Cinemaholic Movie Reviews

My Winnipeg

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:30:34 GMT

.
.
Directing: B
Acting: C+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-

Anyone who has seen his 2003 film The Saddest Music in the World knows not to expect anything ordinary out of Guy Maddin's films; they have a tendency toward the dream-like, with black and white and gritty cinematography that evokes the silent film era.

In the case of My Winnipeg, Maddin's self-described "docu-fantasia" about his youth in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and his constant desire to escape, the silent film element is completely appropriate. Maddin paints the city as a city of sleepwalkers, meandering aimlessly through the streets in a dreamy state between sleep and consciousness. The way his film is edited and presented, complete with title cards much like those in actual silent movies (a bit of a juxtaposition with his constant voice-over narration), the visual element of the film fits perfectly.

The opening sequences are perhaps the most challenging, however, as they are the most dream-like, the least straightforward, and they go on for several minutes. Maddin tells us about his boarding a train in a last-ditch effort to escape his hometown, offering verbal descriptive vignettes to go with the pictures that blend into one another, vignettes that are often brief yet repetitive.

It's not until this abstract introduction settles and we move into something at least slightly resembling a narrative that a story hook occurs. Maddin, played by an actor, hires other actors to portray his family, and live for one month in the home that he grew up in, in an apparent attempt to unravel the mysteries behind his inability to escape from this snow-covered city.

Maddin himself has insisted My Winnipeg is a documentary, but that claim is clearly a part of the manufactured mystique of the film itself. It's highly stylized, and honestly fairly well executed -- just a bit bizarre for most audiences to really get it. This is a film for the art-house crowd if there ever was one.

The actors, who are playing actors playing Maddin's family, are really not very good actors at all -- almost certainly part of Maddin's grand plan with the film. It's practically a relief when the few straightforward re-enactments of incidents in Maddin's childhood finally revert back to the blended collage of moving pictures that accompany the endless narration. Normally excessive narration is pointless at best and infuriatingly relentless at worst, but for Maddin's purposes, it works.

In the process of all this, Maddin actually goes through several key points in Winnipeg's history, and a lot of it is actually quite interesting -- at least for typical American audiences who aren't going to know the first thing about that city. It's a distinctive -- if sleepy -- city with a quirky history, and that part of it is fun; Maddin eventually reveals a genuine affection for his hometown, and a severe contempt for the civic leaders who trample on its historic landmarks. If there's anything to make My Winnipeg worth watching, that would be it.

Just don't go into it expecting consistent coherence, and try not to let the hypnotically dreamy visuals get to you. Then you might kind of enjoy it.

Overall: B
.
.

Wanted

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:12:04 GMT

.
.
Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+
Special Effects: B+

There's been a lot of chatter about how Wanted has some of the most innovative special effects seen since The Matrix, but it's all kind of misleading. Indeed, Russian director Timur Bekmambetov's (Night Watch) kinetic film has some slick and clever action sequences, and to be sure, the "back story" is just about as preposterous as The Matrix eventually became -- but The Matrix single-handedly changed the way special effects were approached from then on, inspiring a legion of imitators.

The same could not be said of Wanted, which is much more like yet another imitator than it is a movie that will shake up Hollywood and how it makes movies. It's certainly fun, and has plenty of edge-of-your seat thrills, but it also does not feature anything that leaves the audience in awe and wonderment of how it was pulled off. In one way or another, everything seen in Wanted has been seen before.

Have we seen movies about virtually superhuman assassins? Check. Have we seen bullets flying through space in slow-motion? Check. Have we seen story lines that revolve around the question of paternity? Check. Have we seen slow-motion bullets going through paternal superhuman assassins? Check.

The makers of Wanted would probably never admit it, but it has much in common with last year's Shoot 'Em Up. Both are action movies presented for the sole sake of getting off on blam-bang shoot-outs and car chases. Wanted may have snappier special effects, but what truly sets the two films apart is that Shoot 'Em Up -- right down to the title -- has no interest in pretending to be anything but what it is.

Bekmambetov, on the other hand, wants to be a little more high-minded about it: "Kill one, and maybe save a thousand." Whatever. The convoluted and somewhat ridiculous plot -- the assassins come from a fraternity of weavers? -- is pointless, really. All we care about are things like bumbling Wesley Gibson (the always fantastic James McAvoy) breaking out of the mold of his humiliating cubicle job existence, or watching the impossibly hot Angelina Jolie kick ass. It's fun to see seasoned pros like Terence Stamp and Morgan Freeman turning up as well.

All this stuff about Wesley having inherited super-refined senses from his assassin father, who has been murdered and now must be avenged before he picks off the rest of the "fraternity" -- blah blah blah. It's all details, and pretty dumb details at that.

Luckily, Bekmambetov never dwells on them for too long, and soon enough we're back to the action set pieces, which, if not quite as original as people are saying, are indeed gripping and exciting. Wanted is pop trash at its core, whether it wants to admit it or not, but it's thrilling and expertly executed trash, at least.

Overall: B
.
.

WALL-E

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:52:44 GMT

.
.
Directing: A
Acting: B+
Writing: A-
Cinematography: A
Editing: A
Animation: A+

After Cars (2006) and Ratatouille, the Pixar clan seemed to be losing that spark that made it the animation behemoth it was to begin with. The animation was as amazing as ever, but the storytelling -- still at its peak with the wonderful The Incredibles (2004) -- was getting a little rote.

But now, WALL-E, arguably Pixar's best film since Toy Story (1995), proves they've still got it. In spite of having less dialog than any of their other films, the script, by writer-director Andrew Stanton (who also did the similarly detailed Finding Nemo in 2003), is perhaps the studio's most inspired.

The story follows WALL-E ("Waste Allocation Load Lifter, Earth Class"), a lonely robot who is the last of his kind on a distant-future Earth abandoned to its fate of crushing under the weight of mountains of garbage. With a look and a personality inevitably compared to Number Five in the Short Circuit movies, WALL-E falls in love with EVE ("Extra-Terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator"), a robot probe sent to Earth to look for signs of life.

WALL-E follows the exploits of these two robots, both on Earth where no human lives and therefore there's no one around to do any talking (aside from the remarkably understandable beeps and boops of the robots), and on the far-away cruise ship that's been on auto-pilot for 700 years, since the planet was deemed inhospitable.

And in both settings, WALL-E works on every level: silly or cute, pure entertainment or cautionary tale, broad comedy or satire, for adults or for kids. The complexity of the story is a joy to see unraveled, even as the probability of the future depicted is a mite depressing: all that makes WALL-E great is in the details, all of which are a commentary on the present, thinly disguised as a reflection of our possible fate.

In this future, only one company controls everything: Buy & Large, and the B&L logo is plastered all over all the decaying junk WALL-E is programmed to compact into trash cubes. On the cruise ship, everyone is rendered obese and partially comatose by generations of automated machinery doing everything for them.

Stanton has a clear message of desperation regarding the Earth's environmental health and stability, and although much of the film's subtext is that of centuries of inevitable hopelessness, that downer of a scenario (to say the least) is not only presented with Pixar's trademark playful wit, but it's perfectly counter-balanced by the love story between WALL-E and EVE. Unlike the totally ridiculous (even for a cartoon) chef rat in Ratatouille, the bond that develops between these two robots is presented in a way that makes it easy to accept it at face value, and it's genuinely touching.

Of course, the animation itself is a sight to behold, in and of itself reason enough to see the movie. The terrestrial scenery may not be all that pretty, but it's amazing in its level of detail; the space scenes are as gorgeous and majestic as animation ever possibly could be.

In some ways, WALL-E is a relief, as it proves that Pixar is still far and away the best of all the animation studios, whether it comes to the unparalleled animation or their uncanny ability to reach both children and grown-ups with equal effectiveness. But even when objectively considering it without the unavoidable comparisons, it stands up in a way that reveals it to be a classic for our time.

Overall: A
.
.

Mongol

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:06:36 GMT

.
.
Directing: B
Acting: B-
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B
Special Effects: B+

The marketers of Mongol, the story of Genghis Khan's childhood and rise to power by Russian Director Sergei Bodrov, would have us expecting a spectacular epic. The truth is, Mongol is not spectacular. But it's interesting enough.

A truly exciting film about the life of Genghis Khan would probably need to be set during the time after he gained his power. Instead, the story we get here is that of young Temudjin's struggles with kidnappings, forced slavery, poverty, and warring clans after the poisoning murder of his father when Temudjin was only nine.

It was at this time that Temudjin also chose his bride, ten-year-old Börte, and that gives Bodrov the excuse to make this a love story -- from then on, every decision Temudjin makes is informed by his desire to be with the woman he loves. This includes going to battle with an enemy clan, a most unconventional reason for fighting at the time.

Never mind that Genghis Khan had multiple other wives; for the purposes of this so-called "untold story" of the man's rise to power, Börte was his one and only, all through the years it took for him to rise above all those would would oppress him. Granted, artistic license is par for the course in movies based on history, but Temudjin and Börte's relationship is a fairly transparent plot gimmick.

That's not to say the plot doesn't work, though. Mongol pulls you along easily and confidently, even with some often odd editing that leaves out what might otherwise be pertinent details (how the hell did Temudjin get out of falling through the ice on a frozen lake? We never know). And by the time Temudjin is warring for the title of Khan with his blood brother, and now rival, Jamukha, the battle scenes are well executed and shot with an impressive aesthetic quality, even if they're a little too reminiscent of countless other movies in recent years featuring large armies in ancient-world battle scenes.

One should not be misled, however: Mongol concerns itself far more with drama, and more specifically Temudjin's long years of overcoming hardships, than it is with exciting action sequences. It has a sufficient amount of emotional weight, but the plot is somewhat too simplistic. Furthermore, the acting is not quite up to par with the dramatic intent. Tadanobu Asano and Khulan Chuluun are both decent as Temudjin and Börte, respectively, but whether they are intended to convey anger, sorrow, helplessness or steely resolve, they both do it by simply being stoic. This means that although the story is engaging, there is little in Mongol to keep you perched on the edge of your seat.

Arguably the best thing about Mongol is that it represents a time, place and culture rarely depicted in film, and as such a lot of unfamiliar behaviors are displayed, and by extension the story is largely unpredictable -- always a very good thing in a world of paint-by-numbers movies mass produced on a Hollywood assembly line. Mongol is a perfectly decent movie; it just can't manage to be as great as the central character of Genghis Khan might suggest.

Overall: B
.
.

Get Smart

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:26:20 GMT

.
.
Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B
Special Effects: B+

Everything goes in cycles, and if Get Smart, the new action-comedy based on the 1960s TV series, proves anything, it's that we're ready for the return of movies that aren't so smugly pleased with themselves.

Get Smart, while smartly updated for the twenty-first century (even if the motivations of the villainous organization Kaos is rendered a little murky), offers a refreshing amount of old-fashioned, straight-forward comedy. It's not so much satire as it is outright gags, almost all of which are laugh-out-loud funny. It may be exchanging intellectual-mindedness for easy laughs, but when the jokes work, that's not a bad trade-off.

Indeed, one does not have to have the slightest familiarity with the old television show in order for the movie to work -- although fans of the show will certainly get a kick out of the one or two inside jokes, including a cameo by Bernie Kopell, who played the villain Siegfried in the show. Director Peter Segal (The Longest Yard) pays sufficient tribute to the show (we see the original suit, shoe phone, and car on museum display) without losing the younger audience.

It's all so matter-of-fact in its humor and storytelling, it's impossible to get lost in this movie. There are no layers of plot to peel back, and for a movie with a great deal of slapstick humor -- some of which is clever enough to evoke memories of Airplane!, a compliment if there ever was one -- that serves the story well.

Of course, Get Smart would not be so entertaining nearly from beginning to end if it were not for the players, led by a surprisingly perfect Steve Carell as Maxwell Smart, the clumsy Control agent who often finds his mishaps working to his advantage. And Anne Hathaway as his partner, Agent 99, finally gets to display some comedy chops she had no chance to show in her bland part in The Devil Wears Prada.

Alan Arkin is well served as The Chief of Control, and Dwayne Johnson is adequate, if a tad hammy, as Agent 23. The only two people who seem under-utilized are Bill Murray, who is in a frustratingly brief cameo as Agent 13, and Terrence Stamp, who could have been seriously entertaining as Siegfried but for some reason is given virtually nothing but throw-away lines.

It's not often that a marriage of comedy and action works so well, but there is plenty of action here as well, and even a smattering of fairly impressive special effects (including a hilarious bit in which Maxwell keeps shooting himself in the face with a miniature crossbow). Get Smart starts off a little slow, but things soon pick up, either with the comedy or the action, and often both.

It's really the chemistry between Carell and Hathaway that makes the movie, though, and which renders the plot -- a rote story of a terrorist group making threats with nuclear bombs -- incidental. It would have been nice to have a more solid story, but what does it matter when you're laughing so often? When Get Smart gets funny, it's comedy at its finest.

Overall: B+
.
.

ADVANCE: Lakshmi and Me

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:04:39 GMT

.
.
Directing: A-
Writing: A
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A-

There are many preconceived notions regarding how differences in class and caste systems work in other countries, but none are so revelatory and illuminating as a live recording of the reality -- as is the case with the the short (59 minutes), yet riveting, documentary Lakshmi and Me.

Director Nishtha Jain is a middle-class woman living in Mumbai, and after she introduces herself by noting that "I was born a feminist" -- who refused to do any housework as a child unless her brothers had to too -- the perfect tone is set. She decides to "cross the line" and get more personal with her housemaid, Lakshmi, by filming her, and ultimately making a full-length documentary with the footage.

Lakshmi is so fascinating in her own right, it's easy to gloss over the equally impressive aspects of Jain herself, as she inserts herself into the narrative of the film, as part of this unconventionally explored relationship. For instance, Jain never reveals whether or not she is in a relationship; she never discusses it, and but for Lakshmi, judging by the film, she seems to be living on her own.

Jain quickly reveals herself to be someone who walks her talk. It's not just that she was born a feminist, but from an Indian context, she's astoundingly bold -- radical, even. Whereas most employers of domestic workers take such things for granted, Jain shows us a shot of herself sitting in a chair, and Lakshmi sitting on the floor, as she refuses to sit next to her in a chair -- and Jain says, "It embarrasses me."

Lakshmi and Me is more than just a documentary film, it's something far more personal. It's used as a tool, a bridging agent for Jain to gain some access into Lakshmi's personal life without it coming across as inappropriate or too awkward. In so doing, Jain not only consistently treats Lakshmi with respect and like an equal, but slowly but surely she manages to become her friend rather than just her employer.

Lakshmi is a shy character, but very strong-willed, and in many ways a feminist in her own right. Refusing to go along with a traditional arranged marriage, she falls in love with Krishna, a man from a slightly different caste. His case is different enough, however, that Lakshmi's father essentially disowns her for it. By this point, Lakshmi has become so accustomed and comfortable with Jain's camera that she happily allows Jain into her home. Her own living space is so squalid compared to those of the people for whom she cleans house, it's truly jarring.

Lakshmi's life quickly becomes the story that drives the film, in all its compelling drama, as Jain follows her through marriage, pregnancy, illness, and family troubles. By virtue of the existence of the film, Jain goes along with Lakshmi on this journey, and it's touching to see the process by which Jain comes to care about her ever-more deeply.

In its way, Lakshmi and Me is a love story, a love between friends, but nonetheless a love that transcends a plethora of incredible obstacles. To call Nishtha Jain liberal-minded in the context of Mumbai's domestic workers would be an understatement indeed. Perhaps it's modesty that keeps her from acknowledging how inspiring and courageous Jain is herself, given the efforts she makes to bridge the gaps created by the Indian caste system. Instead, she focuses exclusively on Lakshmi, and Lakshmi's courage.

But Lakshmi and Me is about Nishtha Jain just as much as it is about Lakshmi (as is appropriately suggested by the title), as these are two amazing women who just happen to come from wildly different backgrounds, but found a way to connect. If any film can convey the message of peace, love and understanding without even a hint of heavy-handedness, this is it.

Overall: A-
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: The Mysteries of Pittsburgh

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:40:17 GMT

.
.
Directing: B+
Acting: B-
Writing: A-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B

Here's something you don't see every day: a love triangle in which each person is equally in love with both other people, and all of them are multi-dimensional, well-rounded characters. The Mysteries of Pittsburgh explores the dynamics of such a relationship between three people, and treats it with respect, rather than with intent to titillate. Threesome, this is not.

Art Bechstein (Jon Foster), son of a local gangster (phoned in by Nick Nolte), is intent on spending his summer after graduating college "with as little responsibility as possible." He gets a job at the Book Barn, where he spends a lot of time fucking his slightly nutso supervisor (Mena Suvari, playing it with just the right amount of barely controlled instability).

And then, at a party he goes to with his old college roommate, he meets Jane (the lovely Sienna Miller), who sort of knocks him off his feet, although Dodgeball director Rawson Marshall Thurber, who also wrote the script based on the novel by Michael Chabon, doesn't quite give us a compelling reason why that should have occurred.

But of course, Jane has a boyfriend, reckless Cleveland (the reliably excellent Peter Sarsgaard, almost unrecognizable under a beard). Cleveland likes to toy with people, and plays a prank on Art upon their first meeting, being the first stranger to bring up Art's gangster father. And there begins the friendship between all three of them, which ends up evolving into a love -- and even a lust -- between all three of them.

The Mysteries of Pittsburgh has a unique story, and it's really on the strength of its writing that it pulls you along. It's refreshing to see what really amounts of a polyamorous relationship without it being politicized in any way; these characters just are, and their representation in film to date has been virtually nonexistent. As such, the story rarely goes where you might expect it to, which only contributes to its realism.

It's in the execution of the film on the whole that things get a little spottier, especially when it comes to the acting. Sarsgaard, Suvari and Miller all give respectable performances, but Jon Foster seems only to have perfected the look of a a deer in headlights. He gets a lot of screen time with a dumbfounded and/or blank look on his face.

It's when Nick Nolte is on screen that the film nearly gets derailed, though. Maybe someone thought a part in a movie like this would grant him some much-needed credibility in the long-lasting wake of his 2002 arrest and notorious mug shot, but it would have helped if he actually appeared invested in the work he was doing. Instead of coming across as a fearsome gangster (and the specifics of this "profession" are never completely revealed, and area where the realism begins to break down), he simply looks bored. Luckily, he's in few scenes and they're all brief.

Overall, though, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh is like nothing else out there, which is no small feat in a world of constantly recycled story lines, reboots and remakes. At its core it's a coming-of-age story, which of course has been done a million times -- but how many times have we seen a bisexual coming of age? It's impact goes little more than skin deep, but it's still worth a look.

Overall: B
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: Man of Cinema: Pierre Rissient

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:40:57 GMT

.
.
Directing: C
Writing: C+
Cinematography: D+
Editing: C-

Few people among the general public know who Pierre Rissient is, but he's very famous among famous people: For many decades now, this French film critic/promoter has championed so many otherwise obscure films and directors that many people in the film industry credit him with their success.

In Man of Cinema: Pierre Rissient, director Todd McCarthy manages to get this point across, but only the most serious cinephiles are going to wait the time it takes to get to that point. It's hard to imagine Rissient having any desire whatsoever to champion this film about him, as it's a totally garbled mess.

McCarthy achieves something that seems impressive at first glance, with the number of famous people he gets for interviews: Quentin Tarantino, Oliver Stone, Clint Eastwood, the late Sydney Pollack, Werner Herzog, and many more. Unfortunately, every interview is shot in bizarrely different locations, from outside by a lake near mountains to one person literally sitting on a toilet, and with each of these locations, the sound quality fluctuates severely. Sometimes you can barely hear what people are saying, due to obtrusive background noise, be it city traffic or just wind.

It's too bad, because Rissient is indeed a fascinating man, having become arguably the first true film industry publicist, now at a point where he's the only person who can come and go as he pleases without printed credentials at all events in the Cannes Film Festival. There is a long parade of international filmmakers who have stories of how Rissient discovered their work and found ways to promote it, often single-handedly getting the films accepted into Cannes. He is clearly a unique man, having carved a singular niche in the entertainment industry.

Would that Man of Cinema could have been so entertaining! Alas, it's a profound disappointment, right down to the presentation of Pierre Rissient himself. The film could have benefited from subtitles even when Rissient is speaking English, as his accent is so thick that even his English sounds totally incomprehensible about 25% of the time.

Man of Cinema: Pierre Rissient is so rife with technical ineptitude that not even Rissient's own undeniably fascinating persona can save it. Rissient himself has a reputation for being blunt and honest about the elements of a film he doesn't like, and so there's no better way to honor him than to do the same for this film: there's absolutely no good reason to see it.

If Rissient were to write a memoir, that would probably be a delicious read, with all the inside information and gossip about highly respected industry people he has at hand. It might even make a good documentary, if it were made by someone who actually knew what he was doing. Unfortunately, Todd McCarthy is not that person.

Overall: C-
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: Saturn in Opposition

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:18:28 GMT

.
.
Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B

It's always refreshing to see a movie in which the main characters just happen to be gay, and that aspect of them is completely incidental. Unfortunately, no mainstream film in the United States has yet done this; our films have gay characters and they are still "gay films." You have to look to foreign films to find such things -- but you need look no further than the Italian film Saturn in Opposition.

Make no mistake, though: this is a three-hankie weeper of a film if there ever was one. What truly makes it stand apart is that, although it's a gay character who falls ill, the reason for that illness has no connection whatsoever with his sexuality. It's more about how the loss of someone in a close-knit group of friends affects everyone in that group, making it more like the co-ed, Italian version of Steel Magnolias. You'll laugh a few times; you'll cry a lot.

All of these friends revolve around a gay couple, well-established writer Davide (Pierfrancesco Favino) and the young-and-hot Lorenzo (Luca Argentero). A fairly long amount of time is spent establishing the supporting characters and their own problems, most notably one man who is having an affair and his wife who can't decide what to do about it. Mostly, though, this large group of friends (there are at least six of them) serve as moral support for Davide when Lorenzo suffers an aneurysm and falls into a coma.

This tragedy occurs little more than halfway through the film, so any light-heartedness is relatively short-lived; anyone coming into this movie expecting a comedy is going to be surprised. The story is interesting but not extremely compelling; director and co-writer Ferzan Ozpetek keeps the cameras aloof from the characters, none of whom are facing any problem that hasn't been explored a million times already in other films, and never truly getting inside any of their heads in order to reveal relatable motivations.

The rest of the film is an extended examination of mourning, grief, and other modes of unhappiness. And yet, getting to a point of caring about these people, all of whom still come across as genuine and real, is very easy. The story might not be particularly fresh, but that doesn't making it any less touching. Or manipulative, depending on how you look at it.

The lesson Hollywood could learn from Saturn in Opposition is the total respect it gives its gay characters, giving them multiple dimensions to the point of making that part of them incidental. They're like real people, with the same hopes, dreams and fears as the straight people in their lives. You hardly even realize there are gay people in this movie until you step back and compare it to American films.

It's nice to see gay stories being told, but it's nice to see an example of how most "gay stories" are everyone's stories, and it doesn't have to be told through the eyes of straight people in order to make them universal.

On the other hand, Saturn in Opposition could have stood being slightly less universal, given that the gay characters are the only things that really give it any true distinction. The story is fine, but far from extraordinary; it's compelling enough, but not all that memorable (not unless you count how hot a shirtless Luca Argentero is). Even at 110 minutes, it feels too long.

For what it is, though, it works. Sometimes you want a genuine tearjerker, and from that angle, Saturn in Opposition certainly delivers.

Overall: B
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: Otto; or, Up with Dead People

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:26:09 GMT

.
.
Directing: C+
Acting: C-
Writing: B
Cinematography: B-
Editing: C

Otto; or, Up with Dead People, which had its Seattle debut at the Seattle International Film Festival, is the kind of meandering, pretentious mess that plays well at festivals and then goes nowhere in either theatrical release or on DVD. As a so-called indictment of self-important filmmakers and grossly wasteful capitalists that is itself unjustly self-important and wasteful, it plays like a college film class project with sporadic moments of wit and the production values of a feature-length daytime soap opera, or maybe a BBC television program.

But of course, it also has gay zombie sex. And while the zombie part is intended to be a mystery (are the zombies real?), there are a few clips in which the sex is not simulated. In Canadian director Bruce La Bruce's attempt to be John Waters on steroids -- which ultimately fails -- we are "treated" to shots that leave nothing to the imagination, from a zombie fucking an open wound to a gay zombie orgy complete with severed limbs peppered throughout the writhing bodies.

These shots are far fewer in number and actually much more sexually (if not graphically) subtle than, say, the sexual explicitness in John Cameron Mitchell's intriguing experiment Shortbus. But that doesn't make them any less unnecessary, or any less cheap shots at attention-grabbing.

Because without that element of gay zombie porn, Otto would not get even what little attention it already has. The only thing that gives this film any genuine aspect of horror is the acting. Jey Crisfar, who plays the title character, is tolerable due to his zombie-monotone and his character's limited vocabulary, but virtually everyone else -- including people not playing zombies -- gives a delivery so stilted that a lot of the writing, which is actually fairly decent (if still pretentious), falls flat.

The cinematography might have been okay if better camera equipment had been used, but as such, Otto contains several takes that look so dreadful that it's tempting to call Bruce La Bruce the modern gay Canadian Ed Wood. Even the editing is bad enough to be obtrusive; it's like watching a rough cut that's being presented as a masterpiece.

And who knows? Maybe that's exactly what La Bruce was going for. That doesn't make the movie work. Twenty-six years ago John Waters shocked audiences with the camp gross-out of Divine eating dog shit in Pink Flamingos, and Waters films worked and resonated with audiences because they re-defined camp itself. That was the point. La Bruce clearly has a different agenda, as he attempts to use these stomach-turning images into metaphors charged with intellectualized, political humor. It's a match made in the toilet, and in the toilet is where it all stays. This kind of crap really can't be elevated, especially when the high-minded symbolism is so decidedly lowbrow.

Oh, but what about the story? Well, Otto is a lonely zombie stumbling around the "not too distant future," and he auditions for a movie being made about a new strain of gay zombies. The director of this movie, Medea Yarn (Katharina Klewinghaus), is using the zombies as a metaphor for far too many things, from capitalist greed, to how gay people eat their own, to the very nature of conformity. In the process of filming, Otto begins to remember certain things about his past ("Could I have been a vegetarian, or worse, a vegan?"). And as people increasingly refer to Otto as a guy who "thinks he's a zombie," including the other actors playing zombies in Medea's movie, Otto's authenticity as a member of the undead himself is called into question.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the scene where Otto meets his ex-boyfriend, but the impact is muddied by the fact that the ex-boyfriend's acting is the scariest part of the entire movie; if there's anything in this film that will make you want to run screaming from a theatre, that's it.

Otto does have its occasional amusing moments, and even thought-provoking moments. When Otto asks Medea why she's taking him to the city dump, she answers, "Because this is your kingdom." Referring to when everyone else is dead and gone but the undead will still walk the Earth, she says, "One day, all of this, will be yours." And then she gives him crown and a scepter made out of garbage and has him climb to the top of the heap for a dramatic shot in her movie.

This touches on a deeper theme of the film, about waste and pollution all being the product of the masses following the status quo (like, uh, zombies), that is well worth pursuing. But "deeper" is the operative word here, as it gets completely buried under the unnecessary -- and far less coherently explored -- double meaning of the "gay zombie," and the relentless pursuit of shock value with no genuine emotional payoff. In the end, Up with Dead People is less a movie-within-a-movie than it is a mess-within-a-mess, and it's a challenge to make clear sense of it all, making it hardly worth the effort.

Overall: C+
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: Be Like Others

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:48:34 GMT

.
.
Directing: B
Writing: A
Cinematography: B-
Editing: B

Be Like Others takes a little-known fact about Iran and makes it the central focus: in an Islamic country here homosexuality is punishable by death, sex-change operations are not only legal, but shockingly prevalent. And even with that in mind, the most revelatory moment in the film is when it becomes clear that every transsexual featured in the film declares in the end that they would not have gone through with the surgery if they hadn't felt like they had no choice.

There is a lot of discussion, even in the United States, about the difference between gender and sexuality, and how being gay is totally different from being transgendered. Most people having those discussions in the U.S., however, do so with the underlying acknowledgment of an inextricable connection between the two. What Be Like Others demonstrates more than anything is how people in Iran deny any such connection -- even on the part of the transsexuals themselves.

Homosexuality is seen as unnatural and immoral, but transsexuality, simply because it is not specifically identified as a sin in the Koran (according to one featured Muslim cleric "expert on transsexuality"), is the opposite. Arguments made for ages in the U.S. to defend the legitimacy of homosexuality is used by them to defend transsexuals: this is how God made them; they can't help who they are; etc. The force of their willful ignorance when it comes to gay people -- who Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad infamously stated don't even exist in Iran -- is staggering.

Director Tanaz Eshaghian, who gets fairly deep inside Iran's sex-change industry, lending the film authenticity by presenting it entirely in subtitles and without a single person speaking English -- seems to have a clear understanding of these contradictions. Her production values are fairly limited, but any technical shortcomings are more than made up for by the very nature of her subject matter: She provides Western audiences a window into a world they not only never had a chance to see before, but never even knew existed. Who knew sex change operations were so acceptable in Iran?

One can only assume Eshaghian encountered plenty of obstacles in the making of this film, especially as a woman working on location in an overtly misogynist society, and as a result Be Like Others does not follow up enough on certain subjects and does not always flow all that well. The very first time we see the "pioneering" doctor who performs all these operations, he's speaking to a woman considering a sex change to be a man -- and it instantly piques the interest. What is it like for female-to-male transsexuals in Iran? Do they acquire full amounts of male privilege post-operation? These are pointedly relevant questions, but the woman is never seen again, and no answers are offered.

It's hardly less fascinating, however, to follow the stories of three other transsexuals, all of them male-to-female, one of then post-operation and two of then pre-op. At least one of them comes across as being genuinely transgendered, but others are clearly undergoing the operation for no other reason than the alternative option being convicted -- and executed -- for being gay.

Amazingly, men who date such women, even before their operations (as long as the women are presenting as women, anyway), are not vilified. Be Like Others does an effective job of examining not only Iranian homophobia, but the country's blatantly institutionalized sexism as well. In one telling scene, a young transsexual is talking to a government official about how she understands that as a woman she'll have a lot of limitations not placed on men. The official's immediate reaction is to declare, "These are not limitations."

But these people's willingness to give up on so many of the rights afforded them as men is testament to the desperation they feel in this country. For some, it is seen as the answer to all their problems; for others, it's simply the least miserable option.

Be Like Others is certainly not the most uplifting documentary ever made, but it could be argued that the only way to force some hope into the midst of all the despair in such societies is for people around the world to become educated about it. To that end, Be Like Others does a very good job, and it certainly worth the time and effort.

Overall: B+
.
.

Kung Fu Panda

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 05:08:26 GMT

.
.
Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+
Animation: B+

It pretty much goes without saying (but I'm going to say it anyway) that no review is going to change the fact that all kids who go to see Kung Fu Panda are going to love it. Kids don't care about voice talent or polished scripts; they respond to colorfulness and goofy, slapstick humor. This movie has those things in spades, and it works.

But will the adults who bring those children -- or, as in my case, adults who see it based on their own interest -- enjoy it themselves? Sure they will! This is no Over the Hedge or Ice Age 2, the kinds of animated features that aim (successfully, admittedly) to entertain children while adults are bored to death. Kung Fu Panda has a universal appeal -- that is, as soon as the story kicks in.

And it does take a little while for that to happen. When Kung Fu Panda begins, we find Po the Panda (Jack Black, amazingly dialing his usual schtick down several notches) dreaming about being a famous kung fu warrior. He wakes up from his dream, and we discover that he's late for work as a waiter at the noodle restaurant owned by his presumably adoptive duck father.

These opening scenes are a tad cutesy, but mercifully, the establishing of the film's characters occurs swiftly, and once some kung-fu fighting actually begins, Kung Fu Panda is amusing at worst and mesmerizing at best. It's helped in no small part by co-directors Mark Osborne and John Stevenson doing extensive research in order to make realistic representations of actual kung fu. The moves are real; the fantasy comes in when it's a plethora of different kinds of animals performing them.

But the voice talent runs deep here, keeping things consistently entertaining as soon as the action begins. Dustin Hoffman voices the raccoon kung fu master who reluctantly accepts the prophesy that Po is the "Dragon Warrior" who will defeat the wild cat Tai Lung -- a villain voiced deliciously by Deadwood's Ian McShane. And then there are the "Furious Five," the students being trained by Hoffman's Shifu: Tigress (Angelina Jolie); Crane (David Cross); Viper (Lucy Liu); Mantis (Seth Rogen); and Monkey (Jackie Chan, in a nod to the kick-feet movies that so clearly inspired this film).

And although live-action films like Kung Fu Hustle have sent up martial arts films with far greater success as well as more pointed humor, the action scenes in Kung Fu Panda are truly what make it worth seeing. It's not often that an animated feature can double as a great action movie, but this one just about does it. Jack Black's Po is adorable enough when engaged in cute dialog, but when he's using his own gut as a lethal weapon, the action is as funny as it is exciting.

It certainly doesn't hurt either that the Dreamworks Animation crew renders so many beautiful paintings out of the backgrounds. The animation is not quite so seamlessly amazing as what we've come to take for granted from Pixar, but it's possibly the best background animation Dreamworks has ever done, which still makes it impressive. The animal characters themselves serve the purpose of being cute and cuddly first and foremost, so any technical achievement there is moderate at best. But there's something to be said for the attention paid to background detail.

Kung Fu Panda is a fairly run-of-the-mill story that borrows heavily from the mythologies of both Chinese martial arts flicks as well as films like Star Wars and The Matrix ("There is no secret ingredient" might as well have been "There is no spoon"). But the pseudo-exotic setting gives what would otherwise be a tired story a new context, and the individual characters give it an unexpected vivacity. At its core, there's nothing new here, but on the surface it feels fresh -- and really, that's good enough.

Overall: B+
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: Call Me Troy

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:38:50 GMT

.
.
Directing: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B

After viewing Call Me Troy, a documentary about the founder of Metropolitan Community Church, one has to wonder why so few people have ever heard of this extraordinary man. When the film screened at the Seattle International Film Festival, director Scott Bloom, referring to the gay community, called him "Our Martin Luther King."

And there are, indeed, some striking similarities, not the least of which is the fact that King and Troy Perry were both ministers as well as civil rights leaders. Bloom noted that a film is coming about later this year about Harvey Milk, "and that's great," he said. "But there are other stories, and they don't have to be tragic."

Unfortunately, the thing that made Harvey Milk more noteworthy in history than Troy Perry is the same thing that made Martin Luther King more noteworthy: they were both assassinated, thereby granting them some level of martyr status. Such incidents always elevate the status and memory of a community leader, which unfortunately takes the focus away from amazing individuals like Troy Perry, who have been doing civil rights activism of one sort or another for some forty years.

Metropolitan Community Church was the first organized church ever to be created with the specific mission of welcoming gay and lesbian members to their congregations. Their first service was in Perry's home, in 1968. Since then, Perry has been heavily involved in some of the most significant moments in our country's gay history, from the purchasing of MCC's first church building in 1971 (the first public building purchase in Los Angeles by a gay group), to the organizing of the first March on Washington in 1979 (which he did in conjunction with lesbian activist Robin Tyler), and even including the recent lawsuit that resulted in California's Supreme Court striking down its same-sex marriage ban.

A broad swath of Perry's life and accomplishments is presented in Call Me Troy, a clearly low-budget, but nonetheless often riveting film about a highly influential and little-known man. Scott Bloom spends a little too much time through the first half or so focusing almost exclusively on Perry's specific interviews, which makes it feel a little one-note for a while; it would have been well served to have more of the interviews with people associated with Perry through the years that spread through the entire course of the film. And at 100 minutes, it's rather long for a documentary of this short, but Bloom actually has a point when he says, "What do you cut out?" It could have been tightened up a bit, but there's still never a dull moment, as everything revealed about this man and his life is impressive.

In fact, it would have been nice to have gotten more history of Metropolitan Community Church itself, but Bloom chose to focus on Perry and his life and personal accomplishments so the film would not be deemed a "religious film." Indeed, it comes across much more as a film about a man who happens to be an accomplished minister than it does as a film about a religious denomimation. Given that there are already public schools in California that have added the film to their curriculum, that choice is clearly serving the film well.

Whether or not Call Me Troy is truly "subjective" is up for debate; it is a relief, however, that no right-wing "opposing viewpoints" are presented here. Bloom takes the smart position that his audiences will already be on board with the idea that, contrary to what virtually all other religious denominations say, God does not hate gay people.

That said, it's also worth noting that Call Me Troy is recommended not only to church-going gay people, but to any person -- gay or straight, Christian or not -- who believes in the basic tenets of equality. Perry gets to the essence of that point when he notes in the film that he respects all people, gay or straight, who choose not to get married -- "Just don't use the law to tell me I can't."

Bloom treats us with brief footage of Perry and his partner getting married in Canada, taking advantage of the first chance they have to get married legally anywhere, and it's one of many very touching moments in the film, which is on the whole much more uplifting than most films about civil rights struggles. There are two significant reasons for this: First, Perry might have faced many crushing setbacks -- such as when their first church was burned down in 1973 -- but he always faced them and got through them with grace and dignity. Second, as a minister, he has a natural inclination to speak in ways that are uplifting by default.

Perry might be predisposed to humility, but he has an undeniable charisma, so that even when Bloom over-focuses on him, Perry really makes Call Me Troy what it is: a totally worthy look at a fascinating man who deserves heretofore unrealized, broad recognition in the community at large.

Overall: B+
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: Savage Grace

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:44:10 GMT

.
.
Directing: B-
Acting: B
Writing: C
Cinematography: B
Editing: C-

Julianne Moore can be an extraordinary actor, in the hands of a great director. In Savage Grace, directed by Tom Kalin, she's a little more spotty, with intermittent moments of greatness, interspersed with scenes where she really feels like she's phoning it in.

This seeming indecisiveness is in keeping with the overall feel of this disturbing film about a mother (Moore) who develops an inappropriate relationship with her gay son (Eddie Redmayne). Kalin presents the true story of Barbara Baekeland, wife Brooks Baekeland (Stephan Dillane), grandson of Leo Baekeland, founder of Bakelite plastic, in five acts. The focus is really on Barbara first, her fixation on her son second, and her instability in the face of her obsession with retaining a standing in high society third.

The five-act structure, though, barely falls short of feeling gimmicky. We get a sense of who the characters are but nothing any deeper than that; we get no history to provide deep-seeded motives for the way the characters behave. One moment, Barbara is scheduling social engagements much to Brooks' irritation; the next, Barbara is discovering an unknown boy sleeping in her son Tony's bed. There is very little presented to connect the dots between these scenes, and by the time we see what is perhaps the most disturbing sex scene ever in a mainstream movie (I think I'd rather watch Last Tango in Paris or even Deliverance again than sit through this particular scene), all we know is what is happening, but not exactly why.

Both Barbara and Tony eventually start to seem a bit bat-shit crazy, and after what they experience, it certainly seems plausible. Plausibility, however, is not the same as real character development, which Kalin and script writer Howard A. Rodman (who based the film on the book by Natalie Robins), really don't bother to explore. It's more like a series of vignettes in the lives of one of the earliest, high-profile dysfunctional families.

Furthermore, the none of the principal characters offer the audience any reason to relate to them. The result is that Savage Grace becomes a high-minded, intellectually self-justified freak show, and one that is truly unpleasant to sit through.

Savage Grace is compelling enough on the surface; it's certainly never boring, and the performances on the whole are decent enough. But not even cinematography that consistently matches the intended mood of every scene (no matter how uncomfortable) can clean up the mess left by a misguided script and pretentious editing.

Overall: C+
.
.

Sex and the City

Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:06:44 GMT

.
.
Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B

There is no question about it: any big-time fan of the beloved HBO series Sex and the City is guaranteed to enjoy the movie. The characters have grown and changed a bit in the four years since the series ended, but they are still all the same people, with the same familiar quirks. The film works as a natural progression of the series, and it does it well.

There have been complaints that the film, at two and a half hours, is too long -- and that's true; easily half an hour of it could have been cut, and an already perfectly enjoyable movie would have been vastly improved. The film starts of relatively slow, and takes a while to pick up steam; Jennifer Hudson is lovely as Carrie Bradshaw's assistant, but feels like a wholly unnecessary character, aside from providing an excuse to give Sarah Jessica Parker the largest amount of screen time.

But she still does her part to light up the screen, as do all of the principals. We are provided with all new sub plots, some a lot more interesting than others: Carrie (Parker) is planning a huge wedding to Big, who shocks her when he casually suggests they get married. Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is over-worked and her sex life with husband Steve (David Eigenberg) suffers for it, with huge consequences. Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is struggling with her uncharacteristic commitment to Los Angeles boyfriend Smith (Jason Lewis). And Charlotte (Kristin Davis) has almost no problems, being happily married with an adopted daughter she totes around everywhere, and an even bigger wonderful surprise in store.

While the series spent a lot more time spreading the focus around, the film version of Sex and the City revolves around Carrie Bradshaw and her relationship to Big. This is even true of the subplots of her friends, all of which serve as plot points or catalysts to Carrie's story.

In most cases, however, that doesn't make any of the subplots any less interesting. In fact, many of the most interesting -- and particularly, the funniest -- things happen to Carrie's friends. In fact, by far the funniest thing, which I won't reveal here, happens to Charlotte on a trip to Mexico. This almost qualifies as a consolation prize for Charlotte having by far the least meaty story in the film. If this were any other film about four female friends, Charlotte's story would have either needed to be more interesting or she would have had to be cut out; she's only here with her story stretched thin because she's an essential member of the principal cast.

Few people would disagree that the Sex and the City movie is not without flaws, but none of those flaws are fatal, so none of the show's fans are going to care whatsoever. The only thing fans might be truly disappointed in is that Carrie's gay friend Stanford (Willie Garson) makes several appearances, but does not have a single actual line in the movie. In every scene he's in, he's out-shined by Carrie's amusingly flamboyant wedding planner, Anthony (Mario Cantone).

But, you can't have everything, and Sex and the City is the kind of movie that can't possibly please everyone, and so it takes the more admirable road of not bothering to try. Whether it's a good or a bad thing that the movie feels like a string of five episodes of the TV show is debatable; fans of the show, for the most part, are going to get what they want. And in spite of it being a touch too long, it still works as a movie. All things considered, it could have been a disaster -- but this is a movie that truly respects its target audience, and in so doing will leave them more than sufficiently entertained and satisfied.

Overall: B+
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: Idiots and Angels

Sun, 01 Jun 2008 05:59:12 GMT

.
.
Directing: B+
Acting: B
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B
Animation: B+

At the screening of Idiots and Angels at the Seattle International Film Festival, director, writer and animator Bill Plympton likened it to what it would look like "if David Lynch did animation." Indeed, anyone familiar with Plympton's often Oscar-nominated, light-hearted, amusing animated shorts would not likely expect what is presented in this, his fifth animated feature.

Idiots and Angels is the story of a guy who is suddenly blessed with angel wings growing out of his back, even though he doesn't deserve it because he's actually a complete asshole. This is a concept with great potential for philosophical depth, and Plympton is up to the task. In his typical style -- deliberately scribbly drawings, virtually no voice work aside from yelps and grunts -- Plympton shows how the presence of these wings changes the man, even in the face of sustained stubborn resistance.

Plympton's style is typically much more suited for the short film format, and casual movie goers might have their patience tested by a feature film of this nature (in spite of it being only 78 minutes). Without even regular dialog, it demands a different level of attention.

But such attentions are well rewarded, for Idiots and Angels stands apart to the same degree that otherwise completely different animated films like Waking Life and Persepolis do: not only are they completely different from anything else out there, but they have something to say, and that something has real emotional weight, something that makes it far more worth viewing than the latest manufactured cartoon.

Of course, Plympton does get a little strange with his animated sequences and more than a little surreal. But in this case, it fits, and this story of a man struggling with becoming the angel he was meant to be can touch the audience in unexpected ways.

His wings mean many different things to different people, all of whom fantasize about how they can gain personally from this extraordinary discovery. In the process, the exploiter is exploited, and everything comes full circle. Similarly, Idiots and Angels can mean many different things to different people, but in the end the experience is the same, and a very rare thing: the enjoyment of an insightful and mature animated film that never panders or resorts to cheap gags.

There's plenty of humor, but Plympton isn't kidding when he says it's much darker than most of his other work. But that makes it resonate all the more, and that is its greatest strength.

Overall: B+
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: American Teen

Sat, 31 May 2008 05:06:02 GMT

.
.
Directing: A
Writing: A
Cinematography: A-
Editing: A+

If you think a documentary about five typical American teenagers couldn't possibly be interesting, not only are you patently wrong, but you're underestimating the filmmaking power of director Nanette Burstein (The Kid Stays in the Picture).

American Teen, in spite of its too-obvious title, is that rare kind of extraordinary documentary, which is thoroughly (and sometimes brutally) honest about its subjects, and devoid of either manipulative sentimentality or heavy-handed politicking. Its pointed lack of any kind of sensationalism is a true testament to how "reality programming" really can be done with dignity if done right.

And Burstein certainly had the right idea. She found a small, one-high-school town in Indiana, and filmed the lives of a select group of kids every single day for ten months. In the editing process, she focused the story on five archetypal teenagers: "the princess" (Megan Krizmanich); "the heartthrob" (Mitch Reinholt); "the rebel" (Hannah Bailey); "the jock" (Colin Clemens); and "the geek" (Jake Tusing). As a result, we get to see the story of all these kids' Senior year of high school, complete with all the highs and lows we're all too familiar with, from homecoming to prom and from text-message breakup to college acceptance.

Now, before you write off the concept as a reality-programming version of an updated Breakfast Club, consider this: Burstein and her film crew actually developed close relationships with these kids over the course of their school year, to the point where they all bare the truest parts of themselves -- the best and the worst -- on camera. Burstein and her two other editors focused their 1000+ hours of footage into one of the most honest revelations of teenage life ever presented on film, without even a hint of exploitation.

Although it's true that it would have been nice for Burstein to find a more racially diverse high school (she says she tried, but it was a challenge when she decided it had to be a Midwestern small town), anyone who has gone to high school -- that is, pretty much everyone -- is going to be able to relate to the kids in this movie. The emotions they display on camera, in a way that is genuine as opposed to manufactured tears on Big Brother, make for a surprisingly visceral experience for the viewer. You feel by turns totally heartbroken and ecstatic for these wonderful kids, all of them ordinary in their way but Nanette Burstein shows us how to see what makes them special.

These kids all have extremely typical problems and social pressures: the need to get accepted to the right college; the desire for the perfect relationship; the feeling of being alienated by their parents; a capacity for extreme pettiness and spreading vicious rumours (exacerbated by the cell phone age). But these things are precisely what make American Teen universal, and its frank presentation truly sets it apart.

It may sound trite to say you'll laugh, and you'll cry, but there's truth to that in this case because its level of honesty taps into our own past experiences in high school. It's not so much a revisiting of the horrors of high school as it is a thoroughly entertaining look at American teenagers and the way they behave. It sheds new light not only on kids today, but on what we were like ourselves at that age. Truth is a very powerful thing, and it makes American Teen a moving experience.

Overall: A
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: Kiss the Bride

Fri, 30 May 2008 05:03:56 GMT

.
.
Directing: B-
Acting: B
Writing: C-
Cinematography: C+
Editing: B-

Kiss the Bride is yet another low-budget gay movie about a couple of impossibly hunky guys trying to navigate a patently unrealistic relationship -- and starring Tori Spelling. Director C. Jay Cox (who directed the barely superior Latter Days in 2003) has taken the most trite parts of 1999's Trick and fleshed it out into their own movie, with a backward, gay My Best Friend's Wedding twist added to the mix.

The token lesbian character even acknowledges this: When Matt (Philipp Karner) learns that his high school boyfriend (James O'Shea) is now getting married to a woman (Spelling, of course), his assistant (Jane Cho, one of the few consistently witty characters in the film) says, "You are so Julia Roberts in My Best Friend's Wedding right now!"

To call Kiss the Bride derivative would be far too easy. It's a patently unoriginal story that only gets within spitting distance of fresh ideas by presenting incredibly laughable situations that would never happen in the real world.

When Matt first meets bride-to-be Alex (Spelling), he crashes her bachelorette party and is mistaken for the stripper -- so he actually plays the part, giving Alex a truly cringe-worthy approximation of a lap dance while pumping her for information about her sex life with her fiance. Believe it or not, the singularly unintentional awkwardness of that scene is actually surpassed by the climactic "wedding scene," in which characters literally spew out the lessons they've learned, as though we just finished watching an after-school special targeting middle school kids.

The lapses in logic by director C. Jay Cox are actually pretty amazing. Why he thought anyone would just accept Karner and O'Shea playing themselves as teenagers is anyone's guess. Jason Priestly was more believable as a high school student in Beverly Hills, 90210. (Oh wait, Tori Spelling was in that too!)

Admittedly, Kiss the Bride has its moments, flickering bright spots of hope accompanying intermittently witty dialog, due in large part to the earnestness of the delivery. The movie may not be very good when it comes down to it, but the people who made it clearly really cared about what they were doing. As a result, the performances are actually decent, all things considered, and it's almost enough to draw you in.

Almost. The script, by first-timer Tyler Lieberman, ratchets up the triteness with every scene, moving from blatant pandering to lusty gay men with scenes featuring shirtless hunks (not that I'm complaining about that in particular, mind you) to cornball relationship moralizing. Once you get to that inevitable point where you're asking yourself, In what world would this ever happen?, the film has crumbled under the weight of its own ludicrousness.

On the plus side, the leads are certainly easy on the eyes -- some of them far more gorgeous than they are talented -- and for some people that's all it takes. More power to them. Me, I prefer a story I can actually believe in.

Overall: C+
.
.

SIFF ADVANCE: Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

Tue, 27 May 2008 23:45:22 GMT

.
.
Directing: B+
Writing: A-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A-

Director Alex Gibney follows his Oscar-winning 2007 documentary Taxi to the Dark Side with a new film that provides a subject at least slightly less depressing than U.S.-sanctioned torture practices. In a way, though, shifting from that to Hunter S. Thompson is fitting; many people seem to like contemplating what Thompson would have had to say about what's going on in the country right now.

In Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, Gibney gives a much broader overview of Thompson's entire career, not just as the inventor of gonzo journalism, but as a complicated and fascinating man who carved out a truly unique niche in the fabric of American culture that lasted for decades.

And unlike what one might expect from Thompson's own work, Gonzo is remarkably comprehensible, very well organized and focused. There's nothing particularly trippy or loopy about Gibney's filmmaking style; it's actually very straightforward, which allows Thompson and his work to speak for itself.

And he crams in a lot of information in the film's 118-minute run time. Only the most learned (or obsessed) Thompson scholars will walk away from this film without learning something new, and anyone with a cursory knowledge of the man and what he did with his life will walk away amazed at what he did and accomplished, just as much as how he did it.

So much time has gone by since the peak of Thompson's career that much of it has been forgotten, until now. Some striking interview subjects are on hand to help jog the audience's collective memory, from Pat Buchanan to Tom Wolfe to President Jimmy Carter and more. The eclectic array of people with whom Thompson associated is a testament to his broad appeal, his reputation as a crazy-loopy liberal notwithstanding.

Younger audiences in particular might find themselves surprised by how fascinating the man is, and amused by many of his antics, such as the stunt he pulled by running for Sheriff of Aspen, Colorado -- and losing by a very narrow margin. Or writing a book about following George McGovern on his presidential campaign trail. Or using the Hells Angels as his doorway into a long career as a very new and different kind of journalist.

As old as a lot of his work is now, an examination of Hunter S. Thompson is like a breath of fresh air in today's faux-news climate. This was a man who never beat around the bush, and was ultimately honest about the fabrications in his own writing. He wrote revolutionary work that never pretended to be anything but what it was, and how seriously it was taken was up to the reader.

Alex Gibney gives audiences the opportunity to decide whether Thompson himself should have been taken seriously, using interviews, archive footage, and a smattering of slick graphics that are edited together and presented with remarkable objectivity.

Say what you will about Hunter S. Thompson, but it cannot be denied that his work spoke to many people (including Johnny Depp, who reads much of his work in the film), and Gonzo provides a vivid picture of how it happened. Whether you're intimately familiar with the man and his work or have never heard of him, he's a truly fascinating subject.

Overall: B+
.
.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Fri, 23 May 2008 15:57:37 GMT

.
.
Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: C-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B
Special Effects: B+

The critical consensus seems to be that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is better than Temple of Doom but not as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade, and I would have to wholeheartedly disagree. The movie is fun but ultimately pointless; taking the original trilogy on its own, The Last Crusade ended the series on a far more graceful note.

This time, not only is Indiana Jones older -- we last saw him in 1938; now it's 1957 -- but he's clumsier, creakier, and clunkier, mostly due to a convoluted script worthy of the ridiculous Star Wars prequels. Admittedly, for a man of 65, Harrison Ford is very impressive, amazingly fit (as revealed in a non-sexual, nearly-nude scene) and still doing his own stunts. He's incredibly spry, and as such, the clunkiness really has nothing to do with him -- it has to do with filmmakers like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg having come dangerously close to losing their touch after a 19-year hiatus in the franchise. It's not him, but everything he represents that feels far more dated now than they did back in the 1980s, when movies like this were like nothing audiences had ever seen before and left them in awe.

The sad truth is that there's nothing awe-inspiring about The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which, just like the Star Wars prequels, capitalizes on audience nostalgia at the expense of originality or coherence (we don't even get into the convoluted back story of that ridiculous crystal skull). There's a definite sense of an attempt to breathe fresh life into the franchise by shifting the setting from the thirties to the fifties, and it does provide a few clever gags, but it also seriously sets it apart from the previous three films in a way that almost makes it feel separate from the franchise altogether. Script writer David Koepp's often stilted dialogue doesn’t really help either.

Amazingly, not even the pacing quite matches that of the previous films; there is a surprising number of lulls in the story, making it feel stretched thin rather than action-packed. All three of the previous films -- even Temple of Doom -- dispensed with lengthy expository set-ups to their exciting action sequences; as a result they crackled with vivacity. Crystal skull has its crackling sequences, but they're much more intermittent, as Lucas wants to waste too much time giving us endlessly incomprehensible explanations of the legend of the crystal skull until our eyes glaze over.

Furthering the notion of Indiana Jones nostalgia, Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood, and it's certainly a kick to see her again, but while she was an integral part of the plot in Raiders, now she feels like she's just along for the ride, there for the sake of being there. The same can be said of John Hurt as Jones's colleague who has been rendered a little nutso by the skull in question, which results in him spending the entire movie looking and acting like a skeezy escaped mental patient.

Don't get the wrong idea, though -- Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull may be riddled with flaws (to say the least), but let's be honest: Millions of people will see it, and millions of people will love it, simply because they love the very idea of a new Indiana Jones movie and just decide that it will be great. And, for the most part, while it can't possibly compare to the previous films in the series, it's entertaining enough to be worth going to see. The disappointing part is that the first three Indiana Jones movies are worth seeing again and again, whereas this one is worth seeing once.

Two huge elements of what make this one worth seeing are Cate Blanchett, as a nasty Soviet KGB agent in hot pursuit of the skull in question, and Shia LaBeouf as the greaser kid who is "possibly" (gee, I wonder!) Indy's son. LaBeouf in particular is great fun to watch, a pleasant surprise given his part is clearly intended to pander to younger audiences now that Harrison Ford is so much older (he was 46 in the last movie, after all -- not even 20 years ago was he portrayed as any kind of rookie in this series).

It's probably true to say that the intention was a little short-sighted on the part of Paramount, as audiences would have flocked to this movie even if all the principle characters were over 50, but LaBeouf actually manages to breathe some life and vigor into this chapter that would actually be missing if he weren't there. He even gives the most memorable performance, right up to the amusing gag at the very end about whether or not the torch will be passed to him.

Blanchett, as usual, disappears into her role, although it's not as deliciously vicious as the marketing would suggest. Still, it's fun to see her and LaBeouf engaged in duel while standing on army vehicles driving side by side.

Of course, soon after that, the action gets ratcheted up to ridiculous levels, including having all of our heroes survive not one but three drops over waterfalls. It would be foolish to dismiss this as too corny for Indiana Jones, though; after all, he survived a fall out of an airplane in Temple of Doom with only an inflatable raft; he outran a huge rolling concrete ball in Raiders of the Lost Ark; and he came face to face with Hitler himself in The Last Crusade, only to end up with his autograph. These elements in particular are actually in keeping with the entire series.

The best thing to do, really, is to dispense with the nit-picking, realize that perfection is never going to happen, and just sit back to enjoy the ride. Indiana Jones is not the same anymore, but it's close enough.

Overall: B
.
.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Wed, 21 May 2008 16:36:19 GMT

.
.
Directing: B-
Acting: B
Writing: C
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B-
Special Effects: A

It's easy to be of many minds about The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, which is undeniably entertaining, yet seriously derivative, and absolutely inferior to its predecessor, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Its overtones of Christian allegory, and the alarming amount of violence for a film squarely aimed at children (in both movies, everything important is accomplished by killing), are separate issues altogether. When taking the films as simple, popcorn entertainment, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is superior in every way: it has far more in the way of fantastical wonderment, and a wonderfully juicy villain in the form of Tilda Swinton -- who brightens up Prince Caspian in an all-too-brief cameo.

Prince Caspian, on the other hand, is virtually nothing but battle scenes, virtually all of which look remarkably like the ones in The Lord of the Rings, from the sweeping camera shots of huge armies with mythical creatures soaring above them, to the literal attack by forest trees come to life, to the magically rising river rapids. The only difference here is that many of the soldiers on the Narnian side (the "good" side) include talking animals, but even they are made to blend in so well that they become far more incidental than their amazing CGI renderings might otherwise suggest. They just are, and in a fantasy movie like this, one expects a tad more to be in awe of.

Although it's been three years since the first film, and thus the children all look quite a bit older, it's only been a year for the four Pevensie children, the back story for whom is completely dispensed with here, so anyone who has not seen (or read) The Lion, the witch and the Wardrobe is not likely to understand what's going on. All the action takes place almost exclusively in Narnia, the only exceptions being the real-world setting of a London subway in the opening and closing scenes. We don't even know where the children live or what their lives in London are like; we only know they're in school uniforms, feeling wistful about their time in Narnia, and -- whoosh! -- suddenly the subway tunnel turns into a gateway to that other world. Hooray!

But that is when they find that in Narnia, well over a thousand years have gone by, and places they knew in their minds only a year before are now in ruins. On the plus side, with the White Witch gone, it's still got beautiful, tropical weather. Before long, they learn that a group of humans known as Telmarines have ruled for so long that they've forced Narnians into hiding and believe them to be extinct. Only when an ambitious Telmarine tries to kill his nephew, Prince Caspian (Stardust's Ben Barnes) in an effort to make his own son the heir to the throne, does a Telmarine learn the truth of the continued existence of Narnians. He's run into the forest, and just happens to see a dwarf there -- a dwarf who is about to kill him when Caspian blows the magic horn that brings back the Pevensie Children.

A lot of logical questions might come to mind: Why has it taken 1300 years for anyone to bother blowing this magic horn? How did Prince Caspian come to have it in his possession? Why is the Jesus-like lion Aslan nowhere to be found (yet)? How is it possible so many Narnians still exist and not one Telmarine knows?

Director Andrew Adamson, who co-wrote the less-than-great script and had both jobs on the first film as well, is far more interested in setting up for battle scenes than he is with such questions. Apparently all we need to know is the importance of faith (hence the belabored absence of Aslan) and that expertly rendered fight scenes are cool. Because that is essentially all we see: once the Pevensie Children find Prince Caspian, Peter (the painfully gorgeous William Moseley) takes charge, again ignoring little Lucy (the still adorable Georgie Henley) and her insistence that she sees Aslan in the forest. So he leads them into poorly executed battles that result in the loss of far too many of his Narnian soldiers.

What the point of that is, is unclear, except perhaps that Peter needs to learn to accept some things on faith, or suffer the dire consequences (such as, say, the senseless killing of dozens of Narnians). Most of the time the Christian allusions are fairly abstract and allow for the enjoyment of the movie for what it is, with a couple of exceptions ("I'm not going to jump off a cliff for someone I can't even see" is a little obvious). Prince Caspian's greatest weakness is really the lack of a plot besides an army of Narnians going on the offensive against an army of Telmarines, who are hell-bent on ruling their land.

That's pretty much it; when it comes to substance, Prince Caspian is sadly lacking. It may even be accurate to say that, when it comes down to it, it's not that great a movie. And yet, it's still fun to watch, at least once -- if nothing else, it's consistently exciting entertainment. So what if we can't always tell why the exciting things have to happen, or what the point is of so many brutal killings (albeit bloodless on screen -- this is still Disney, after all)?

Honestly, anyone would be better off, and get much more out of the story, just re-watching any of the Lord of the Rings movies, all of which are far more original -- and by a long shot better -- than this one. But for current theatrical releases, and a simply enjoyable movie to go see, it works.

Overall: B
.
.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Wed, 14 May 2008 16:16:04 GMT

.
.
Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B

Judd Apatow may only be a co-producer on Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but his stamp on the film is undeniable. The writer-director of The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up and the writer of Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story here teams up with first-time director Nicholas Stoller and fellow Freaks and Geeks alumnus Jason Segel, who also wrote the script. Bring in Jonah Hill (Superbad, which Apatow also produced), and you've got another sure-fire, well-rounded, Apatow-associated cast.

Although Apatow hasn't actually directed that many of these movies, he's worked as producer on so many and put is unmistakable stamp on them that he could easily be called the 21st-Century John Hughes. Weird Science is to Superbad as She's Having a Baby is to Knocked Up.

Of course, this means that although there's a decidedly modern edge to these newer movies, none of them are terribly original, and that is particularly the case with Forgetting Sarah Marshall, a glaringly predictable romantic comedy about a TV show score composer (Segel) who gets dumped by the show's star (Sarah Marshall, played by Kristin Bell), and goes on a solo vacation to Hawaii to forget about her. And surprise! She happens to be there too, at the same hotel, with her new pompously British rock-star boyfriend, Aldous Snow (Russell Brand, one of the film's bright spots).

Two supporting parts are moderately amusing but seem superfluous: Jonah Hill is a hotel employee who worships Aldous Snow to the point of awkwardness; and 30 Rocks' Jack McBrayer is a newlywed frustrated by the challenges of honeymoon sex (and honestly, seeing the person we're used to as the ridiculously innocent Kenneth the Page is a little . . . weird). Throw in Bill Hader as the tough-loving stepbrother and Paul Rudd as the dopey surfer dude (both of them also Apatow alumni), as well as several other similar guest spots, and you've got a whole lot of filler that has no absolute necessity to the plot.

And yet, Forgetting Sarah Marshall works, mostly because of the actors. Jason Segel is indeed perfect as a modern (read: overly sensitive) leading man in a romantic comedy; one thing about these Apatow comedies is that, unlike most similar films that came before them, the men are not only shown as vulnerable, but that vulnerability is not an issue for any of them. The plot may be predictable, but the characterizations are refreshing.

Peter meets hotel employee Rachel (the gorgeous Mila Kunis), and they have great chemistry; jealousies flare up between more than one member of both couples; we're led into the tried-and-true, boy-meets-girl/boy-loses-girl/boy-gets-girl-back formula. It would be a form of denial to call that a spoiler; that's just how these movies work. But you have to admit that, especially after it's been done to death over the years, it's nice when the formula actually works pretty well.

Overall: B
.
.

OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies

Sun, 11 May 2008 23:54:09 GMT

.
.
Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B

In 2006, the same year Hollywood produced a forgettable remake of The Pink Panther, France came up with the crowd-pleasing OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies. Now it's being granted a run in the States, where people looking for a harmless and light-hearted comedy can have their needs met.

OSS 117 is neither terrible nor hilarious, but it's funny enough. It stars the undeniably charismatic and cute Jean Dujardin as the title character ("OSS 117," a spy code name in the same vein as 007), sent to Egypt to "restore peace to the Middle East" ("No problem," he says). There he meets the predicable parade of allies and back-stabbers who often turn out not to be what they seem.

The difference is that Hubert (aka OSS 117) is a little bit of a doofus, in spite of being both a smooth ladies' man and an expert fighter. He's thoroughly self-absorbed and oblivious, so much so that when the Muslims are called to prayer one morning in Cairo, he finds the man at the megaphone and tries to get him to shut the hell up so he can sleep.

The result of this interesting mix of a character is that OSS 177 falls squarely in the middle between the self-seriousness of a James Bond movie and the outright parody of a spoof movie. Hubert is a genuine hero, but with a knowing wink to the audience, and it could be argued that only the French could have pulled off such a formula this successfully.

This is the film that won the audience award at the 2006 Seattle International Film Festival, after all, which goes to show what kind of audience appeal it has. It certainly isn't short on laughs, and refreshingly, none of them are cheap; even the puns are funnier than they are stupid. And a couple of the visual gags alone just about make it worth seeing. It's also a rare film that uses the Muslim world as a backdrop for comedy without turning Muslims into offensive caricatures -- instead, Hubert is used as a symbol of the willful ignorance of the West, and to comedic effect.

It can be hard to gauge just how good a comedy is though, given different people's senses of humor, and exactly how much or how hard it makes an audience laugh. For me, OSS 117 provided satisfyingly consistent chuckles with very few lulls. "Uproarious" is not a word I would use, however, and I do kind of like my comedies to really make me laugh. That said, this is a movie that is more charmingly pleasant than it is hysterical, but it's still undeniably harmless fun.

Overall: B
.
.

Speed Racer

Sat, 10 May 2008 23:46:58 GMT

.
.
Directing: C
Acting: B
Writing: C-
Cinematography: C
Editing: C-
Special Effects: B-

Try to imagine looking at a Jackson Pollack painting through the eyes of someone with bad eyesight and with no glasses, and you get a sense of what watching Andy and Larry Wachowski's live action version of Speed Racer is like. It's not so much like a blockbuster movie as it is like watching bright-colored candies whizzing by on a Tilt-a-Whirl.

The Watchowski Brothers were justifiably seen as visionary filmmakers when they released The Matrix, so vastly influential with its special effects and production design that one could call it the Blade Runner of the nineties. But they squandered their astounding potential with The Matrix's progressively ridiculous (and far less revolutionary) sequels, and then waited five years before returning to direct Speed Racer, which only serves as a testament to how much they've still stagnated.

It has already been said far and wide that Speed Racer is all whiz-bang color popping and no heart or humanity, and although the critics are often wrong about such declarations about a would-be blockbuster, alas, they aren't this time.

The first ten minutes or so actually seem to have some promise, as we meet Speed as a young school boy, obsessed with automobile racing and daydreaming about it in class instead of paying attention. There's a charming moment when we're taken out of Speed's technicolor dreamcoat of an imagination but he is not, and he's making the sounds of a roaring crowd, oblivious to classmates looking at him sideways.

That, however, is the imaginative pinnacle of Speed Racer, and it's pretty much all downhill from there. The plot is so ridiculously predictable that it feels programmed by the same computers used for the relentless special effects. So young Speed (Emile Hirsch, barely falling short of giving audiences a character they can connect to) is resisting being taken advantage of by greedy corporate sponsors, while obsessing over the idea of honoring an older brother who died in a car crash eight years before. His parents (John Goodman and Susan Sarandon, both great actors wasted on such a pointless script), one of who is a race car designer, are immensely proud of him but wary of his decision to participate in a dangerous cross-country race meant to prove that the racing industry isn't controlled by crooks. And then he gets a little help from "Racer X," who wears a getup that makes him look like a pathetic superhero wannabe, and might just have a secret identity so shocking that no one else in the movie can see what's so blindingly obvious to the audience.

Did you get all that? It doesn't matter. All of it is just pedantic mumbo-jumbo on par with explanations given by the "architect" character in The Matrix Reloaded -- space-filler disguised as food for thought in between elaborate, extended racing scenes so hyperkinetic that your eyes glaze over very early on.

The special effects aren't even used as a means to impress here; the Watchowskis seem intent only on replicating the look and feel of the original cartoon on which it's based -- which, of course, also had no soul. It was just a kaleidoscope of blurred colors, and so was this, except at least the cartoon offered a few chances to focus on objects in the frame.

To make matters worse, Speed Racer transparently panders to ten-year-old boys with Speed's little brother (the portly Paulie Litt) and his pet chimp, who get into all sorts of cliched, little-kid trouble, from moaning disturbingly over a found mother load of candy to literally flinging monkey poo. Too bad the Watchowskis, who also wrote this dud of a script, didn't even try pandering to older audience members, who would be the only ones to recognize the Speed Racer brand in the first place.

Probably around three quarters of Speed Racer's run time is spent following Speed and his team of racing allies on one race after another, spinning their cars in ways that deny the laws of physics and having us flip and twirl along with us to the point of feeling on the verge of barfing cotton candy. It feels like a lot of it is meant to be suspenseful, but so much time and effort is spent on giving it a cartoony look that it all just becomes redundant and boring.

Even for a movie based on a dumb cartoon, this could have benefited from even the slightest increase in intelligence -- both in execution and in marketing. Instead, what we get is another example of the Watchowskis given too much time with technical toys and not enough time to learn how even a little humanity goes a long way. Honestly, you'd get just as much out of watching someone else play a video game.

Overall: C
.
.

Planet B-Boy

Tue, 06 May 2008 15:13:30 GMT

.
.
Directing: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-

From Murderball to Spellbound, there has been no shortage of documentaries about unconventional competitions in recent years, but Planet B-Boy offers a unique brand of high-octane energy. Looking at break dancing within the context of the history of hip-hop, director Benson Lee follows several international dancing teams as they make their way toward the annual "Battle of the Year" in Germany.

Paying due respect to the art form's beginnings in the United States, Lee provides a fairly balanced view of how the rest of the world caught up, and in many instances -- particularly in the case of South Korea -- surpassed us. The way the film is edited together, a select group of high-contender teams are chosen and followed through the process: two teams from South Korea (a new team and the defending champions, which are given "a free pass"); one from Paris; one from Tokyo; another from Las Vegas.

Unlike a film like Spellbound, which surprised audiences by turning a spelling bee into a riveting competition, Planet B-Boy doesn't offer much in the way of competitive tension. What it does offer is two-fold: First, it provides countless clips of truly amazing break dancing moves and performances; second, it offers a fascinating glimpse into these young dancers' relationships with their parents and how their pursuit in this activity effects their place in their families. It seems to vary depending on the country, and yet there is a common thread: parents are often skeptical, and then when their children go on to represent their country in an international competition, the skepticism morphs into pride.

The dancing is absolutely entertaining to watch, but it would have been nice to get a few complete competitive performances included. The editing is so spliced up, always only offering highlights of performances, even by the winning teams, you can't help but feel like you're missing something. With a run time of 101 minutes, Planet B-Boy could have been fleshed out at least a little in that respect, so film audiences could get a sense of a team's completed set, instead of just a compilation of the more impressive dance moves.

Nevertheless, Lee offers a window into a truly global community of people who call themselves "B-Boys" -- those who take break dancing seriously, and practice to compete. This is not the world of break dancing exploited and commercialized to the point of corniness in the 1980s; this is a large, international group of incredibly fit and talented dancers.

Perhaps most surprising in Planet B-Boy are the touching moments, not just between the kids and their parents, but even in the performances on stage. One standout performance is by South Korean defending champs Gamblerz, who present an elaborate routine that represents the splitting of North and South Korea and ends in the eventual reunification. It sounds like something that could be very forced and come across as pandering to the judges, but it doesn't come across that way at all -- it's very genuine.

And that's the crux of break dancing, really: its total lack of pretension. And while the editing may leave a little to be desired, that genuinely celebratory spirit is what makes Planet B-Boy a success.

Overall: B
.
.