ideas. The main characters of this movie are embodiments of these different worldviews, and one appreciates this trilogy so much more with the preunderstaning of these things in mind. Do you need a thorough background in philosophy, theology and the classics to fully appreciate this film? Yes, absolutely. If you don't, it will seem like so much intellectual nonsense with some good fight scenes and lots of automatic weaponry.

It is obvious to me that the Wachowski Brother's appreciate and pay homage to Frank Herbert's excellent books `Dune' and `Dune Messiah' in Revolutions. IMHO, these two books are the best that science fiction has ever produced, and it seems as if the Wachowski brothers agree, as some of the major themes and plot ideas seem to have come these sources. No, it's not a repeat of `Dune' in a mechanical, apocalyptic setting, but we do see some tremendous similarity in themes and ideas between the two. Of course `Dune' is not the sole source of inspiration here, and in looking for dominating themes and ideas, one would have to come to the conclusion that comic books, anime, Christianity and Buddhism are major contributing factors, probably in that order.

No movie is perfect, and `Matrix Revolution' has a few areas that could have been done better. Yet, it is still so far beyond anything else out there that it's sins can easily be forgiven. The LOTR is a close second, but in terms of overall production, the Matrix is far more interesting and imaginative. One only has to compare the fight scenes between the two movies to see it.

The Matrix Revolutions: 8/10

We are greatly blessed to be living in an era where we have two fantastic trilogies which are not only fun to watch, but work on multiple different levels of consciousness. These two movie franchises being `Lord of the Rings' and `The Matrix.' Unlike the hopelessly irrelevant `Star Wars' prequel trilogy, which tries so hard to be more than it is but ultimately seems rather forced; the LOTR and Matrix trilogies were designed from the ground up with an eye on the classics, theology and philosophy. Both are far more messianic that the Star Wars prequel could ever hope to be, and both demonstrate how just ONE MAN (or one hobbit) can make all the difference in the world, quite literally. We are still contemplating the lives and the legacies of such great men of peace like Buddha, Socrates and Jesus, all of who were just men (or perhaps a bit more than just mere `men') who had a better idea of just how life should be lived, and two of them, Socrates and Jesus, ultimately paid the highest price for their `radical' ideas.

Now we have the final installment of the Matrix trilogy, and it does a good job of tying up all the loose ends, plus throws in a few more twists just to keep things interesting. Right up to the very end it is obvious that philosophy, theology and the classics are very much on the minds of the Wachowski brothers, as we watch them create a seamless garment out of three very different threads. In the opening, we see that Neo is trapped in the world of the `Trainman,' He's stuck at the Mobile Avenue subway station, waiting for his train to come in. This station is a `halfway' point between the human world and the Matrix, a kind of purgatory without the flames. We soon find out that the Trainman works for the Merovingian, and they both are very determined to keep Neo `waiting' at that station for a very, very long time.

Thanks to a word from the Oracle (who else?) who is now in a new `shell,' Trinity and Morpheus set out to confront the Merovingian and get Neo back into the Matrix, so he can get back into his body! From there, the story takes off, as we still have those pesky sentinels to deal with, who are getting closer and closer to their goal of the complete destruction of Zion.

Much like the second movie, the third is filled with a cast of secondary characters that makes for a truly delicious movie going experience. We have some new characters: `the Trainman;' and a nice Indian family of programs Neo meets waiting for a train at the Mobile Avenue station. There is an expanded role for Seraph, the guardian of the Oracle. All of our favorites are back as well, the Oracle (in a new `shell'), Smith, Naobi, the Merovingian, Cornel West and so on. Never have I seen a film so filled with so many interesting and memorable secondary characters. Each so very unique and yet very likable --even Smith himself in his own quirky way.

It's in this movie, as is obvious from the trailers, that we have the ultimate showdown between Neo and Smith. But now we see each fully for what they are, and what their destiny is. Smith is the incarnation of post-modernism, the quintessential nihilist, who sees no meaning or purpose in anything. His only goal: to make everything over into his image--literally, and impose his idea of Utopia upon the entire Matrix, and the rest of the world as well. It's this type of philosophy that gives us Nazi Germany and Maoist China: sameness is good, diversity bad. Then we have Neo, the Zen Master Messiah, who refuses to jump into the tar pit of post-modern philosophical thought, but would much rather prefer to transcend it. He is the incarnation of faith, hope and love; `the virtue trinity'; embodied in one person. One of these belief systems, Neo or Smith, has a viable, dynamic future, and one leads down the path to entropy and Big Brother.

This film has a wonderful time mixing and matching pantheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and various philosophical viewpoints and ideas. The characters of this movie are embodiments of these different worldviews, and one appreciates this trilogy so much more with the preunderstaning of these things in mind. Do you need a thorough background in philosophy, theology and the classics to fully appreciate this film? Yes, absolutely. If you don't, it will seem like so much intellectual nonsense with some good fight scenes and lots of automatic weaponry.

It is obvious to me that the Wachowski Brothers appreciate and pay homage to Frank Herbert's excellent books `Dune' and `Dune Messiah' in Revolutions. IMHO, these two books are the best that science fiction has ever produced, and it seems as if the Wachowski brothers agree, as some of the major themes and plot ideas seem to have come these sources. No, it's not a repeat of `Dune' in a mechanical, apocalyptic setting, but we do see some tremendous similarity in themes and ideas between the two. Of course `Dune' is not the sole source of inspiration here, and in looking for dominating themes and ideas, one would have to come to the conclusion that comic books, anime, Christianity and Buddhism are major contributing factors, probably in that order.

No movie is perfect, and `Matrix Revolution' has a few areas that could have been done better. Yet, it is still so far beyond anything else out there that it's sins can easily be forgiven. The LOTR is a close second, but in terms of overall production, the Matrix is far more interesting and imaginative. One only has to compare the fight scenes between the two trilogies to see it.

The Matrix Revolutions: 8/10 The Matrix Reloaded: 10/10 The Matrix: 10/10

I've just finished a nice snack of eel sushi, and a dinner featuring a very nice ahi tuna steak, so I'm now well prepared to begin my review of Pixar's latest creation: `Finding Nemo.' I highly recommend a nice seafood dinner before, or perhaps even after watching this film.

Nemo (Alexander Gould) is a clown fish, and the only survivor of a brood of hundreds. While still an embryo, a mean old fish eating barracuda (are there any other kind?) decides that a nice clown fish caviar is the order of the day, and snorks down all of Nemo's brothers & sisters, not to mention his mother Coral. Nemo's only surviving relative is his father Marlin (Albert Brooks), who, needless to say, is a bit distraught after having lost most of his family in a couple of bites.

Naturally, Marlin becomes a bit overprotective of his last remaining child, and poor Nemo feels a bit put-upon. In a moment of childish rebellion, Nemo swims out to the open ocean to where a boat is anchored. Sadly, the occupants of the boat, who just happened to be scuba diving, decide Nemo would make a great addition to their saltwater aquarium (in a dentist's office, no less). So Nemo is snatched away, and forced to live a life behind glass in Sydney, Australia.

Marlin, with the help of Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), the short-term memory-challenged blue tang, seeks to track down little Nemo, and hopefully bring him back to his rightful home amongst the sea anemone.

This is Pixar's fifth feature creation, and one of their most visually interesting. Sadly, one can't say the same for the story line, for it's about as original and captivating as a dinner at McDonald's. Marlin, father of the lost Nemo, is a bit paranoid. It's funny for the first few milliseconds, then becomes just annoying as the paranoia continues unabated until nearly the very end. And Dory's early onset of Alzheimer's isn't funny at all, no matter what. I think the Pixar people meant this stuff to be funny, but I've seen funnier bits in any given 10 minutes of `Sponge Bob Square Pants' than in this entire film.

The best part of the movie is Nemo's adventures in his new saltwater aquarium home in the dentist's office. The cast of fish characters he encounters there, and their fascination with dentistry, is one of the truly enjoyable parts of the show.

Yet what little sparks of joy one encounters is leveraged with some rather negative and strange characterizations that make you wonder if there was some sort of secret agenda at work amongst the animators. As usual with modern-day children's films based in the animal kingdom, carnivores are shown to be mean, cruel, heartless villains. And if one encounters a `nice' carnivore, it's only because they've sworn off eating flesh. There is a cute scene where we encounter three sharks that are members of `Fish Eaters Anonymous,' but we quickly discover that the sharks are having as hard a time being vegetarians as we do thinking that such a thing is even likely.

As for the highly praised CGI visuals, well, the Pixar folks have really outdone themselves. However, as CGI starts looking more and more `real' -one can no longer compare it to animation, but to actual photography. They have succeeded in entering a strange new paradox where CGI must now be compared to acutal underwater films, and in that regard, the visuals in `Finding Nemo' are not that impressive, as compared to a standard-issue Greet Barrier Reef documentary on the Discovery Channel. It's really good animation, but not nearly so good as the real McCoy.

In all the other Pixar films, where there are humans, they are usually shown in a positive light, like Andy from `Toy Story' and Boo from `Monster's Inc.' If there's a human villain, he's usually countered by a human who is kind, like the Andy/Sid dualism of `Toy Story.' But in `Finding Nemo,' we mainly see humans as either captors of poor, harmless fish or as catchers of poor, harmless fish. Casting aquarium hobbyists as villains is troubling, especially for a person like myself who has always enjoyed public and private aquariums, and has learned a great deal about our aquatic friends from such displays. It does not help showing fisherman as depriving fish of their civil rights, as though tuna and cod really are sentient beings. Is the catching, eating and displaying of fish truly a dark, sinister activity that we should avoid? It seems as if that is one of the messages of this particular film, one this reviewer does like at all.

However, I do agree that humans are certainly the greatest enemy to the oceans and to sea life, but it isn't aquarium hobbyists and fisherman who are the greatest threat, but corporate fishing fleets and industrial polluters. But the film has nothing to say or show concerning these two very real problems. Instead, humans in general are shown to be a vegetarian fish's greatest antagonist.

Aside from the `fish are friends, not food' message of the film, there is another, more important and more forthright theme, and that is a father's unconditional love for his son, even though the son deliberately rebelled against his father's overbearing protection. There is also a neat message about overcoming one's fears by plowing right into that which you fear, which sometimes is the best way to handle certain neuroses. But overall, the main messages of the film were diluted by the negative characterizations of humans and carnivores. Any film that causes you to feel guilt and shame for having enjoyed aquariums and seafood does deserve high marks.

Well, at least there was a sushi restaurant in "Monster's Inc.," so perhaps there's some hope for the Pixar folks after all. As for this film, wonderful CGI visuals, mediocre story. Yes, it has heart, but not nearly enough.

My Rating: 4/10

Of all the Bible characters, few are as familiar as the prophet Jonah, the poor guy who was swallowed by a whale (or maybe just a really big fish) and had to live inside it's stomach for three days, until he repented of his rebellion against God.

The tale of Jonah in the Bible is a mere four small chapters. It is a simple story, one that is good fodder for the folks at "Big Idea Productions;" the home studio of all the VeggieTales videos. Unfortunately, the Big Idea folks had the Bad Idea of turning a ten minute long story into an hour and a half long movie. It can be done, and done well, but the folks at Bid Idea don't quite deliver a film up to the usual VeggieTale standards of cuteness and fun.

The story begins when Bob the Tomato, Dad the Asparagus, Junior, Laura, and a couple of friends are riding through the woods and hills on their way to a see a "Twippo" concert. ("Twippo" seems to be a cross between the children's singer Raffi and Elvis.) Bob looses control of the van when Dad Asparagus accidentally knocks off the steering wheel with his guitar. The van crashes along the bank of a river, where there happens to be a seafood restaurant owned and operated by the French Peas. The group goes to the restaurant to use the phone to call for a tow, and run into the Pirates Who Don't Do Anything. The pirates notice Junior Asparagus is upset at Laura because she had been acting a bit snobbish during the ride to the concert --she was the only one with a backstage pass. So the pirates decide to tell Junior the story of this guy they met long ago, named Jonah. From there, the story takes off, with Archibald Asparagus playing the role of Jonah, and the Pirates Who Don't Do Anything as the crew who takes him to Joppa.

My son has loved the story of Jonah ever since he was very young. The story has amazing appeal for children, and it makes sense for the VeggieTales people to try their hand at it. Unfortunately, the story of Jonah can be easily and effectively told in about 15 minutes or LESS, and the reason it's so loved by children is BECAUSE it's such a short story! But stretching such a compact story out to 90+ minutes takes away quite a bit of the impact, and also commits a cardinal sin of children's films: it becomes boring.

There are only so many musical numbers and gag bits that one can use to pad the Jonah story, and Big Idea uses every one in sight, and a few others that would've been best left on the cutting room floor. One idea is giving Jonah a traveling partner: Khalil, the talking caterpillar who makes a living selling Persian rugs and Jonah promotional toys. While a very cute little caterpillar, he adds little to the story, other than extra padding to make that all important 90 minute mark.

There are some really cute bits, some rather forgettable songs, and a lots of just plain filler. The quality of the CGI is the best ever for the VeggieTales folks, with a rich palate of textures, lighting and colors used to make this one of the best looking digital movies I've ever seen. Unfortunately, the writing is not up to par with the visuals, and while it's a treat for the eyes, it leaves the mind and heart unstimulated.

The story of Jonah's rebellion against God's clear direction, and his dour demeanor makes for wonderful comedic material. But the Big Idea people, for reasons I don't quite understand, aren't able to really to develop it to the degree that I would haved liked to see. I was hoping for more of a Monty Python's "Holy Grail" with vegetables, but instead got a few cute gags and lots fluff.

Other than the fact it's boring, the Big Idea folks also made a Big Mistake in casting Archibald Asparagus as Jonah. That's a role tailor-made for Larry the Cucumber, who very effectively played the part of the prophet Daniel in an early VeggieTales's video. Archibald is a wonderful straight man, who is much better cast a king or ruler of some sort. Archibald just isn't all that funny by himself. Not even Khalil the talking caterpillar offers much assistance. Larry, on the other hand, is funny no matter what.

Other casting choices I would have made is Mr. Nezzer as God, Mr. Lunt as an angel of the Lord; Bob the Tomato as Jonah's servant and traveling companion; The Scallions (from "Daniel" and "StuffMart") as the captian & crew of the ship; Pa Grape as just a sailor aboard the ship and the main narrator; Archibald Asparagus as the king of Ninevah; and Jimmy and Jerry Gourd as the Ninevah gatekeepers. Also, this film definately need a "Silly Song from Larry" at the half-way point.

It was nice seeing a film that really is "G" rated, and I hope the folks at Big Idea make another attempt at a feature length film. But next time, perhaps they can try a veggie version of "Ben Hur," or "The Ten Commandments." Let's just hope they don't try to make a feature length version of Job.

My rating: 6/10

If you want to see a film where true craftsmanship and art are extolled on every single frame, then "Road to Perdition" is the film to see. It's not so much a gangster movie as it is tragic poetry, visualized and presented in a way that dazzles the eyes and cools the heart.

"Perdition" is the tale of two families. First is John Rooney (Paul Newman) and his son Connor (Daniel Craig), two old-time gangsters selling booze, drugs and sex to the working class of the Midwestern United States. John is warm-hearted, caring, and truly wants everyone, even outsiders, to live and work as one big happy family. It is clear that the elder Rooney loves his "godfather" image, and enjoys his chosen profession immensely. His son Connor, however, is a complete schmuck. He loves the glamour and power of the gangster life, but is incapable of mimicking his father's considerable people skills. Everyone who comes in contact with Connor sooner or later becomes his enemy.

The other family is headed by Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks), a nice, conservative family man with an attractive two story home and a Buick in the garage. He has a beautiful wife, two lovely boys who go to the local parochial school, and a job he'd rather not talk about. He does not like what he does, nor is he proud of it. All the two boys know about their father is that he works for the Rooney family, and carries a Colt 1911 .45 pistol wherever he goes. His stoic, professional demeanor is a stark contrast to that of the jovial John Rooney, and the spoiled brat Connor.

In a scene that's awesome in its visualization, Michael Sullivan's older son, Mike Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin), decides that he wants to find out more about what pop does for a living, so one night he stowes away under the back seat of dad's Buick. But it just happens to be the night when dad and Connor have to pay a visit to an unsatisfied business associate for a little chat. Connor is not happy with the way the conversation is going, and in a fit of pure stupidity, takes out his .45 pistol and dispatches the unhappy business partner. Sullivan then quickly guns down the man's employees with his Thompson machine gun, before the employees can shoot back. Unfortunately, Mike Jr. is watching this whole affair through a literal "crack in the wall," (as we in the audience do...) and suddenly realizes his father kills people for a living.

The discovery of the voyeurism of Mike Jr. by his dad and Connor create the hinge upon which these two very different families, the Sullivans and the Rooneys, swing into conflict. Mike Sr. and Connor have VERY different ideas how the trespass of the son should be handled. Sadly, it's Connor's solution that prevails.

And so the war between the Rooneys and the Sullivans begin, a powerful mob boss and his son versus their very own virtuoso hit man. It's a war where there will be only one winner, or maybe none, depending upon how you look at it.

"The Road to Perdition" is an absolute, in your face, morality play of Greek tragedy dimensions. We know within the first minute of the film that Michael Sr. is going to die, but we just aren't sure exactly how it's going to come about. An atmosphere of sadness, despair and detachment is established from the very first scene. Sam Mendes constantly uses night shots, darkness, rain, and very subdued colors to make sure you get the POINT that this is not a warm-fuzzy film. It is not meant to make you feel good, nor give you a sense that all is well in the world. Rather, this is a film that demonstrates in the short space of two hours how encompassing is the embrace of evil; and how very difficult it is for one to break free of it's grip.

This is also a tale concerning the consequences of making poor life decisions. No, we don't live in a vacuum where we can "do it" if it feels good and then think that it won't impact anyone else. Nor can we continue to do something if it feels bad, and think we will be the only ones who have to bear that burden. Like it or not, others are impacted by the choices we make, whether for good or for evil.

This film is filled with some of the most fantastic camera work and some of the most excellent performances as any film that has yet come out in 2002. Almost every scene is a wonder to behold, and the director does a fantastic job making you feel as if you live in the 1930's right along side the gangsters on the screen. Of particular note is the exceptional performance of Paul Newman as the elder John Rooney, definitely deserving of an Oscar nomination, if not the award itself.

Despite all that this film has going for it in terms of performances and craft, it unfortunately leaves one slightly cold, no doubt due to the cynical and dark subject matter. The theme of evil imploding upon itself is not the sort of thing that leaves one with the desire to come back for a second viewing. Yes, the world of crime and punishment is a cold and unflinching reality, but not one that we really want to spend all that much time contemplating.

The story attempts to be a tale of redemption for Michael Sr., but is so obvious and so mechanical that it does little to add warmth to this cold-hearted work of art. But despite these few flaws, "The Road to Perdition" is a must see for anyone who appreciates a finely crafted film.

My Rating = 8/10

After enjoying some success with the surprisingly enjoyable & cheesy "Spy Kids," Director (and all around good guy) Robert Rodriguez now brings forth a sequel, "Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams" which is far less enjoyable and far more cheesy. As a matter of fact, you'd be hard pressed to find more cheese anywhere outside of a Wisconsin dairy farm.

Juni and Carmen Cortez (Daryl Sabara and Alexa Vega) are back, now officially a part of OSS, and officially recognized as Spy Kids. But the OSS, just like every other government bureaucracy, cannot resist expanding upon a good thing, so now there is an entire army of "spy kids" at their disposal; but Juni and Carmen are, of course, the most renowned.

Within in the first opening minutes of the film, which takes place in a truly inspired theme park, we quickly discern that Juni and Carmen have rivals: the Giggle kids (Matthew O'Leary and Emily Osment) who dearly covet the Cortez' fame and status. With help of their conniving father (Mike Judge), the Giggles do what they can, not only to surpass the Cortez family, but to humiliate them as well.

Once again, we find the greatest threat to the OSS is the OSS itself, along with the internal politics and treachery which played a small but significant part in the plot of the first film. It seems as if the OSS is more of a threat to world peace than a help, and one wonders why Uncle Sam doesn't just shut the operation down and call it a day. Perhaps it would prevent the making of any more "Spy Kids" movies, which I'm beginning to think would be a very good thing.

The plot revolves around a device known as a "transmooker" -- which can be best described as the ultimate cloaking device, even able to cloak entire islands off the map. It also has the wonderful ability to render all electronic devices useless, which is quite a thorn in the side of the intrepid Spy Kids, who's reliance on James Bond style fancy gadgets is only a shade less than an alcoholic's dependence on his next drink. Of course the transmooker itself is an electronic device, but somehow is immune to its own nasty effects. (Only in Hollywood....)

So our two heroes, Juni and Carmen, locate the cloaked island, where the stolen transmooker was taken, and attempt to find it before their rivals, the Giggles kids, do. The island turns out to be a retirement resort for every single monstrous creature ever created by Ray Harryhausen ("Jason and the Argonauts," "7th Voyage of Sinbad," etc.). Except we are told that they were created by the socially insecure and somewhat troubled scientist "Dr. Romero" (Steve Buscemi) who was looking for some companionship, and a portable zoo. But of course those of us who've seen a few movies in our time know better.

During the same time, there is a completely boring and totally unnecessary sub-plot involving Carmen & Juni's parents and grandparents. The only reason the subplot exists is to cloak this poor homage to Harryhausen as a "family film." Yeah, right. I certainly fell for it.

Hollywood films, especially action-adventures and sci-fi flicks, often ask the audience to suspend logic and rational thought while the plot thickens. It is the price we pay, beyond the ticket price, for the pleasure of being "entertained." But Spy Kids 2 doesn't just ask for a suspension of belief, but a wholesale slaughter of anything remotely resembling intelligence. That's a big price to pay, and one I was unable to justify.

If Daniel Rodriguiez is such a fan of Harryhausen, then he should make "The 8th Voyage of Sinbad" or some such thing, rather than trying to find a way to incorporate Ray's creatures into a movie allegedly about espionage. The CGI recreations of Harryhausen's monsters was one of the more enjoyable aspects of this horrid film, but not enough to pull it out of the slimy pit in which very poor writing knocks it into.

The dialogue is stupid, even for kids to listen to. Most of the jokes fall as flat as the acting. Much of the cuteness and fun of the first Spy Kids film is completely lacking in the sequel. Instead, we have a very disjointed plot, an adventure that leads to nowhere, and a subplot that should have been locked in the submarine where it mostly takes place.

My Rating: 4/10

I usually have no problem rating 99% of the movies I see. "Das Boot" is a '10', the "Thomas and the Magic Railroad" is a '1,' and lots of others fall in between. But then, every so often, I come across a film that is beyond my ability to score. It's as if rating the movie, no matter what number I gave it, would somehow be demeaning --more so towards myself than the film. "Being John Malkovich" was unratable, as was "Microcosmos," "The Graduate," and a handful of others. Well, I've just added "The Royal Tenenbaums" to my list of films that defy my ability to rate them.

I could tell you about the plot, but why bother? It's not really all that important. What is important is that Wes Anderson goes above and beyond the tremendous truck load of garbage that Hollywood dumps on us each year, and gives us something that actually makes us use our brains. Those who have been living the unexamined life will find this film boring and pointless, and will hate it. Those who rightly discern the cesspool that is modern film making will see this film, will also find it boring and pointless, then stand-up and cheer! Why? Because every single stinking film that comes out of Hollywood is boring and pointless, but they try ever so hard to be "meaningful." Here's a film the revels in extolling the virtues of nothingness, and never pretends to represent anything even remotely close to having a meaning.

This film has one of the most amazing ensemble casts ever assembled in modern times. Gene Hackman, Angelica Huston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Stiller, Danny Glover and Bill Murray all very willingly take part in this boring, pointless film. Why did they do it? Couldn't they read the script and see how stupid the whole thing was? Yes, they read the script, they saw the stupidity, and they JUMPED at the chance to play some small part in it. They weren't prodded or cajoled or bribed into making this film, and I think some of them would have gladly paid Wes Anderson to be in it.

We are "outsiders" whose only connection to Hollywood is throwing money at the box office to see the next multi-million dollar summer blockbuster. We want to be entertained, damn it, and you clowns in California better get it right! More often then not, they do, and we get to watch such cinematic masterpieces like "Scooby Doo" and "Gold Member." But when you're inside of the Hollywood system, you get to see all the sewage which spews forth onto the big screen for what it truly is: crap. But of course the unspoken rule is that you NEVER say it's crap, instead you speak of the artistry, the meaning, the wonder that is a Hollywood film, but deep down you know it just another load of excrement for the masses.

Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson, though a million miles away from being anything close to a Hollywood insiders, understands that Hollywood is the King of Crap. It's not really all that difficult to figure out, but it does require some careful thought, examination, and critical thinking --skills which most Americans simply do not have. (More honestly, they do have those skills, just choose not to use them.) So Wes and Owen concoct a film that flaunts nothingness, but in doing so becomes something.

"The Royal Tenenbaums" is not a side-splitting comedy, it is not a special-effects extravaganza, nor is it an action-adventure. It is not any category of movie that currently exists. Well, there is this category I call the "comedy of the absurd," and that's probably the best label you can give it. If there is a point to this film, it is that life is pointless, and making films about it is even more so. Certainly this is a rather pessimistic take on things, but it is an honest viewpoint of the writer and director. They go out of their way to avoid anything that might make this film "meaningful." It just isn't there! Life is absurd, pointless, meaningless, a joke. The only character in this film who sees it in this light is Royal Tenenbaum himself, but he does not arrive at this conclusion through careful thought and analysis, but rather by the complete avoidance of anything even remotely close to self-examination. He's very happily, carelessly living the unexamined life, while the rest of the family does their darndest to make "something" of themselves, and fail miserably.

Not only does this film speaking to the absurdity of life, but it is also a poke in the eye of Hollywood. That's why the film critics, actors and directors love this film while most of the public can't stand it. It is the ultimate "in" joke. To us, Hollywood is some magic fairyland where magicians wave their magic wands and produce fantastic entertainment that transports us to different times and places. To those who work there, it is a meat grinder and a whore house, but one that pays extremely well.

The performances that the actors gave in this film where some of the best I've ever seen in any film. Gene Hackman is fantastic, and Gwyneth Paltrow is amazing. I've never seen the two of them shine so brightly. All the other cast members give equally brilliant performances, but Hackman and Paltrow have the meatier roles, and make the most of it.

Please, don't see this film. You won't like it.

My Rating = It doesn't really matter...

It seems as if the folks at DreamWorks could not decide whether they wanted to remake "Ben Hur," "Spartacus," or "The Fall of the Roman Empire," so they decided to remake all three. They took two awesome scripts and one mediocre screen play, stuck them in a blender, and the resulting concoction has become the better-than-average "Gladiator." It borrows most heavily from the mediocre "Fall of the Roman Empire" in terms of characters and basic plot, but quite a bit of influence from "Ben Hur" and "Spartacus" can easily be noted.

This is the story of Mad Maximus (Russell Crowe), an Australian who moves to Spain, looks good in a toga and so becomes general of the Roman army. Unfortunately, he refuses to kiss the behind of emperor Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), because he's a bit upset that Commodus killed his own father and Max's best friend Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris). One bad thing leads to another, and old Mad Max finds himself mixed up with an international cast of characters fighting as gladiators in the Peoria of North Africa. Soon the day of their big break comes, and it's out of Peoria and on to the Hollywood and Broadway of the ancient world: Rome; to play games of life in death before tremendous crowds at the biggest theater in the world: the Coliseum.

Many find the gladiatorial contests of ancient Rome to be rather savage and brutal; but you have to give the Romans a break, in that Hollywood, video games and ice hockey had not yet been invented. What else is there to do for entertainment other than watch a bunch of strangers poke and stab each other with sharp objects? Sure, Playstation II has better blood & gore graphics, but several centuries of technological advancement will do that for you. In the old days, the blood and gore of the arena was all that was available.

But an interesting twist develops in the plot: Commodus' sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) finally realizes after thirty years that her brother is a sick, unrepentant pervert and lunatic. Some are slow learners. So she decides that the ol' gladiator/general Mad Max might be just the guy to help her submarine her bro, and restore peace, justice and the American Way to Rome.

Anyone who has seen "Ben Hur," "Spartacus" and "The Fall of the Roman Empire" has already seen this movie. There's no surprises or suspense, just lots more scenes of people being decapitated and/or disemboweled. It's amazing what special effects artists and CGI have been able to do to help bring brutality into a far more realistic light than in the past --chalk up another great moment for Hollywood.

In the hands of most directors, a film like this would be the scorn and bird droppings of most film critics. But DreamWorks had an ace up their sleeve: they got Ridley Scott to direct this train wreck of a script, and then work his incredible magic to make the ugly duckling transform into a beautiful swan. Well Ridley is good, but he's not God, so what we end up with is a swan who's kinda cute, but not quite up to the cover of Sport Illustrated's swimsuit issue. Still, this is far more than most could have done with such muck.

Ridley Scott is one of the few directors who the word "genius" sticks to like glue. You've seen what this guy can do, and do better than most anyone else. For the movie "Gladiator", Scot goes all out. He gets the BEST actors, the best set and costume designers, and the best composer, then puts it all together and creates a tremendous feast for the eyes & ears. There are many great performances all throughout this picture, and the camera work and art direction are absolutely top notch.

If there is a complaint, it is with the fight sequences. They are the typical fast cut/shakey camera mish mash that's been going on for ages. One minute a group of guys are facing one another, the next minute a whole bunch of them are dead. How did it happen? Who knows, who cares. Instead of carefully staged shots and fluid camera work, we get the cinema equivalent of projectile vomit. Oh well, at least I can always put on "Crouching Tiger" or "Phantom Menace" if I want to see sword play done properly, or the Tyrone Power version of "Zorro" (1940). But I will admit that the battle scene between the Germans and the Romans at the very beginning of the film was extremely well done. The fast cuts and bouncy camera did an excellent job conveying the excitement and confusion that is prevalent in large scale combat.

The actors and the performances they give are far too good for a film of such tripe. Of particular note is the performance of Lucilla by Connie Nielsen. The film is worth the price of admission (or the price of the DVD) just to see this woman's face light up the screen and give the over used theme of blood vengeance such dignity, poise and grace. Lucilla is by far the most interesting character of the film, for she is the only one who goes through a process of transformation by means reflection and examination, rather than by forced external entanglements. The characters of Commodus and Maximus could have been easily played by cardboard cut-outs with the words "Bad Guy" and "Good Guy" stenciled on each. What you see of Commodus and Maximus in the first ten seconds of film is what you see in their final scenes, there is no change or awakening in these two guys. But Lucilla rewards us with an interesting sort of redemption that makes a rather predictable film worth watching. As Ridley Scott himself said of Ms. Nielsen: "She can rule my empire anytime."

My generous rating: 7/10

Nick Marshall (Mel Gibson) is a gay (as in "happy") divorcee having a wonderful time seducing women and creating very successful T&A themed advertising campaigns. Nick is not an evil man, just your typical selfish bore with drop-dead good looks. Though never overtly stated, Nick sees woman as a means of entertainment, like a TV or a video game. He does not really care what they want nor what they think, as long as he gets what he wants from them: sexual fullfillment.

But life in the 21st century demands that one finally realize that women are much more than just playthings, and any advertising agency that does not understand how to market to women is going to find itself a third-rate institution. So Nick's boss (Alan Alda) decides it's time to hire a female creative director to help land some of those lucrative ad campaigns for women's products. Nick thought the position was all but his, so he's just a bit upset at that a strong, high-self esteem, alpha-female by the name of Darcy McGuire (Helen Hunt) is brought in to help them find out what women really want. Nick quickly decides he will do what he can to make himself look good at Darcy's expense.

But an interesting thing happens while Nick spends an evening trying to understand why women wax their legs: he gets electrocuted by his blow dryer, and the resulting damage leaves him with the ability to read a woman's mind as if she's actually talking to him. At first he thinks he's going insane, but soon comes to the realization, with the help of his former marriage counselor (Bette Midler), the that he's been granted a very special gift.

Nick is a guy who's been around woman his entire life, but has never really cared to understand them. As long as he gets what he wants, why should he even care? But now, thanks to his special "gift," Nick gets to "listen" to what women really like and dislike, even if they refuse to admit it to anyone else, let alone themselves!

As you can imagine, with a setup like this there has to be some laughs, and "What Women Want" delivers them by the bucketful. Director Nancy Meyers pays great homage to those great old goofy comedies of the late 30's through early 60's that showcased clever dialogue and outrageous predicaments. A knowledgeable student of cinema can see that Meyers has grabbed some of her inspiration from "Bringing Up Baby" (1938) all the way to the original "Parent Trap" (1961), as well as many other fine films from that period.

Yet the greatest gift Meyers gives us in the casting of Helen Hunt as creative director who torments, then enthralls Mel Gibson. As far as I'm concerned, anytime Helen Hunt is in a film, they should just take the Oscar for best performance, pack in a box and send it to her. I remember with great fondness and surprise when I saw her on the big screen in the 1996 film "Twister." For a goofy special effects extravaganza, Helen Hunt, playing the role of a meteorologist/storm chaser, gives a powerful and serious performance that even upstaged the tornadoes. In "What Woman Want," Helen again demonstrates why she is the most talented actress to ever come out of Hollywood. That's quite a statement to make, but I can't think of any American actress who is even close to her equal, with the exception of Meryl Steep. No, that wasn't Helen I saw on the screen, it really was a woman creative director newly hired at one of Chicago's high-powered advertising agencies. She just looked like Helen...

As for Mel's performance, he pretty much gets to play himself! That's not a bad thing, and it's about time we see Mr. Gibson take part in a pure comedy. He over does it a bit, (as he usually does) but has enough charm and warmth that we can almost excuse the over-acting. (Where's Cary Grant when you need him?) Not surprisingly, his best scenes were with Helen Hunt. There was enough chemistry between the two of them to keep DuPont in business for the next several years.

The idea of a man being "forced" to listen to the needs and problems that women face (whether he wants to or not!) is an extremely clever comedic device, but also showcases a simple problem with people in general, both men and women: the inability to listen. The art of listening, not just to what someone is saying, but WHY they are saying it, has been all but lost on a great many of us. It's a rather simple skill that if it were to be seriously sought out, would bring joy and satisfaction to a great many very sad and miserable souls. "What Women Want" shows how the very simple act of "listening" can be a surprisingly transforming experience. You don't have to be a mind reader, if someone knows you are truly listening to them, they'll speak their mind very clearly.

My rating: 7/10

Once again we see the proof that God loves us and wants good things for his children, for another Phillip K. Dick story has been ordained to be shown on the Great Silver Screen. Mr. Dick is the man whose sacred writings were the basis for the films Blade Runner and Total Recall, amongst a few others. Not only can we celebrate the visualization of another Dick short, but we can also give thanks that it has been crafted in the blessed hands of Steven Spielberg and filmed by the extremely gifted Janusz Kaminski. This is the movie equivalent of Sir George Solti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra performing Beethoven --it just doesn't get much better than this.

In the not-to-distant future, human beings with special "precognitive" abilities (whatever the hell "precognitive" means...) will be able to see a murder before it happens. Through the use of some really nifty technology, the police will be able to see the visions of these murders displayed on a screen, hopefully giving them enough clues to find the murderer and the scene of the crime before it even takes place. How successful is this system? In six years, not a single murder has actually been committed in the city where it has been initially deployed, Washington D.C. (Fortunately, they must have installed some sort of filter to keep the "pre-cogs" from seeing the into the inner workings of the federal government, whose crimes would certainly overwhelm the system.)

But of course the questions must arise: just how "perfect" is this system? Is there any way in which somebody with a bit of moxie might be able to take advantage of the system, and commit murders that look as if they were committed by someone else? Is there a way to bait someone into murdering who otherwise would not have dreamt doing such a thing? Well, officer John Anderton (Tom Cruise) -- a "true believer" when it comes to the pre-crime system, now finds himself asking these very questions when he sees HIMSELF on the big screen, blowing holes in a guy he doesn't even know with his police service pistol. So the race is on for him to prove his innocence, and show that the system he once put his faith in isn't so fool-proof after all.

I'm no longer a big fan of Tom Cruise (MI:2 anyone?) and go out of my way -not- to see his films. However, the Spielburg/Kaminski/Dick trifecta had me hooked, so I ignored my trusty "Cruise Control" and went to see the film. To sum up, I might become a Cruise fan once again, for he certainly played the role of Officer Anderton with great intelligence and feeling. He is surprisingly reserved, using emotion and feeling in a realistic and convincing manner. There were even times when I forgot it was Tom Cruise on the screen, and one can't pay a higher compliment than that.

The Spielburg/Kaminski team scores many points throughout the course of movie-- artsy camera angles, tremendous detail, excellent pacing and fine story telling. It seems as if the Dynamic Duo of motion pictures is continuing with a trend that was brought forth in their previous film "AI." In Minority Report, we see the continued evolution of these ideas into even more fantastic organisms and creatures. But best of all, Spielberg understands that CGI is a prop, not a movie enhancement mechanism, and uses CGI in a very intelligent fashion to help tell the story, rather than hitting us over the head with over-done digital potpourri, 'ala Attack of the Clones.

Unlike many of the directors of the last 30 years, Spielburg is getting much better with age. Riddley Scott is the only other I can say that about. (Lucas, & Coppola are most definitely in their descendancy, Scorsese has gotten neither better nor worst...) It certainly seems like he is becoming the second incarnation of Stanley Kubrick, going after more cerebral and philosophic works. With "Minority Report," Spielburg has a story that makes excellent use of his talents. It is now my favorite Phillip Dick inspired film, even beating out BladeRunner.

The icing on the Minority Report cake is the wonderful presence of the greatest actor who's ever walked the earth: Max von Sydow. It's very clear that Max is back! He gives a powerful, controlled performance as Lamar Burgess, the co-founder of the pre-crime unit. Every second von Sydow is on screen is like manna from heaven, and I found myself greedily eating up every bit of it. Whoever made this casting choice deserves a gold star.

But it would not be fair to praise only Cruise and von Sydow, for every actor in this film does an outstanding job. There may be flaws in Minority Report, but performances is not one of them. A special treat is Lois Smith as Dr. Iris Hineman, the person responsible for the initial development of the pre-crime system. If nothing else, go see this film and watch Iris wrap Tom Cruise around her little finger.

This may be billed as a sci-fi film, but it's really just plain old film noir set in the year 2054. But it's one of the best noirs since "L.A. Confidential." And like most noir, it has plot holes that Orson Welles could waltz through and convenient plot twists which the bad guys must always fall into --it just wouldn't be noir without it. But much credit goes to Phillip Dick, Scott Frank and Jon Cohen for writing solid dialogue and creating ideas that help bridge those gaping chasms.

Overall, I sat in my seat eating up every minute of celluloid and ignoring my popcorn. A stunning visual treat for the eyes, a good nutritional feast for the brain, and an exhausting workout for one's emotions. But most importantly, Minority Report is a liturgy of fun, excellence and intrigue that will send your spirit soaring in adoration to the Almighty for blessing us with the incarnation of St. Spielburg. May the Lord be with you.

This movie is a biography of a horse named "Spirit." We watch him from the time he's born, until he takes leadership over of a heard of wild horses. The area these horses roam seems to be the entire western half of the United States, from Arizona to the Pacific Northwest. Spirit and his extended family greatly enjoy the wide open spaces, even though dangers in the form of mountain lions may lurk around the next boulder.

But as dangerous as a mountain lion can be, it pales in comparison to white men. Spirit, who is a living symbol of freedom, carelessly walks into a camp of sleeping cavalry soldiers, and finds himself captured. The soldiers and cavalry are symbols of discipline, hardship, and a type of slavery. As anyone who's ever served in the armed forces knows you don't have the freedom to do as you like when under military authority. Even some the constitutional protections civilians take for granted are out-of-bounds for a serviceman.

Spirit is taken to the soldier's fort, and is quite literally tied up. The fort is symbolic of prison, and is portrayed as a type of concentration camp for wild horses. Spirit does demonstrate quite a bit of spirit and independent thinking the entire time he's captive, to the dismay of the colonel in charge. So the colonel attempts to do to the horse what the military does to every single man that joins it's ranks: he tries to break him down.

At the same time Spirit is being held in the fort, a young native American is brought inside and tied to a post. His only crime: being a young, free brave. The native American, much like Spirit, is also symbolic of freedom. So it's no surprise when the young man cuts himself loose from his ropes, and storms out of the fort in the company of the horse. On their way out, Spirit makes a point of "freeing" all the cavalry horses, making for one major jail break.

But Spirit still does not get to enjoy the freedom he once knew, for now the young Lakota takes him captive, and puts him in a coral near the tribal camp! But their is a profound difference between the captivity of the U.S. Army, and the captivity of the Lakota. The young brave, named "Little Creek," uses love, kindness and generosity to "break" Spirit of his wild ways, even using his own female horse to help persuade him. Yet whether it's the Army's harsh, violent ways, or the gentle, loving ways of the Lakota, Spirit refuses to give in, preferring his freedom above and beyond anything that man can do for him.

The animators at DreamWorks have their work cut out for them in this film, taking an abstract concept like freedom and creating a wild horse to embody that trait. This is a difficult trick to pull off with educated adults, and even more difficult with young children. But they do put in a good effort, and those who are used to symbolism and types will be able to see the point of this film without looking too hard.

Spirit's love and commitment to freedom is most plainly evident in a scene where Spirit destroys a railroad camp. The "sin" committed by the railroaders which causes Spirit to fume with righteous anger is their use him as a part of a very large team of horses to pull a steam engine up a mountain. Spirit decides he's had enough hard labor for one day, and feigns sickness to get released from the team. He then recovers quickly after being unhitched, and proceeds to act in a way that causes the destruction of the locomotive being hauled up the mountain, along with one sitting on the tracks below, along with the ENTIRE railroad camp at the bottom of the mountain, along with the forest surrounding the railroad camp. The punishment levied against the railroaders is quite drastic and very violent, and goes so far as to make Spirit look like almost like a villain. Yet, a small price to pay in the name of freedom.

The animators do a fantastic job with the visuals, especially where nature and wildlife are concerned. There is a scene in the movie where Spirit has a race with a bald eagle that had me in mouth-gaping awe. Very well done. The movie is truly a feast for the eyes, if not also a famine for the brain.

In the end, this is a movie that demonstrates that freedom IS something worth fighting for. Whether it's a railroad, the cavalry, or a friendly tribe of natives, slavery and servitude is not preferable to living the life of freedom. Sadly, while this film does a fine job demonstrating the need to fight to maintain freedom, it doesn't touch on the fact of the responsibility one has to oneself and others when free --for there is a strange paradox in that as one's freedom increases, so does ones responsibilities. In other words, you can never be free from responsibility, especially when you're free! Think about it.

While one can be upset at the constant negative portrayal of white men in this film, truth be told white men did, in FACT, do a great deal of harm to native Americans of ALL tribes. While their were certainly some violent, warlike tribes that received their just deserts, there were also many peace loving tribes that were exploited and manipulated for evil purposes, mostly by white males. It is a sad fact of history, and one I do want my children to make note of.

Overall, I applaud the message implied in this film of the overriding importance of freedom, even if it means the destruction of innocent railroad employees and the demonizing of white males.

Rating: 6/10

Project "Six-Two-Six" is deemed too dangerous by the "Grand Council." A hideous genetic creation from the lab of mad-scientist "Jumba," (David Ogden Stiers) project Six-Two-Six is put on board a space ship to be banished to a nice little deserted asteroid, where he can live out the rest of his days. On the way there, project Six-Two-Six takes over the ship, and then escapes using what looks like a space squad car. He eventually crash lands on one of the islands of Hawaii (Kauai?) where a little five-year old orphan girl named "Lilo" (Daviegh Chase) finds him in a dog pound (don't ask) and takes him home as her new pet dog, "Stitch" (Chris Sanders). Of course the Grand Council soon realizes what has happened, and sends agent "Pleakley" (Kevin McDonald) along with the mad-scientist to the island to recapture experiment Six-Two-Six.

And so begins one of the most unusual and creative animated films from the Disney studios. Featuring a completely new style of drawing, and backgrounds that look like watercolor paintings, Disney is taking a bold step in trying something a little different. The artwork seems like a combination of "Winnie-the-Pooh" and Saturday morning cartoons. The dialogue and slapstick comedy is much more reminiscent of Warner Brother's beloved "Loony-Tunes." Except for a handful of well chosen Elvis Presely songs, and some beautiful Hawaiian music, there are none of the musical numbers that one would expect to find in a typical Disney film. (I, for one, didn't miss them.)

We soon find out that Lilo is an orphan, living with her older sister Nani (Tia Carrere) in what could be comfortably called a "dysfunctional" household. Nani is trying hard to make ends meet and be a mother to her young sister, who is having a very difficult time adjusting to life without her mom and dad. The creators of the film do a superb job with the character of Lilo, making you identify with her loneliness and isolation without making it depressing. They also very accurately portray the problems with an older sibling raising a younger, and the friction and fighting that results is typical of what one would find in this sort of arrangement. The subject matter is very mature, but the animators do a fantastic job bringing it home to a level that small children can appreciate.

Nani decides Lilo needs a dog to keep her company, so off to the kennel they go. Lilo just falls in love with Stitch, the "talking dog," and decides to take him for a pet. It is with this most unlikely of characters that Lilo can find someone to confide in, to share her passions with (like Elvis), and to share the pain and sorrow that comes from being without parents.

Stitch was created by the mad-scientist Jumba to be an evil little monster, but in the care of Lilo, he realizes his own aloneness, and his need for love and acceptance. So the evil little alien allows Lilo to take him by the hand, dress him up as Elvis, and go surfing. (Stitch's one weakness in the inability to swim, so for him to go surfing is a surprising concession to the little girl's whims.) His original motive for being "nice" to Lilo was to avoid the agents sent to recapture him, but soon he realizes that Lilo and Nani mean more to him than just sanctuary.

Disney makes a point in all their trailers and commercials to show Stitch as the Rodney Dangerfield of animated characters: he don't get any respect. Other than Lilo, everyone else in the film, including his creator Jumba, is trying to capture and/or kill him. Even Lilo's sister finds several opportunities to take out her frustrations on the mixed-up little alien. At first, it's rather amusing, since Stitch is about the most obnoxious Disney character of all time, but after a while, you start feeling sorry for the little guy, and start hoping that he can find the love and acceptance he's longing for.

I've often wondered why Disney's recent animated films cannot reach the level that Pixar's CGI creations do effortlessly ("Toy Story," "Monsters Inc."). Disney's cartoons seem dull and lifeless compared to the fun and action that Pixar delivers on a regular basis. Well, it seems as if the Disney animators are finally being infected by some of the magic that comes from their computer animation partners. "Lilo & Stitch" demonstrates that there is still some life left in that old art form that Walt made so famous many years ago. But more importantly, this little gem has a lot of heart. You find yourself caring for the orphaned Lilo, you find yourself hoping that Stitch can fin d a place in a family, and you hope that big sister Nani can find a way to keep social worker "Mr. Bubbles" (Ving Rhames) from taking Lilo away to a foster home.

There are some really big themes being tackled in this film, such as unconditional love, the need to belong to a group or community, self sacrifice, and family unity. The animators handles all these extremely well, and you find yourself getting a lesson in philosophy as well as being entertained. Yet the one theme that Disney pushes in all their advertising, and several times during the course of the film, is the oft repeated phrase: "Ohana means family, and family means NO ONE gets left behind." This is a theme one finds emphasized in the recent combat films "Black Hawk Down" and "We Were Soldiers," but isn't something you often find in a animated feature! That one little phrase, "no one gets left behind," has enough philosophical and theological weight to fill a college text book. It means that everyone, no matter what you may think of them, has value, and that there is no such thing an "expendable" person. A better lesson for young children would be difficult to find.

My rating: 10/10.

I saw the film `Dinosaur' with my five-year-old son when it first came out. He really liked the movie, I couldn't wait for it to be over. I told him as soon as we walked out of the theatre: `We are NOT getting the video for this one.' Flash forward several months-you can now find the `Dinosaur' DVD sitting amongst our children's DVD collection. My son saw it in the stores, and kept begging me to buy it. So one day I did, after finding a place that sold it for the lowest possible price. In short order, I found myself being subjected by this interesting attempt of Disney's to set an even higher standard in computer animation.

Now you can read through all the reviews of this film at IMDB, and find some lengthy critiques that document in great detail all the flaws contained in this dino epic (including one of from yours truly.) Most all of the criticism is reasonable and accurate. `Dinosaur' is a flawed film. But I will give credit to Disney for attempting to broaden the frontier of CGI.

Upon watching this film for a second time via the DVD, I found myself appreciating a couple of points in this film that I did not notice the first time I saw it in the theatre. In some ways, these positive aspects of the film help to mitigate against some of the flaws.

The first thing I realized is that there is a very good and counter-cultural message being sent about the value of elders and the need to look out for the weak and infirm. The dinosaur Aladar, the lead charater in the film, makes it his business to look out for two elderly dinosaurs, Baylene and Eema, who are having a difficult time keeping up with the herd as it treks through a harsh desert looking for the `promised land' (or Happy Valley - whatever allegory you prefer...)

The unselfish attitude displayed by Aladar and the respect he shows the elder dinos is a wonderful message that you don't often see portrayed in recent Hollywood movies. Aladar obviously sees value in these two elderly ladies, and does what he can to aid them in the long harsh journey to green pastures, even though it may put his own survival at risk. It is interesting to see how the example he sets even goes so far to influence an old warrior igauandon named Bruton, who bravely and unselfishly gives his own life so that the old ones can survive.

Another positive aspect of this film that really caught me off guard is how the Darwinian notion of `survival of the fittest' is shown in such an evil light, as it should be. The leader of the herd of herbivores wandering through the wildnerness is a cold-blooded (pun very much intended) igaunadon named Kron, who is the very personification of `nature, red in tooth and claw.' No, Kron isn't a carnivore, he's just a true believer in the tautology that states `the strong will survive' - and the weak serve as necessary sacrifices to the many predators that follow the herd like vultures circling a carcus.

This repudiation of a central tennet of Darwinian lore is quite striking. No, `survial of the fittest' is not the best way to run things, not in the fictional world of Disney dinosaurs nor in the realm of human beings. In a way, we have an inkling of the true basis for the creationist vs. evolutionist debate in the dinosaurs of Kron and Aladar. Kron is the dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist wanting to just let nature run it's course (and perhaps even give it a helping hand...), and Aladar is the fundamental moralist who sees value in all of God's creation, even amongst the weak and infirm. Think Mother Teresa vs. Adolf Hitler.

I don't believe the writers of `Dinosuar' meant to portray some of the central aspecits of Darwinian evolution in a bad light, but the careful observer will note that Kron uses Darwinian ideas to justify his cold hearted leadership, much like some other cold hearted leaders that have come forth in the 20th century.

Dinosaur's dinosaurs demonstrate to children the value of the elderly and those who are less fortunate, and the the need to come to their assistance. It also demonstrates the need to stand up to bullies-- to stand up for what is right even when facing overwhelming opposition. Good lessons for children to learn. The demonstration of the moral bankruptcy in using Darwinian evolution as a foundation for political leadership is also something that is good for children (and their parents) to know.

Let's face it – the reason we like going to movies is to be entertained – which means having fun! It's nice to be intellectually stimulated by carefully crafted dialog; and wonderful to see talented actors and actresses bringing to life the vision of a director. Yet there is something about a giant Japanese monster performing urban renewal on downtown Tokyo that is satisfying in a way in which a movie like `Shakespeare in Love' could only dream of.

I really liked this movie! It is definitely my favorite of all the Godzilla movies ever made, and, up to this point in time, the best movie I've seen this year. My congratulations to the people at Toho. I was afraid that after the Emmerich/Devlin CGI ‘Zilla, we would no longer see anything from the parents of the Big Guy. I'm so glad I was wrong!

This film has everything that makes the Godzilla franchise the emotionally exhilarating experience that it has become for millions of fans around the world. There's the reporter/scientist connection. There's the Japanese Self Defense Force pumping thousands of rounds into the monster as he makes his way towards his favorite food: nuclear power plants. And as always, the JSDF fails to stop him from advancing. (Though at least they learned enough to get the tanks out of the way before he steps on them…) And to top it all off, we have the wanton destruction of downtown Tokyo, as Godzilla battles one of the most interesting foes I've ever seen him take on.

Sure, the acting leaves something to be desired, the script makes use of every cliché' in the book, and the plot has holes big enough for an army of Godzillas to march through, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

It looks as if Toho learned a trick or two from Emmerich's Americanized Godzilla – and Toho makes good use of the tricks in a way that is very complementary to the story. Yet in many ways, this film seemed more like a remake of `Godzilla vs. Biolante.' There were more parallels to that film than to Emmerich's.

Just when you thought crass American commercialization was about to destroy yet another of the world's great icons, the folks at Toho ride to the rescue showing that the Japanese are still the masters of the giant monster movie. As another reviewer put it so succinctly: accept no substitutes.

A final note: say what you want about the Japanese army, at least they were able to HIT Godzilla multiple times with their tanks/rockets/planes/helicopters. It's not there fault the G-man is a quick healer.

10/10

I love to read Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert's reviews of the latest films. Roger, if anything, is often a bit generous when rating films, a characteristic that I like about him. With that knowledge in hand, I was more than a bit worried when Roger rated `Thomas and the Magic Railroad' a mere one star out of a possible four.

I had already promised my son that we'd go see it, so in spite of the one star rating from America's leading film critic, my wife and I took our kids to the show. In short, let me just say Roger was being quite generous when he awarded this train wreck of a film one star.

Please understand that the members of our household are BIG fans of Thomas the Tank Engine. We have EVERY single Thomas video, plus enough Thomas toys to start our own toy shop. We have Ertl die-cast Thomas trains, Learning Curve wooden Thomas trains, and even a Lionel electric Thomas with Annie and Clarabel. (For a while, I even had the Hornby `OO' Thomas set.) We also own just about every Thomas the Tank Engine book ever made.

But one thing you will NOT find in this house is anything that has to do with `Shining Time Station' - the poorly done PBS children's show that had the cute little Thomas shorts as a regular feature. As much as I loved Thomas, I loathed `Shining Time Station,' perhaps one of the worst children's shows I had ever set eyes upon. It was quite literally banned from our children's television viewing. All their knowledge of Thomas comes from the videos, books and toys.

So it was with great dismay that I discovered that the Thomas movie incorporated many elements of that miserable television show into it's plot. (If you can call it a plot.) `Shining Time Station' the children's show was 50 minutes of absolute fluff with ten golden minutes of Thomas. Sadly, this film nearly follows that ratio. There is a lot of emphasis on `The Conductor' (Alec Baldwin), Mr. Burnett Stone (Peter Fonda) and Lily (Mara Wilson). But sadly, the character the film is named after, `Thomas the Tank Engine,' has precious little screen time. I believe that even the evil `Diesel No. 10' had more screen time than Thomas, and sadly much better lines.

More miserable than using than using the `Shining Time Station' motif was the portrayal of the chief protagonist of this sad affair, the aforementioned `Diesel No. 10.' Rev. Awdry, the man who can be rightly called the father of Thomas, used the Thomas the Tank Engine stories as a means of teaching simple morals and proper manners. The worst characters in his books (and in the videos based on the books) were merely rude or a bit rebellious. They were there to serve as a negative example, to show why rude, obnoxious behavior is unacceptable. Yet `Diesel No. 10' in the Thomas movie is not merely rude or rebellious, he's downright EVIL, wanting to DESTROY the entire Island of Sodor railway network, and kill Mr. Conductor! We are not given any insight into why he wants to do such a terrible thing, other than the fact that he's a diesel, and they are just prone to diabolical behavior. (I must say that as a railfan, I found it to be downright insulting that `Diesel No. 10' was based on the real life BR's Western Region `Warship' class of diesel hydraulics - which themselves were based on a German railway diesel of very similar design.)

There's so much wrong with this film it's difficult to understand how it ever made it into the theaters. The plot is indecipherable, the characters uninteresting, and melding of British and American culture just kind of stupid. What's the point in showing '64 Mustang convertibles and '55 Chevy pickups rolling through the hills of the Isle of Man? And why does a blatantly American steam train have to stop at a charming little English country station??? The nice thing about the Thomas stories for us Americans was that He and his friends were unapologetically British. There wasn't so much as even a hint of American culture, except for George Carlin's narration on some of the videos. It's as if all of a sudden American children wouldn't accept the film unless American trains, cars and actors were blatantly displayed at every turn.

I could go on and on, but there's really no point. This is one of the worst children's films I've ever seen, and I'm greatly dismayed that it was based upon a character that is dearly loved by our children. Our three year old daughter, who will sit still through endless viewings of Rob Reiner's wonderful `The Princess Bride,' (which she has entitled `The Princess Pirate') could not stand to sit through this film at all. She kept asking to go to the bathroom every five to ten minutes. She really didn't have to go, but it was more interesting for her to examine the theater's plumbing than it was to watch five more minutes Mr. Conductor.

Please, stay home and save your money. You'll be thankful you did.

I can just imagine the producers trying to sell this one to the Disney studio execs..."Remember that awesome scene from Fantasia where the dinosaurs are walking through the desert and dying from thirst? Well, we're using the latest digital technology to make that into a feature length motion picture! It will be awesome!"

And so the film "Dinosaur" was born -- paying great homage to the "Rite of Spring" dinosaurs in Fantasia, as well as all six versions of Universal's "The Land Before Time." And just like `The Land Before Time,' the dino's can talk. (At least the plant-eaters and the mammals have this ability.)

Of course 82 minutes of watching dinosaurs walking through a desert would be somewhat boring (as well as depressing), so they cut that part down to a mere 72 minutes, and added 10 minutes worth of story concerning how the lead character; a dino named "Aladar;" was brought into the world.

In typical Disney fashion, the lead character is not allowed to be brought up by his own parents -- who knows what sort of crazy ideas people might get if they saw Aladar being raised by his mommy & daddy? So in the great tradition of "The Jungle Book," "Tarzan," "The Lion King," "George of the Jungle," "Mighty Joe Young," "Hercules" "Pollyana," etc., (you get the idea...) Aladar is brought up by someone other than his natural parents. In his particular case, it is a tribe of cute little lemurs (primative primates) whom Aladar has to be careful not to step on, less the family troop becomes the family goop. Aladar spends his time attempting to show how fruitless and immoral the Darwinian philosophy of `survival of the fittest' truly is.

It is also seems to be an act of high treason to portray carnivores as a positive role model in a dinosaur film. It is a steadfast rule that the herbivores (a.k.a "veggie-saurs," `plant-eaters') are ALWAYS the good guys, and the carnivores (a.k.a. `raptors,' `tyranosaurs,' etc...) are ALWAYS the bad guys. As a matter of fact, to make them come across exactly like the demonic creatures from the pits of hell that they surely must have been, they are not even allowed to TALK; even though every single veggiesaurus is quite conversant in various philosophical and political whims of their prehistoric culture. And to make absolutely sure you GET THE POINT that meat-eaters are bad, bad, bad; they even come up with a pseudo-dino name for the biggest of them, the "carnotaurs" (Just like "carnivores" -- get it???) Think of the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, having a really bad hair day. No, can't let those guys have an intelligent conversation, less we find ourselves identifying with them, and hope they wipe out those sad little herbivores as they go forth in their rampant deforestation of the earth. No wonder most of planet is a desert.

The carnotaurs provide the usual protaganist element that they've been typecast into so relentlessly, as if raptors, the desert, and a fascist igaunadon named `Kron' simply weren't protaginistic enough. Seeing this movie really makes me appreciate the Pixar characterization of `Rex' in the Toy Story films.

As you might have guessed, if you've seen all the films I've listed above, or even some of them, then you've already seen this film. The only thing that makes this film worth while is the amazing feats of computer generated imagery that Disney pulled out of their hats. The visuals are absolutely stunning, especially the meteor shower that causes widespread destruction. Too bad they didn't have an original story to go with it. (If I were Universal I'd sue...)

There's a nice little moral tale concerning teamwork and getting everyone to work together. I'm all for teamwork, but somehow having it illustrated by a group of large, extinct prehistoric creatures just doesn't work. Other Disney films, especially the Toy Stories, do a much better job of illustrating the concept.

Disney is certainly lacking in the originality department lately, as they remake or rehash all their best films of the past, or the good films and TV shows of other studios. But if they should ever dare to remake "Pollyanna," I'm going to personally request that the Chinese use Hollywood as a testing ground for their nuclear missile program.

If you want your kids to get see an educated film about dinosaurs, get the BBC's "Walking with Dinosaurs." If you want your kids to be entertained; and learn a good moral lesson; then go fetch yourself a copy of "Iron Giant," the last good animation to be released on video/DVD. The new "Dinosaur" film is neither educational nor entertaining, except for the smallest (4-6 year old) of kids. Sure, they'll be scared to death of the carnotaurs and raptors, but then who wouldn't be???

There might exist a movie that is more fun and more pure entertainment than the Talking Head's `Stop Making Sense,' but I've failed to find it.

I wanted to see this film when it first came out in 1984, but for some odd reason, never got around to it. As the years have gone by, I have just about completely forgotten about the film and the Talking Heads. Fast forward to 1999: I heard it was being released on DVD, and immediately rented a copy as soon as it was released. I'm awfully glad I did.

This film can be best described in one word: fun! This is the first movie I watched that made me want to get up and dance with the music! I had all but forgotten many of the very danceable tunes that the Heads had performed in the past, and here are many of their best songs, delivered in a most straightforward and entertaining way. On the cover of the `Stop Making Sense' DVD is a quote from Leonard Maltin: `One of the greatest rock movies ever made.' Leonard doesn't quite have it right; this IS the greatest rock movie ever made!

The very first scene we see a pair of white gym shoes walking out on stage. We hear David Byrne tell the audience that he has a tape he'd like to play, and a boom box is plopped down on stage, then David pushes `play.' A hypnotic drum beat starts thumping its rhythm, the camera pans up, and there's David- alone, on a bare stage (and I do mean BARE) with a microphone, a boom box and his acoustic guitar. Hardly the opening one expects for an awesome rock concert! David then performs, sans musicians, the classic `Psycho Killer' using nothing more than his guitar, his drum machine rhythm, and his incredible audacity!

But the fun is only beginning. As David sings, the roadies and stagehands are setting up for the next number, on stage at the very same time he's singing! And so begins one of the most clever and effective openings of a rock concert in the history of music. Each song adds a musician or two, a bit more stage, and before you know it, the whole band is standing before you, performing the jammin' nonsense song `Burning Down the House.' It takes six numbers to get to this point; but, once again, the fun is only beginning!

Although the music will make you dance, the stage antics of David Bryne will make you wonder which mental hospital he escaped from in order to do this concert! Well, lets just say he certainly lives up to the title of this film. And, of course, there's the classic `Big Suit' and the famous `lamp dance;' they're simple little things Byrne does to always keep the audience in a state of wonderment!

David and the Heads manage to keep the excitement level increasing in a near exponential fashion until we reach my favorite Head's song `Take Me to the River.' We are now on the verge of religious ecstasy, praising and worshipping a wonderful almighty God for the great honor of watching and listening to one of the most original and entertaining films ever made.

David Byrne stages this concert in a fashion that is nothing short of brilliant. Rather than having a stage cluttered with various amps, guitars, stands, etc.; David only allows the band to have the instruments that they absolutely need. No extra equipment of any type is visible, and references to manufactures are neatly blacked-out from the drums and keyboards in a very humble matte black. The stage setup seems to be a tribute to a Mies Van Der Rhoe style of minimalism.

Nor does he allow the usual colored lights and laser beams. Rather the stage is lit with nothing more exciting than white stage lights! But there's never been a band that has used so little to such great effect. Watch the movie to see many amazing lighting designs, all done with boring old white light.

While this isn't exactly a forum for reviewing DVD's, let me just say that the DVD version of `Stop Making Sense' does this medium a great service! This is what the DVD format was meant for, and the use of the medium for `Stop Making Sense' will make DVD believers out of all who care to watch. I would even go so far as to say that a soundtrack of this film on CD would be a waste of money.

The DVD features the entire film, plus THREE bonus songs not in the original theatrical release! But that's not all! You also get no less than THREE sound mixes to choose from Dolby Digital 5.1 Feature, Dolby Digital 5.1 Studio Remix, and Dolby 2.0 Stereo! There's also a rather informative and entertaining audio commentary track featuring the four original band members and director Jonathan Demme. Lot's of other little goodies are included as well, making this disk quite an entertainment bargain.

I highly recommend this film to anyone. Even my four year old son and two year old daughter love for me to play this DVD, just so they can dance to the music! It is a much-loved part of our permanent film collection.