Reviews

This is not great drama, and as a documentary the subject (the film Erotic Witch Project) is pretty lame.

This peek into the making of an adult erotic film treats the actresses more as as people than characters. The process of directing the contrived and staged sex scenes skips the really lame story line of the film, and fills the time with the sex scenes you pick up something like this to see.

I liked the glimpses of the scantiness of the story line in the script, and how the actors and director follow the script without regarding it as a great classic.

This isn't something to watch for great entertainment, to enlighten and delight. But I found it fun, and worth (a little of) my time.

The crux of the movie is Heigl's discovery that her ideals of relationships, her self image as a romantic partner, and her understanding of her job are all unrealistic and flawed. She learns better, begins to care about valuable goals and to be connected and responsive to those around her.

The cross stories, that Butler's cynicism, though less dysfunctional in his own life, is also overly defining, the way entertainment ratings depend on fickle audience perceptions - and the way modern feminism and gender role redefinitions might threaten romantic and intimate relationships - are important.

Overall, the story tells fairly trite but true lessons in fairly useful ways.

The R rating is apparently by design, to attract a prurient audience. I didn't find the partial nudity, or the language to be that far from common usage, though some of the topics were certainly more adult that we want to think of for preteens.

But I think Heigl was miscast. There were a very few scenes where she is appealing. In the scenes where she is portraying a cold and emotionally unavailable woman lamenting the lack of "quality" intimate partners, where she laments loss of control of her life and work - she diverts attention from the story to her over-the-top withdrawn portrayal. From stories of her caustic behavior on set during production, I have to wonder if that is the best that the director could get from her - or left her looking that bad as a subtle retaliation for unprofessional conduct on the set. Presumably the editing was unable - or unwilling - to overcome the snub or weak performance, whichever was the case. I found most of Heigl's performance off-putting and artificial.

Other than Heigl, this was a fun movie. I enjoyed much of the interplay between the main characters and watching the supporting characters delight in how the main characters interacted.

The Ugly Truth turns out to not be that ugly. It treats the characters and the theme about how honesty and commitment are required for a real connection with respect and loving care. There are no real villains, the conflict is all about the fall of cynical preconceptions. And I enjoyed that aspect of the movie as much as anything.

Lady and the Tramp this isn't. We get a mini-travelogue, moderately accurate, of off-main-street Mexican culture and scenery.

There are several sub-texts, including dog-kidnapping rings and dogfighting, but nothing graphic. This is a very bland film, very little to trigger a parent's 'inappropriate!' radar. If they meant to make a safe picture, this is pretty safe. I watched Beverly Hills Chihuahua on a Digital screen - the photography was very good. The staging of the animals was generally excellent.

But the story line is astonishingly young. Like, maybe toddlers. Early toddlers. I don't mind paying to see this, but I won't need to see this one again.

I like Beer for My Horses. The writing is very formula-driven. Rodney Carrington plays like he is Barney Fife in Mayberry; there are other Andy Griffith Show touches. Toby Keith smiles a lot; he doesn't convey much acting, but his droll demeanor provides a nice straight guy to the sight gags and Country star cameos.

The setting is a small town, the topics are small town, and you find more likable people strolling through the story than you could imagine.

But the story is nice. Warm, even. I didn't watch a story, so much as watch Rodney Carrington and Toby Keith making a story. Kind of like an extended comedy routine, rather than a movie comedy. But the experience is enjoyable.

And I *want* to learn about Snake's sling.

I liked Jensen (Strathom) and Coach, and several of the other Cons.

But after Mad Max and Escape from LA, this attempt to recapture the past has few real flourishes. The movie was almost comic-book glib, the way brutality was casually accepted by all while trying to include the personal tragedy of Jensen's life. Supposedly set in 2012 (a bow to the Peak Oil movement, which contends about 2012 scarcity of world energy will cause a major depression - with most families in American unable to pay routine utility bills), assumes a major and ruinous decline starting now.

I thought the $300 'final check' for 120 hours work in two weeks was a nice touch, for a mill worker, when Jensen's plant closes. Much of the lost money is called 'cash fee' for taking cash.

This is an OK movie, for shoot-em-up and gratuitous gore, elaborate death scenes, etc. But I thought too much time was spent on face-time for actor showcasing than for developing the scenes. It seemed a shame to keep interrupting a (weakly told) story to accommodate actor contracts. Ian was good as 'Coach'. I hope to see more of this understated screen presence.

I enjoyed Made of Honor. Often cute, quite engaging, the characters are likable, the story well-paced. There is no real bad-guy, the 'villain' is the Dempsey character's lack of self-respect, his shallow manipulation of sexual intimacies, and his failure to understand himself - or his devotion to his long-time friend.

I noticed that once the notion occurs to Tom, during Hannah's trip to Scotland, that he is in love - he stops playing around. Not 'saving himself', he is no longer interested in the no-attachment, free sex lifestyle. He develops a conscience, he focuses his energy on the object of the first girl he ever loved.

There are numerous places that show Tom turning from shallow player to being devoted and in love. His attempts to sabotage the planned wedding and regain the girl he loves are half-hearted - he knows who he has been, and wants the best for Hannah. The guy threatening his love by wanting to marry Hannah - we come to know Colin as a responsible adult, a good prospect and a good man. Perhaps a bit colorless, as seen from the point of view of the two friends, but no worse than that.

So I admire the morals of the picture, and the emotional growth of the characters. And yet ..

It strikes me that this is a rehash of Dempsey's 'Loverboy' film. Again we see Dempsey engaging in apparently consensual, shallow intimate relationships, to win the girl of his heart. I expected cameos from Kate Jackson and Tia Carrera at any time. And the similarities distracted me a bit.

But Made of Honor is better schlock than Loverboy was. And more recent. And has a horse.

We have petty land barons burning out their neighbors to horde land for sale to the new railroad. We have robbers (Crowe) robbing the railroad payroll coach. There are realistic hails of bullets where few people get hit, and occasional marksman-class shots with one body per round fired. We have a 'Mexican' sharpshooter, that in closeups doesn't seem to have hands steady enough to make use of the Wm. Malcom style telescopic rifle sight.

I found the story uncomfortable. There were too many killings for often capricious reasons. Crowe repeatedly chatted with one of his captors, usually just before killing him. The morality of capturing the gang leader and leaving the rest of the gang marauding around Texas and Arizon seems somewhere between absurd and ignorant. And the movie seems all too apt to inspire modern day 'trigger happy' people. The violent actions seem too relevant for today to take lightly. The bad guy rides off to a prison he has already broken free from twice, the greedy land baron is thwarted from one grab, but remains greedy and unpunished.

This truly is a story of a wounded Civil War veteran turned broke family man on a drought-stricken farm in Arizona. He manages to find self respect, protect his family, and recover his initially trigger-happy, killing-advocate son to responsible adult behavior.

The telling of the story is very compelling, but the story wanders a bit at times.

I enjoyed Evan Almighty. This is a gentle, kind story of a good man caught up in the dilemma of finding his family and life plans smacking up against God's will.

Morgan Freeman plays God with the energy, the awesome depth, and the joy that he brought to the part in 'Bruce Almighty'. This time around he finds a nicer guy to involve in His plans.

One mistake on the IMDb site -- the 'tag line' claims God wanted the ark for a 'great flood' -- but he really only uses the word 'flood'. The difference is that the film accommodates the bible most wonderfully, without straying into (or across) the teachings of any particular church.

The movie is a comedy, the parts are exaggerated. This is a good story, happily told and ends happily.

I found a lot of places where the point of the scene was obscure, where I think Carell just wasn't the best choice for the role (thank goodness we didn't see Carrey back!) At times it seemed as if 'the team that brought you Bruce Almighty' might have depended more on Carrey making the movie than the director and producer had in them.

And yet. Freeman was delightful, comforting, wise, and very effective. Which brings this tale of family values, following your heart, and choosing integrity over 'fitting in' up to 7 stars for me. I will be seeing this one again and again.

I enjoyed this movie. But I found the story much grittier, more graphic in language and in visual effects, than I had anticipated. There is very little foul language in the film, not enough to notice. But the pranks the roommates play, the way the pregnancy and delivery are depicted and described, go beyond the polite or even descriptive language I am used to, and detracted a bit from a good story. I found Ben's transformation to a good father prospect, and the sudden acceptance of Ben and Allison setting up a home to be abrupt and poorly motivated. There is no secret what the plot for the movie is. The storyline is predictable with the predictable plot complications in the expected places. The beauty and value of the story is in the telling. And that is done pretty well. I laughed a lot more after leaving the theater than I did during the movie. The story is pretty kind, has a lot of good moments, and the making of the movie has some interesting quirks. I enjoyed the movie a lot, but it wasn't comfortable for me.

The Holiday has a good feeling about it. Based on the Christmas holidays, it isn't exactly about Christmas. The two girls have failed romances, Cameron gets a character with little moral substance, basically promiscuous. Kate on the other hand shows a bit more character.

Kate's relationship with Jack Black is greatly overshadowed by her 'love affair' with the fascinating older man next door (to her L.A. home exchange partner's house). Where Kate grows by reaching out to touch and enable the old man, Cameron discovers her impetuous 'I promise you'll never see me again' partner has children. And comes to terms with the fact that she never considered or made children a part of her life.

Jack Black has a problem part. His entanglement with Kate is low key, develops slowly, and it isn't clear why there is actually a connection other than the script wants to claim both girls find love. Played low key, this may be the best performance I have seen from Black. It is the part that seems almost after the fact and poorly thought out.

There are no great moments in this picture, no chase scenes (maybe Cameron running down the lane because the cab is too slow?). Kate and Jack both face selfish previous lovers, and the engaging old neighbor faces a fear of ridicule for growing old.

We do see a clear distinction between a remote English cottage and an L.A. mansion. And we learn there are wonderful people behind the hedge in both settings. I will be seeing this one again.

I liked the understated character that Laura Linney played in 'Love Actually', and she is very good in 'Man of the Year'.

But wow. Robin Williams doesn't give that much of a performance, with a couple of minor exceptions this was weak. Laura Linney may not have been miscast, but either the editing raped her character, or this was just a sad performance by director Barry Levinson.

And I think it was Barry Levinson that got old. So many weak performances, such uneven results have to be the fault of management.

Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum are great in supporting roles. Goldblum plays a sinister side with relish, and Walken's combination of entertainer's manager and commentator for the film is wonderful.

But the story is cliché, the presentation looks like it could have (should have) been a very good picture, and too many actions are half-hearted. The pacing, story, and direction all come up weak, compared to, say 'Head Office' (spoof of 'Secret of My Success').

First off, I am not a horror fan. That is influencing my take on this movie.

This is fair story, based in Japan on Japanese folk-lore about the dead. That works well.

I thought Aubrey Davis was well played. I wasn't much impressed by anyone else. Over-acting, poorly portraying the character, odd moments of hamming it for the camera. Overall this seems more like weak direction, or that the director intended to achieve something other than telling the story well.

The effects are good, but the story is told non-linear, not in time sequence. We follow stories of several people and families for much of the movie before finding that they actually do interconnect. I found the nearly random presentation sequence part of the problem of the weak story telling.

I guess for a horror story the effects, basically solid story come out OK.

*** Spoiler alert ***

Ultimately the movie focuses on a shyster lawyer with situational ethics, that finds his way amid chasing through the ashes of the end of George Reeves.

*** End Spoiler Alert ***

Affleck looks almost as bad here as in Jersey Girl -- overacting, smarmy, you name it. In one or two places, uncomfortably out of character. Most of the picture he does OK, and does a fair representation of the guy some of us remember from when the Superman show was on. A good character actor, I am not sold Ben Affleck has what it takes for leading roles. I didn't think he sustained the effort here.

Diane Lane is gorgeous, warm, and charming. But she didn't really sell me when Mrs. Mannix turns possessive. Whether the director had the wrong slant, or whatever, that part of the action detracted a lot from believability -- I started watching the acting instead of the picture. But that may partially also go back to Affleck's weak spots.

George Reeves was troubled in his career. Only a single brief mention of George's generosity to struggling actor friends -- many walk-on bit parts were created to help actors, rather than to suit the script. Much of this outreach was glossed over.

I know that the point of the movie was to unravel the death of Reeves. So mostly stuff that didn't pertain to the death and potential motivations leading to the death should have been left out, or glossed over. With that in mind, I still feel the portrait of George Reeves was skewed solely to fuel unlikely death scenarios.

The IMDb page calls out an anachronism -- the LED elevator panel. I contend that for a picture shot in pseudo-era style, way too much sex was depicted, rather than implied. And the graphic scenes didn't contribute anything to the story being told. The departure from the genre 'discrete' approach was jarring and felt rude to me. In the 1950's and 1960's no movie would have been that graphic.

I went to the movie to learn more about George Reeves. With all the names in the film, surely this must have been a labor of love to a fallen comrade. Nope. Movies are about making money. As Reeves is told by his manager 'Sometimes Actors act, other times you gotta work. Take the paycheck.', or something like that. I think probably what we see of George 'Superman' Reeves in this movie is true, mostly, but there was more to him according to other things I have read.

Not a bad film, but a bit disappointing.

I have this on LaserDisc, and watch it again now and then. I enjoy the depiction of the Hutterites and their moral life, and how they come to influence Arquette.

This is intended to be a strong, moral tale of the perils of evil, and how a good man can turn a bad woman around. Arquette starts out as a carnival worker obsessed with Marilyn Monroe, thinking that Monroe's cheerful public persona meant Monroe was happy. She considers how money would make her happy and doesn't think at all about what stealing is, when she helps stage a robbery.

Her accomplice, Tate, steals, drinks (while, *gasp*, driving!), and uses others, pretty consistently. Quite self-centered and moderately charming.

Watching the Hutterite community reluctantly admit Arquette first as Tate's wife, then as Gordon-Levitt's wife, we see a disciplined community, remaining steadfast and true to their teachings and beliefs. Arquette, on the other hand, we see first ridicule and play at adapting to the Hutterites, then later actually expressing their beliefs and values in her life.

The only Hutterite we see change is Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Who goes from a fainting exasperation of Arquette to a reluctant concern for her, to admiration and respect. This change occurs when Arquette stops reflecting the shallow culture she started out in, and begins to hold an appreciation for moral beliefs and respect. And, in the end, a love of family and friends.

The storytelling is a bit rougher than a Disney-type family film, nor was it popular for showing Godly beliefs as being comforting and supportive. The comedy is a bit earthy, mostly about clashing customs. The Hutterites are all shown to be consistently moral, cheerful, generous, and respectful. We don't get much of their actual teachings (a reclusive Jewis sect, I believe). I especially enjoy one scene where Gordon-Levitt challenges how Arquette picks a guy (from a bar), 'Is his word golden? Is he gentle with animals and children?' The movie plot may be weaker than need be, but it is told in a *nice* way.

I liked this movie. The Larry The Cable Guy spot on the 'Blue Collar Comedy Tour' wasn't my favorite, but wasn't that bad, either.

So I went to see Health Inspector. I found that there was more 'fun' in this film, and less 'humor', than in, say 'Animal House' or 'Van Wilder'. There were no dirty tricks pulled as pranks, people made mistakes but didn't try to be mean or hurtful. Yes, the half-retarded neighbor is a caricature of unexpected behavior, yes the Dreaded Mother of the Date is an encounter of a different kind -- and Larry the Cable Guy demonstrates an acceptance of others for themselves, that enables those around him to flourish and succeed.

Humor requires someone to experience pain, as in ethnic or blonde jokes, the pranks in 'Animal House', or the actions of 'Napolean Dynamite's brother. Fun is more about experiencing joy in our interactions with the world and with others. I found more joy than humor in Health Inspector.

As one for-instance. Weeks before 'Benchwarmers' came out, Oklahoma started experiencing rashes of mailbox bashing -- a federal postal offense -- inspired merely from the Benchwarmers trailer. Larry the Cable Guy Health Inspector is not likely to inspire anyone to harm people or property. I found the effectiveness of the health inspector job to be both engaging, and respectful of the profession and civic responsibility.

The relationships in Larry's life are caricatures. I found myself wanting more depth to his dating and work relationships, instead of the jerkily disconnected snippets of joke-scenes. And yes, there is probably more film time of Larry the Cable Guy on the toilet than bonding with his date. But still.

Crude, low-brow, toilet and 'trailer trash' humor, yes. I did notice that almost more people registered their dislike of Health Inspector the first day, than the first 3 weeks of votes for Failure To Launch. I look forward to placing the DVD next to my Nuns On The Run, Daddy Day Care, Under Siege, Down Periscope, Matilda, and Pot O' Gold.

I have seen the movie twice, now, and find it a happy experience. The credits, the stars making appearances to plug the movie, the reviews all harp on how the story is based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. Maybe they are afraid someone with a similar story might sue for copyright violation. Personally I would have preferred to see a bit less of the Shakespeare influence. For one thing, fights were thrown in to entertain Shakespeare's audiences, but the fights were also thrown in here. hey are distracting, drawn out, unappealing, and could have contributed to the story better as a one-line snide comment.

Beyond that, I was impressed with the understated way the movie explores how men can express emotions, that honor, loyalty, and friendship are virtues even today, and that girls that play soccer sweat and need showers. The Illyria coach was superb -- took due note of who practiced extra, kept from getting too close to his players to maintain discipline, and showed a simple code of honor and responsibility to his players and to the world.

I had fun watching 'She's The Man'.

This screwball flick seems to start as a 'Hamburger University' parody of Police Academy.

** SPOILER ALERT** Follow the requisite group of mis-fits, including Leigh McCloskey as a 'Steve Guttenberg' lookalike, going through boot camp style training under the evil drill instructor (Butkus with a grudge), the cute love interest ('Kim Cattrall' lookalike) and complications. Even the requisite fart joke (done *large*!). ** END SPOILER ALERT**

And love and a pure heart triumphs over bigotry and jealousy.

On the way it is a moderately fun ride. This isn't really a family film, or a date picture (like Police Academy can be). For filling an empty evening, though, it can be kind of fun.