Hey, remember those video blog things?

Expect one in the next week.

But don't get too excited. These will not be a regular, three-to-four day thing again. They're too time consuming, with work and college they just don't happen. However, I have some time over the holiday.

Keep an eye out over the next few days.

Fantastic new trailer for Frank Miller's '300'

Mere words cannot describe how wickedly, unabashedly awesome this film looks. I cannot wait.

Catch the new trailer here: http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1529799&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300

The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky, 2006)

Hugh Jackman portrays a conquistador, a doctor and a futuristic astronaut all in the same film.
--
****

It is a time of great suffering. Blockbusters, their egos swelling with multi-million dollar budgets, trample through the box offices, leaving the helpless independent and art-house films battered and beaten in their wake. We feed these monsters with our money until they leave the theater and then again when they return four months later on DVD. Don’t get me wrong, I love an action blockbuster as much as the next American male (“Casino Royale” anyone?). But where are our Kubricks? Where did all the Kurosawas, the Fellinis and the Bergmans go? When did cinema cease being an art and when did movies become cheap two-hour thrills that we throw money at, watch and forget?

These questions are all rhetorical, of course, and some would argue that they are simply a result of my subdued film elitist tendencies. But I digress.
“The Fountain” is the remarkable new film from director Darren Aronofsky. Like the recent “Stranger than Fiction” (which I also loved), it is a breath of fresh air during this period of absolute blockbuster domination.

“The Fountain” is a richly multi-layered love story, spanning over 1000 years and following three separate couples (each portrayed fantastically by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz), who may or may not be incarnations of the same people. Each couple is haunted by mortality and the idea of death, and they seek out (in their own ways) the secret to eternal life.

The plot is intricately woven and, at times, exceedingly confusing. The story hops around quite a bit through the film’s entirety. One moment, we’re following the quest of a sixteenth-century Spanish conquistador to find the Tree of Life; three minutes later, we’re in the year 2500 and a bald astronaut is speeding across the galaxy inside a bubble. The film moves fast and it doesn’t wait for the audience to catch up.

“The Fountain” is also one of the most visually breathtaking films in years. The images are striking and surreal, but the beautiful shots aren’t there just to look pretty. Aronofsky uses cinematography as a storytelling tool, and he masterfully connects the three plotlines through visuals. This, blended with the rich story, superb performances, and abundance of symbolism and meaning, makes for a fully engrossing, deftly constructed piece of cinema.

But I must level with you: walking out of “The Fountain” as the credits rolled, I wasn’t entirely sure if I enjoyed it or not. I was confused and mentally exhausted. In fact, it wasn’t until the next morning that I finally decided that I had liked the film. Once I reached that point , I was itching to experience “The Fountain” again.

It’s not a film for the casual filmgoer, and that’s the simple truth of it. It’s a divisive movie, one that will generate reactions at the extreme ends of the loved it/hated it scale. For me, “The Fountain” was really an enjoyable little gem. It’s a Kubrick-esque foray into love, loss, mortality and the fragility of human life. If you’re bored with the typical mainstream movies and are looking for a complex, well-crafted film, you owe it to yourself to see “The Fountain.”

Babel (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2006)

Don't worry too much about these characters. You won't be seeing a whole lot of them.
---
**

About halfway through Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Babel,” I asked myself, “What do a sexually frustrated, deaf-mute Japanese girl and a wedding in Mexico have to do with a presumed terrorist shooting in Morocco?” For those of you playing at home, the answer is: absolutely nothing.

“Babel” follows four separate stories, all connected through paper-thin plot contrivances. Susan (Cate Blanchett) and Richard (a grey-haired, sunken-eyed Brad Pitt) are a troubled married couple vacationing in Morocco. Meanwhile, two local boys receive a hunting rifle from their father. In Tokyo, a young deaf-mute named Chieko (Rinku Kikuchi) struggles with her disability and self-image. And in San Diego, a nanny (Adriana Barraza) takes Susan and Richard’s children across the Mexican border to attend her son’s wedding. All of their lives are thrown into disarray when a stray bullet from the aforementioned hunting rifle hits a tour bus and seriously wounds Susan.

If that plot synopsis sounded tedious, it’s because it is. “Babel” is a film with everything going for it: a stellar cast, a talented director, phenomenal cinematography. But herein lies the problem; “Babel” simply has too much going for it, and it lacks the focus necessary to achieve any semblance of meaning. It ultimately spreads itself too thin and becomes bogged down under the weight of the loose subplots, which wander aimlessly through most of the film.

The multiple plotlines are an enormous hindrance to this film. While intriguing and supposed “central” characters like Susan and Richard receive a criminally minuscule amount of screentime, the Mexican wedding and Chieko subplots overpower and distract to the point of annoyance. The Chieko portion of the film is especially useless and out-of-place. It feels like an entirely separate movie, in no way connected to the central plot until the last five minutes of the film. How can I focus on the terrorist act in Morocco when I’m too busy worrying about the deaf girl in Tokyo?

“Babel” also commits the cardinal sin of being far too long. The plot moves sluggishly and meanders about for its entirety, and it clocks in at a whopping 142 minutes, which is entirely too lengthy for the infinitesimal amount of story progression taking place. It becomes a labor to watch.

The performances, for the most part, are strong. But due to the large number of central characters involved, we never get a sense of who these people really are. Cate Blanchett, possibly the strongest talent in the film, is reduced to laying on a dirty rug for two hours. Sadly, I found that I really couldn’t care less about any of these characters. It’s a very detached movie.

I hate to compare “Babel” to last year’s horribly contrived “Crash” (I still haven’t forgiven the Academy for that one and I don’t think I ever will), but the two are strikingly similar in their approach. If “Crash” taught us that falling down the stairs in slow motion cures racism, then “Babel” convinced me that getting shot in the neck solves marital problems. It’s a surprisingly shallow film in this way, and it simply throws any sense of realism or nuance out the window.

I can’t guarantee you’ll hate it. There’s a fair share of critics out there singing the praises of “Babel.” Heck, if you enjoyed the sad excuse for a film that was “Crash,” you might absolutely love it. But for me, “Babel” was nothing more than glorified Oscar bait. It’s a great looking film, with strong performances and a great director to support them. But ultimately, “Babel” just feels empty and lifeless.

New Spidey trailer hits the net

Spider-Man sports a new black suit and an angsty attitude in this third installment of the franchise, but he hasn't lost his sense of patriotism. Cue music!

---

Eager fans have been waiting for another glimpse of Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man 3" for months now, after the debut of the teaser. Tonight, we we're given a delicious taste of the three-course meal that is "Spider-Man 3."

The trailer is an I-Film exclusive. Catch it here:

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2783985

And one of my awesome readers also brought to my attention this link, where you can watch the trailer in HD.

http://www.ifilm.com/presents/spiderman3

In the trailer, we see much more footage of Spidey villains Sandman and the presumed Hobgoblin. The evil Venom is absent in the trailer, but I have no doubt that the character design will be phenomenal.

Watch the trailer to sate your hunger until May 04 and leave your thoughts here!

'The Prestige' (Christopher Nolan, 2006)

Hugh Jackman realizes that static electricity isn't a toy after rubbing a balloon on the wall. Hugh, honestly, didn't your mom teach you anything?
---
****

Strangely enough, Christopher Nolan’s “The Prestige” works much like the magical illusions it depicts so splendidly. On the surface, it’s an intricately woven, beautifully shot piece of period piece cinema. But this spectacle has a fair share of tricks up its sleeve, and absolutely nothing is what it appears to be.

Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are competing magicians in the mysteriously intriguing world of Victorian-era London. When Borden creates the ultimate magic trick – in which the magician disappears into one door only to reappear out of another almost instantly – Angier becomes obsessed with his rival’s secrets. What starts as a grudging contest soon escalates into a life-long and often violent rivalry between the two fixated men.

“The Prestige” is an impressive achievement in every respect. From the cast and performances (Michael Caine is excellent and David Bowie is just awesome in a small but memorable supporting role), to the dialogue and cinematography, “The Prestige” is just fantastic cinema.

It’s a film that could easily lean on cheap thrills and plot twists to carry the plot, but it refrains. Instead, the numerous reveals (which are simply incredibly, by the way) are like the icing on the cake – the sprinkles on the already delicious sundae that is “The Prestige.”

Christopher Nolan, who consistently releases quality cinema, has done it again. “The Prestige” is easily one of the best films of the year, a multi-layered story rich with first-rate performances and extensively breathtaking set-pieces.

Ch-ch-ch-changes!

I suppose the extensive format changes at Mattinee are fairly obvious at this point. For the most part, the color scheme is the same as the last re-design, but the general format of the blog has changed dramatically. The sidebar has switched sides, of course (WHOA! CRAZY!), and the width of columns have also changed by several hundred pixels.

In this crazy, wild time of change, it's important not to panic. So, if you please, let me know what you think.

In other news: the Democrats are totally owning the GOP right now. That is all.

My favorite films for each year I've been alive

Not exceedingly enlightening ... but it's still fun.

1988 - "Die Hard"
1989 - "The Abyss"
1990 - "Goodfellas"
1991 - "Terminator 2: Judgment Day"
1992 - "Reservoir Dogs"
1993 - "Army of Darkness"
1994 - "Pulp Fiction"
1995 - "Toy Story"
1996 - "Fargo"
1997 - "The Empire Strikes Back" (Special Edition)
1998 - "Dark City"
1999 - "The Matrix"
2000 - "Unbreakable"
2001 - "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring"
2002 - "Road to Perdition"
2003 - "The Lord of the Rings: The Return Of The King"
2004 - "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
2005 - "Capote"
2006 - "The Departed"

'Borat' (Larry Charles, 2006)

Borat finds himself in Times Square. It's a nice!

---
****

Anyone who has ever had the pleasure of watching “Da Ali G Show” will be familiar with comedian Sacha Baron Cohen’s chameleonic ability to fully immerse himself in a character. Whether he’s Ali G (the British-Jamaican gangster/talk show host), Bruno (a pretentious, homosexual Austrian fashion journalist) or Borat Sagdiyev (the world’s fifth most famous Kazakh), Cohen has repeatedly proven himself as a truly innovative comedic talent.

In “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” Cohen takes the hilariously offensive Borat on the road, unleashing the anti-Semitic Kazakh journalist on the unsuspecting peoples of the U.S. and A. The film is a genius blend of interviews, recorded encounters and near-violent run-ins between Borat and various Americans, who either dismiss Borat as an ignorant foreigner or become so infuriatingly offended that they can’t help but insult or physically attack him.

The film opens with Borat providing us with a guided tour of his home village in Kazakhstan. “Jagshemash!” he exclaims happily in his signature broken English. “My name a Borat. I like you. I like sex. It’s a nice!” He then proceeds to introduce us to the town rapist (“Naughty, naughty!”), the village mechanic/abortionist and his sister – who also happens to be the No. 4 prostitute in all of Kazakhstan (“Nice!”).

I’m not exaggerating in the slightest when I say that “Borat” is the hands-down funniest movie of the year (and yes, I’m taking into consideration films like “Clerks II,” “Talladega Nights” and “Snakes on a Plane”). The complete and utter absurdity of the character, coupled with Americans’ honest reactions to his antics, is simply hysterical. It’s not sort-of-funny, it’s not chuckle-funny or subtle-funny; it’s genuinely, ridiculously hilarious.

However, the humor obviously isn’t for everyone. The character of Borat is extremely offensive – his anti-Semitic and sexist quips are a bit cringe-inducing at first, but if you can get past the fact that Cohen is simply a comedian playing a part, you’ll find yourself enjoying the film guilt-free. Aside from the distasteful jokes, there are also several equally revolting physical comedy bits (such as when Borat and his obese producer, both completely nude, wrestle over a “Baywatch” book) that may send squeamish viewers running for the lobby. Don’t let this deter you, though.

The comedy of Cohen’s Borat character is wildly successful on so many different levels. It succeeds fantastically as a simple slapstick and toilet humor comedy (such as when Borat excuses himself to the restroom at a dinner party, only to return with his feces in a plastic bag – “What do I do with this?” he asks), but at a deeper, more subversive point it becomes a sort of understated social commentary, an expository glance into our own backwards society.

During his travels, Borat encounters a multitude of racists, sexists, anti-Semitics, radical homophobes and more ignorance than you can shake a stick at. For me, someone who has lived in a rather open-minded community all of his life, this element of the film was exceptionally enlightening (and frankly, a little nauseating). It doesn’t lessen the laughs, however, and instead thrives when paired with the dumb humor and physical comedy, creating a truly funny and wonderfully enriching film. Do yourself a favor and see “Borat.” It’s a nice, I promise.

The saga continues: more of my favorite films

Last week, I listed five of my 10 favorite films for your reading pleasure. I was immediately bombarded with emails, phone calls, a few faxes and several telegraph messages pleading me to continue my list. I was also contacted on my CB radio by a man identifying himself as “Papa Bear.” This, however, had absolutely nothing to do with my column; Papa Bear was merely lonely. I promised the top five this week and I have, of course, delivered.

One of these men has a career now. Can you guess who?

---

5) Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994): For me, “Pulp Fiction” is the definitive Tarantino experience. It’s a dingy crime film with a non-linear, multiple-story plot, laced with sharp dialogue and unsurpassed performances from Samuel L. Jackson (“That is a tasty burger!”), John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis, Ving Rhames, Tim Roth and Harvey Keitel. It’s a contemporary classic, destined for greatness in the annals of fantastic cinema. If Tarantino proved himself a competent filmmaker with 1992’s “Reservoir Dogs,” then he completely obliterated our doubts with the sick brilliance of “Pulp Fiction.”

Harrison Ford deftly avoids questions concerning Indiana Jones 4. Oh, he's good.
---

4) Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982): Ridley Scott, the acclaimed director of “Alien” and “Gladiator,” is responsible for some of the most visually breathtaking films of the modern era. By far the most accomplished film in his repertoire is his 1982 masterpiece “Blade Runner.” On the surface, it appears to be a simple sci-fi detective story, but its noir roots and profound themes make it a rich cinematic experience. It’s a film, much like Alex Proyas’ “Dark City” (number six on my list), that really got me interested in cinema.

Distracted, Roy Scheider completely misses the Jaws segment of the Universal backlot tour.
---

3) Jaws (Steven Spielberg, 1975): In 1975, a young and somewhat unknown auteur named Steven Spielberg set out with a leaky boat and a busted mechanical shark to film what was to become one of the most iconic horror films of all time. Fun, terrifying and immensely quotable (“You’re gonna need a bigger boat”), “Jaws” has stood the test of time and remains an effectively horrifying, yet hysterically fun film. If nothing else, it’s the performance of Robert Shaw as the grizzled old shark hunter Quint that makes the film.

Mark Hammil feels as though he's being followed.
---

2) The Empire Strikes Back (Irvin Kershner, 1980): I’m a huge “Star Wars” geek (the highlight of my life is the time I was invited to a press screening of “Revenge of the Sith” and was able to see it ten days before its release – yeah, I’m awesome), so obviously the original trilogy holds a rather large amount of significance for me. My favorite of the three is “The Empire Strikes Back,” the second installment of the trilogy. It’s a vastly darker film than “A New Hope,” and the story arc is the strongest of the entire saga. The climatic lightsaber duel between Luke and Vader, in which the Sith Lord confesses that he is indeed (SPOILER!) Luke’s father, is one of he most fantastically memorable scenes in all of cinema.

The ultimate hero steals the ultimate paper weight.
---

1) Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg, 1981): When asked what movie I would bring with me to a deserted island, the answer comes very quickly for me. “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is one of those films that transcends every conceivable barrier, managing to appeal greatly to absolutely everyone. This first installment in the Indiana Jones trilogy is a movie that, in my eyes, is simply flawless. It achieves a balance many films strive for but few ever reach – that wonderful equilibrium of cinematic perfection. Somewhere between Han Solo, James Bond and Fred Dobbs, Harrison Ford finds Indiana Jones, the most charismatic action hero – nay, the greatest film character – of all time. It’s a film that I watched relentlessly as a child, and one that remains my absolute favorite to this day.

The circle is complete. You now know my top ten favorite films, and though they may change over time, I think this might give you a bit of insight into the mind of the guy who has been rambling about movies near the back of the paper for the past two months. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I think Papa Bear is trying to reach me on my CB.

You didn't ask, but here they are: my favorite films

I’m not a gambling man, but I’ll bet you $50 that I was the only student on campus who spent their mid-semester break updating a list of my top 10 movies (you can pay me later). My top 10, first established in early 2003, has gone through numerous changes over the years, but my particular taste remains firmly entrenched. A few films have survived (namely the top three), but I find that the more movies I see – for every “Chinatown” or “2001: A Space Odyssey” I find – the harder it is to narrow my favorites down to 10.

Please bear in mind that my list is completely subjective, and is not what I necessarily believe to be the greatest or most well-made films of all time. These are simply my favorite movies. I will list five now, and five next week. My list has never been publicly addressed … until now.

---

It's a fact: "Aliens" friggin' rocks.
---

10) Aliens (James Cameron, 1986): Ridley Scott’s “Alien” was a masterpiece in genre-bending filmmaking, a milestone in both horror and science-fiction cinema. With “Aliens,” James Cameron manages the impossible: he creates an action-oriented sequel that is equal in quality – nay, nearly superior – to Scott’s original groundbreaking film. “Aliens” echoes the numbing terror of its predecessor while intensifying the experience with a delicious dash of crazy action. It’s one of the most purely enjoyable films out there. Just steer clear of the sequels and please, for the love of God, don’t punish yourself with the atrocity that is “Alien vs. Predator.”

The Academy finally gets the jump on Clint Eastwood.
---

9) The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Sergio Leone, 1966): Followed closely by Leone’s “Once Upon a Time in the West,” “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” is the absolute pinnacle of Spaghetti westerns. It’s a beautifully shot, atmospheric western, the hands-down greatest cowboy flick of all time. Clint Eastwood is at his best as the nameless drifter (the good) who clashes with a bounty hunter (the bad) and a thug (the ugly) in order to attain a fabled treasure, all leading up to one of the most climatic gunfights in the history of cinema.

Whoa ... James Stewart is totally trippin'.
---

8) Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958): Though “Psycho,” “North by Northwest,” “Rear Window” and “Rope” are all indisputable masterpieces, Hitchcock’s greatest achievement is 1958’s “Vertigo.” It’s a mind-bending thriller, its plot warped with twists, turns and all manner of mysteries and reveals. Hitchcock regular James Stewart is fantastic as Scottie, a retired police detective with a paralyzing fear of heights, and Kim Novak gives a strong performance as his troubled love interest. Hitchcock’s innovative camera techniques amp up the tension ten-fold, and the result is “Vertigo,” possibly the greatest thriller of all time.

Martin Sheen infiltrates the set of "Two and a Half Men."
---

7) Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979): The troubled production of Francis Ford Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now” is legendary among film fans. Drunk actors, typhoons, suicides, drug use and an immensely overweight Marlon Brando all lent to a hellish 16-month shoot. But the resulting film presents no signs of its distressed creation, or if it does, it only succeeds in creating a deeper, darker, more involving cinematic experience. Set in Cambodia during the Vietnam War and based on Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” “Apocalypse Now” tells the story of a soldier’s (Martin Sheen) mission to kill the renegade Colonel Kurtz (portrayed wonderfully by Marlon Brando). The film is Coppola at his very best, and his use of shadow in the final act is superbly surreal. It’s truly a classic film.

In "Dark City," going to the dentists totally sucks.
---

6) Dark City (Alex Proyas, 1998): “Dark City” is one of those underrated gems that will someday be rediscovered and recognized for what it is: a masterpiece in modern filmmaking. It’s a criminally underappreciated science-fiction mystery flick with film-noir undertones, a fantastically innovative take on the gumshoe detective story. The story is that of a man who has lost his memory in a city where the sun never rises. The script is solid, the cinematography is remarkable, the performances from the likes of Rufus Sewell, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland and Jennifer Connelly are just superb. “Dark City” is a significant film for me because it was the first movie that really made me look at cinema as more than simple entertainment, as a valid art form.

---

You’ve been allowed a glimpse into my favorite films, but you’ll have to wait a week for the top five. So, stay tuned. Oh, and if you could get me that $50 you owe me by next week, that’d be great.

Greetings from college

First things first: I am deeply, terribly sorry for leaving my precious blog alone and unattended for so long. I've recently started college, and a new job as well, so it really doesn't leave me a ton of time for things like blogging. The free time I do have is spent doing homework ... otherwise hanging out with my friends and family, and even watching the occasional movie.

And, as you no doubt have noticed ... Mattinee has gone through a bit of an overhaul. Please let me know what you think of the re-design! I'm likin' it so far.

Thanks for putting up with my laziness. You guys are the best.

The movies I hate to love: guilty pleasures abound

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson fends off South American rebels in one of the many fantastic fight scenes in "The Rundown"
---

They’re embarrassing to reveal, but even the most hardened elitist critic harbors a few of them deep within his shielded psyche. Shunned by society and left to survive in the bargain DVD bin at Wal-Mart, we simply can’t deny our love for them. They’re our guilty pleasures and I’m about to fess up to a few of my own.

The Rundown (Peter Berg, 2003): I’m going to star by dropping a rather large bombshell: I firmly believe that “The Rundown” is one of the best action movies of the new century. There, I said it. It’s innovatively fun and it never commits the cardinal sin of taking itself too seriously. “The Rundown” is criminally underappreciated, despite being rich with all the necessary ingredients for a spectacular action film. The fight scenes are fast and intense without becoming hectic or confusing, the performances are charming and likeable (Christopher Walken is fantastic as the sleazy villain), and it doesn’t rely on gratuitous explosions or boobs to entertain. Action films like “The Rundown” are becoming increasingly harder to find.

The Rock (Michael Bay, 1996): As a staunch, outspoken hater of hack director/producer Michael Bay, it pains me immensely to admit that I really like “The Rock.” Bay’s films are typically ripe with the stink of his grandiose self-importance, but “The Rock” miraculously succeeds as a first-rate action flick. The flimsy premise of the movie is firmly supported by the wonderfully over-the-top performances of Sean Connery, Nicholas Cage and Ed Harris, and the no-holds-barred action sequences supply copious amounts of mindless fun. Though I can’t say the same for any of Bay’s other movies (“Bay Boys II” might be one of the worst films in recent memory), “The Rock” is definitely worth swallowing my pride for.

The romanticized themes and garish dance numbers of "Moulin Rouge" somehow appeal to men as well. Go figure.
---

Moulin Rouge (Baz Luhrmann, 2001): I don’t normally go for the whole romantic musical genre (unless we’re talking “Little Shop of Horrors”), but there’s something strangely appealing about “Moulin Rouge,” something that transcends the target audience (chamomile tea drinking, mascara running, bath robed women) and succeeds in entertaining guys as well. There’s a visual flair to the film, something undeniably fun and slick. The numbers aren’t your typical sap fests, but rather mixed n’ matched 80’s and 90’s love songs, spruced up in show tune fashion. It’s funny, charming and endearing. For “Moulin Rouge,” I’m more than willing to admit my undying love.

Cutthroat Island (Renny Harlin, 1995): In “Cutthroat Island,” a film by the director of “Cliffhanger,” Geena Davis and Matthew Modine play swashbuckling pirates on a quest to recover a treasure from the hands of that guy who played Skeletor in the “Masters of the Universe” movie. When taken at face-value, “Cutthroat Island” is an absolute recipe for disaster, and it only takes roughly twenty minutes of Geena Davis wielding cutlasses and firing off flintlock pistols for you to realize that the film is pretty ridiculous. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t dig it. There’s enough chariot chases, high seas battles and greasy pirates kicking the crap out of each other to fill the hold of a Spanish galleon (yup, I went there).

The Matrix Reloaded (Andy & Larry Wachowski, 2003): Universally lambasted by critics and fans alike, many consider “Reloaded” to be the ruin of the trilogy. In a sense, they’re right, but it’s actually only the last 25 minutes of “Reloaded” that kill the franchise. Everything up until that point (with Neo confronting the Architect), is pure action gold. “Reloaded” is abundant with intense, stylized action. The burly brawl, in which Neo fends off dozens of Agent Smiths; the chateau fight, with Neo wielding all manner of bladed weapon; and the freeway chase, possibly the greatest chase sequence since the desert pursuit in Spielberg’s “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” It’s a great flick if you simply turn it off before the Architect shows up to bury the franchise under the weight of a thousand unanswered questions (and don’t bother with “Revolutions”).

So, there you have it. It feels good to get those off my chest. Though you may get ridiculed for your guilty pleasures, it’s not right to be ashamed of them. They may not be extraordinary pieces of cinematic genius, but we love ‘em anyway.

Oh, and one more thing: I absolutely love "Mortal Kombat."

Classic films get the star treatment with new DVD releases

In the unaltered versions of the original "Star Wars" trilogy DVDs, Han shoots first -- as it should be.
---

In the course of a single weekend, a pair of DVD releases have rectified two of my major home cinema gripes. The new reissue of the original “Star Wars” trilogy includes the unaltered theatrical versions of each film – the same versions seen in theaters in the 70’s and 80’s. Meanwhile, a new “Blade Runner” DVD finally offers sound and picture worthy of the film’s brilliance.

But hold up there, bucko – before you rush and add these DVD’s to your collection, consider this: We’ll be seeing a final cut edition of “Blade Runner” and a deluxe “Star Wars” set come 2007. So, are these current discs worth it?

Greedo shoots first? Not this time.
Since their release in 1977, George Lucas has tampered extensively with the original “Star Wars” films. The first altered reissues were released theatrically in 1997 as “special editions.” These versions of the films (with some further tweaks) were released on DVD in 2004.

Lucas has persisted that the films no longer exist in their original form, but the fans are relentless. Lucasfilm has yielded to the might of nerds and released the “Star Wars” trilogy in its theatrical form.

Granted, the discs are ’93 laserdisc transfers … and the audio mix is only 2.0 surround … and the picture isn’t even anamorphic. But all of that melts away when you see Han blast Greedo before the bounty hunter can get a shot off. Being a “Star Wars” purist at heart, I enjoyed these new DVDs immensely. These are the versions I watched as a kid on our VCR and, technical gripes aside, I still love them today.

These DVDs also include the 2004 special editions as an added bonus. For the casual fan who doesn’t own these flicks yet on DVD (for shame) or the avid collector who absolutely needs every version, this set is a great buy. All three will cost you a relatively measly $60, which is a small price to pay for two versions of the greatest film saga of all time.

However, as I mentioned, Lucasfilm is releasing a deluxe set for the 30th anniversary of the franchise next year. The set will include the original and prequel trilogies, but there’s no sign of the unaltered versions. So, if you feel like you need to own the untainted trilogy, these DVDs are worth it. They’re available until the end of December.

A sci-fi masterpiece gets the DVD it deserves
For years, fans of Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” have dealt with an awful DVD transfer. Released in 1997, the DVD suffered from horrible picture quality and a harsh audio track. But Scott took pity on the suffering fans and provided us with a glimpse of what we can expect from the multi-disc final cut, due out in 2007.

The current release is the director’s cut of the film, an amazingly deep story, rich with imagery and symbolism. This new transfer is fantastic, a visibly vast improvement in both picture and audio quality. The colors are vibrant, the image is clear and sharp. As a longtime appreciator of “Blade Runner,” it’s refreshing to finally own a DVD that serves this masterpiece of a film justice.

With the upcoming final cut DVD and a limited re-release of the film into theaters, it’s a great time to be a “Blade Runner” fan. Coincidentally, it’s also the ideal time for strangers of the movie to check it out – and at only $15, why not pick up this cinematic gem?

Seriously, I don’t understand how you could say no.

And the format wars rage on: HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray

Cry havoc and let slip the discs of format wars! With the release of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray high definition video disc formats, videophiles are lining up on both sides of the battlefield. As a film enthusiast, I’ve taken a look at both contenders. Sorting through the marketing hyperbole isn’t easy, but I’ve come to an inescapable conclusion: there are no winners in this war and the only loser is the consumer.

The history of home entertainment is marred with war and strife. One of the more famous battles was waged between the VHS and Betamax formats. VHS, as we all know, emerged from the rubble victorious. You can now find Betamax players collecting dust in attics across America (and you might come upon one in the occasional yard sale).

Then came DVD, which took a few years to catch on. But with strong support from studios and no competition to speak of, DVD eventually became the reigning champ of home entertainment. Offering vastly improved picture and sound, menu systems, filmmaker commentaries and a slew of other cool features, you’d now be hard pressed to find a house devoid of a DVD player. For film fans, DVD has been a blessing.

How humanity ever survived without the five-disc unrated director’s cut of “Carrot Top Rocks Las Vegas” (with three minutes of added footage!) is beyond me. DVD made it possible.

But just when your DVD collection peaks at 500, two new formats hit the market. HD-DVD, developed by Toshiba and NEC, is the cheaper of the two. Blu-Ray, created by Sony, Matsushita and Philips, offers greater disc capacity but at a higher price.

So, what's the benefit of investing $1000 in a new format player? Both formats offer a hi-definition picture (1080 lines of resolution versus the 500 of DVD). Many films, especially digitally recorded features (i.e. Pixar flicks and Dreamworks animated movies), will benefit from the upgrade. But what about older movies? Unfortunately for features recorded on film (i.e. almost every movie ever made), it's only a marginal improvement in picture quality.

The sad truth is, there really isn’t much of a difference in features between regular DVD and the new discs. If it wasn’t for the fancy new logos splashed across the DVD case, the average consumer wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. A good quarter of the population doesn’t understand why “black bars” appear on widescreen DVDs – who’s to say they’ll notice a slightly improved picture?

And herein lies the rub: in order to enjoy the hi-def picture, you need an HD enabled TV. According to studies, only 15% of American households own a hi-def capable television, and only 15% more are considering purchasing one in the future.
Are these formats going to succeed when only 15% of America is even capable of watching them? The chances are exceedingly slim.

But the winner of this format war stands to generate billions of dollars in licensing. Some suggest that Sony is using it's overpriced PS3 (set to sell in small quantities later this year for $599) as a host for the Blu-Ray format. Yes, the PS2 is firmly established as the number one gaming console worldwide, but that doesn’t mean that gamers are willing to fork over $600 for the new machine.

Sony is using the PS3 as a stealth infiltration device to establish a beachhead in this format war, and they expect gamers to line up and foot the bill. Personally, I think they’re shooting themselves in the foot with their own marketing strategy. If Blu-Ray fails, Sony may go the way of Sega and surrender the console war to Microsoft and Nintendo.

So, what should we as consumers do? Let the studios duke it out and watch the carnage from afar. There’s simply no compelling reason to invest in any particular format at the moment.

Trust me, if there’s one thing I remember from the 4-disc ultimate unrated director’s cut of “Alien vs. Predator,” it’s this: whoever wins, we lose.

Crank (Neveldine/Taylor, 2006)

***½

I'm a guy who enjoys independent, arthouse, drama and foreign films. I like the occasional musical and I happen to be a big fan of Moulin Rouge! and West Side Story. However, I am indeed a guy and I get a real kick out a well-made action film, the kind that assaults you with gunfire, explosions, car chases and crazy camera angles, but also retains an interesting premise with a sense of plot and pacing. Crank is a very well-made action film.

Chev Chelios (Jason Statham of The Transporter), a freelance hitman, discovers upon waking one morning that he has been poisoned with a Chinese synthetic substance by a vengeful crimeboss. Chev has only a few hours to live and the poison is already working its way towards his heart. Speeding down the road, Chev realizes that the poison is cutting off his adrenaline -- if he stops, he dies. To stay alive, he has to keep his andrenaline flowing.

Think Speed, except the bus is now a revenge-driven hitman, and Sandra Bullock is now Amy Smart.

Many modern action films (*cough*michaelbay*cough*) fail because they aren't any fun. Bouncing breasts and tumbling cars are only entertaining for a little while before they become tedious to watch. A truly engaging action film has to have a certain balance of plot, action and humor. Crank succeeds where many action films fail because it's really fun.

Statham does what he does best with reckless abandon. For two hours he kicks, headbutts, shoots, frowns at, punches, pushes, and drives into nameless henchmen of all sorts; it's ridiculously entertaining. Crank never takes itself too seriously, lest it become too insanely over-the-top. No, the film is constantly aware of its own absurdity and makes sure to keep the realism in check.

The film is heavily stylized, utilizing heavy jump-cuts and interesting editing (i.e. split screen conversations, color filters, etc.) to keep even the most menial of scenes entertaining and dynamic. It's fast moving, well paced and over before you're bored.

It's no Die Hard or True Lies, but Crank is a first-rate action flick, a guy-pleasing festival of gore, cars and bullets.

Granted, the girlfriend might not enjoy it too much ... so, bring your buddies and enjoy.

Welcome to Hollywood Video. Is there anything I can help you find today?

Yes, it's official. Officially official. You are currently reading the words of a Hollywood Video employee. So, on top of starting college (um ... tommorow, actually), I'm starting a new job. Not to mention that I'm also now writing for The Mast, PLU's weekly paper.

So, you can imagine that I don't exactly have a lot of free time.

I promise that I'll start consistently updating in the next couple weeks. It's just hard for me to find the time right now for Mattinee.

I miss you guys.

... and I hope you miss me too.

An Update ...

Alright, so my interview.

NAILED IT.

I really hit it off with the manager, a really cool guy named Jerry. I got there early for my interview, which gave me and him plenty of time to talk movies. I think he decided he wanted to hire me before the interview even started. He asked my top four favorite films (Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, Jaws, Blade Runner), and we had a geeky discussion about why Empire is the superior Star Wars film. We really hit it off. He seemed like a really great guy.

I'm looking forward to working for him.

Anyway, it's not official. I still have a group interview, which is next week, before I find out if I'm hired. But, based on this interview, I think I have a new job.

Thanks for all the support!

Wish me luck ...

Hey folks.

Employment. Some people get all the luck with jobs ... and some don't. I wouldn't consider myself one or the other, having only held one job and holding said job for two and-a-half weeks. I don't have a lot of experience. But I know enough to know the difference between a good job and a bad job. Quiznos (my former employer) wasn't the best job.

Hollywood Video? Potentially my part-time, minimum-wage dream job. You're around movies all day. You get to tell people that Crash was horrible, and that they should instead pick up Glory. You get 10 free rentals a week.

10. FREE. RENTALS.

Anyway, I have an interview there tommorow. Wish me luck folks. If you could steer some positive thoughts in my direction at about 4:00 -- possibly have a candle vigil with some church friends -- that'd be great.

Also, sorry for lack of updates. Been very busy lately, with all kinds of crap. College is starting soon. Once I get my first month out of the way, get my schedule under my belt, get settled in a job ... updates will pick up and reviews will come regularly.

Anyway, thanks.

Snakes on a Plane (Ellis, 2006)

****1/2
There are two types of people in this world: those who would enjoy Snakes on a Plane, and those who wouldn't.

I pity the latter.

Last night, I had the privelege -- nay, the honor -- of seeing Snakes on a Plane at the 10:00 sneak preview, an event prophesized by the Bible as the second coming of the Messiah. Flanked on all sides by friends and fellow Snakes anticipators, I experienced, in all of its splendid glory, one of the most mind-blowingly awesome movies of the decade. Snakes was hyped to the point of Godlike existence, but it delivers in copious amounts everything it promises: plenty of snakes, a plane full of expendable passengers, and Samuel L. Jackson.

The film is beautiful in its simplicity. In fact, a plot synopsis really isn't necessary. But for the sake of clarity, I suppose I can break it down for you. Sean (Nathan Phillips) is a man who, after witnessing a murder by Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson), finds himself under the protection of FBI Agent Nelville Flynn (Jackson). The two board a plane for L.A., where Sean will testify against the crimeboss. But after hundreds of poisonous snakes are released on the plane, it's up to Nelville and the dwindling passengers and crew to guide the plane home.

Snakes on a Plane is one of the few films today that actually lives up to the hype. In an age when movies disappoint with failed expectations and broken promises, its comforting when films like Snakes on a Plane are released.

The only reason I marked it down a half a star is because I don't see Snakes as being as fufillingly entertaining on DVD, or in an empty theater. The best way to experience the majesty of Snakes is with a group of friends, in a crowded theater, late at night, with an open mind and a wide grin.

That's exactly how I went into it, and I loved every second of it. Every disgustingly wicked kill, every Sam Jackson one-liner ("I've had it with these mother f***ing snakes on this mutha f***ing plane!"). Every scene is just dripping with pure awesome.

Yes, it's a dumbly simple premise. And yes, it's a little far-fetched and silly; even a little stupid. But it doesn't try to be anything other than what it should be: snakes on a plane, and it succeeds in everything it sets out to do.

Lack of Updates = I suck

Once again, I find myself apologizing to my readers. I'm sorry, again, for the lack of updates. As summer draws to a close, I find myself busy and somewhat tired -- unmotivated, I believe is the term.

Normality should return a some point in the next few days, and I promise I'll get a couple reviews up.

Thanks for your patience. You guys are the best.

Video Blog: The Final Word and a Birthday

Thanks

Today wasn't half-bad.

Yes, I was bombarded by hateful comments ... and for a while, I was a bit down about the whole thing. But then, something happened. Something miraculous.

A whole slew of readers and supporters, people I didn't know even read my blog, sent me emails and left me comments to cheer me up. It's times like these that I'm thankful for my readers.

The amount of support I recieved today far outweighed the negative comments I recieved. You guys are awesome.

And so I raise a goblet to you, the readers. You truly keep me going, and you make me strive to be a better writer every day. I appreciate each and every one of you.

Also, for the record, I did recieve a few apologies from the YouTube users who left me nasty comments. Though I don't condone insulting someone over the internet, they did do right by apologizing. I appreciate them as well.

So, once again, thanks. I'm off to bed.

A Response to My Halo Haters

Not the best morning ...

Alright, so I wake up this morning at my usual time (10:30). I shower, brush my teeth, and get dressed. I then proceed to check my email and blog comments, as I do every morning. And what do I find? About four or five comments on both my blog and on my YouTube account, where I host my video blogs. At first, I was excited. That's a lot of comments for one night.

But then I read them.

They were all hateful, negative comments. The comment left on my Clerks II review was so inappropriate, I opted to delete it (members of my family read this blog, after all). For the record, it was something to the effect of "you're moron. Get a life and stop reviewing movies. Nobody cares what you think, get a girlfriend," only with copious amounts of swearing.

Even if the comment was coming from some idiot spammer with nothing better to do than bring people down over the internet, it was a bit hurtful to read that first thing in the morning. I then checked my YouTube comments, which were all pertaining to my last video blog, the one about the Halo film.

Five negative comments, two of which refer to me as a moron or an idiot. Why did they decide to do this? I don't know. It really irks me when people decide that the internet isn't a place for discussion, and proceed to just randomly insult people with differing opinions.

I responded to all the comments there. I simply thanked the users for their comments, and encouraged them to engage in intelligent discussion, rather than inane name calling. I haven't heard back from them, nor do I expect to and nor do I care to.

This is really the first time this has happened in this magnitude. I find that, when I do recieve a negative comment, I usually have two or three positive ones to keep me in a good mood. But I woke up this morning to nothing but hurtful attacks.

Am I going to let it ruin my day? No, of course not. I'm going to buy the Brick DVD while I'm out today, which should cheer my up indefinitely. The comments do sting a bit, though, and I hope to not have to wake up to an inbox full of nasty idiot comments again the near future.

Video Blog Edition: Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Love Halo

Please excuse the buzzing. The camera mic picked up the hum of my fan.

The Machinist (Anderson, 2004)

***1/2
There is a cliché in cinema that is used frequently and with reckless abandon in psychological thrillers. It’s a cliché utilized in films like Fight Club, Insomnia, and the recent Primer. It’s a tired old gimmick, and one that makes me roll my eyes whenever I see it.

I’m not going to explain this cliché, because then I would ruin the twists in the above mentioned films. And I would also ruin the ending of Brad Anderson’s The Machinist. The difference between The Machinist and any other film that uses the mentioned plot device is that The Machinist is an exceedingly well-crafted film, with strong performances that carry the plot along and prevent the film from falling flat.

Trevor Reznik (Christian Bale) hasn’t slept in a year. Exhausted, depressed and weighing in at a skeletal 121 pounds (Bale lost 80 pounds for the role), Trevor is in a bad state. His call-girl love interest (Jennifer Jason Leigh) worries there’s something seriously wrong with him. “Don’t I look ok?” he asks her. But the fact is, Trevor isn’t ok. As increasingly bizarre things start happening around him, as he begins conversing with a deformed man no one else can see, Trevor begins to question his own sanity.

The Machinist is a dark, somber film and a first-rate psychological thriller. The performance from Bale is just fantastic – he is utterly believable as the deeply troubled, mentally scarred man on the edge.

The cinematography in the film is terrific. Painted in great strokes of washed-out gray tones, splashed here and there with dazzling splashes of color. It’s a great looking film.

Though the use of the mentioned gimmick does irk me, The Machinist was, none the less, a very enjoyable experience.

The Descent (Marshall, 2005)

****
In a time when good, solid horror cinema is hard to come by, films like The Descent leave me with hope for the future of the genre. The Descent is Neil Marshall’s highly anticipated followup to his 2002 cult hit Dog Soldiers. It’s a violent, claustrophobic, mind-warping, hide-behind-your-popcorn, scare-a-minute gore-fest of dizzyingly frightening magnitude.

Six women reunite for the first time after Sarah’s (Shauna Macdonald) husband and daughter are killed in a tragic accident. Juno (Natalie Mendoza) has gathered them all in the mountains for a spelunking expedition. Once inside the cave, the tunnel collapses and the women are left with no way out in an uncharted cavern. What’s more, there’s a whole slew of flesh-eating creatures called “crawlers” inhabiting the cave. As the friends try to survive, they begin to turn on one another, and Sarah struggles to keep her sanity.

The Descent has everything a successful horror flick needs – a feeling of closeness, of being trapped and isolated from help; a struggle to both stay alive and to stay together; terrifying creatures that are revolting and hideous, and yet disturbingly human; and last, but most importantly, an R-rating.

The distribution of R-rated films has slowed to a crawl in today’s Hollywood. Companies striving for the teenage market has resulted in a vast majority of horror and thriller films getting stuck with the limitations of a PG-13 rating. This makes for hollow, clumsy filmmaking.

Films like The Descent, a horror film with no boundaries, but with a filmmaker who knows how to utilize an appropriate amount of violence, gore and jumps, is a fantastic thing for horror fans.

The Descent is absurdly intense for the get-go. Even before the crawlers are introduced (in one of the most frightening images in the film), I was a mess. Marshall knows where to place the camera, where to situate the actors on the screen, how to utilize the audience’s reliance on horror clichés, to keep you good and terrified through the entirety of the film, even when there are no creatures on the screen.

There’s nothing worse than horror without substance, but the film doesn’t use its scares to carry it through. The Descent has an unexpected depth to it. However, I would have appreciated a little more development with the characters. I really felt like every character who wasn’t Sarah or Juno was completely expendable (and they are – oh, how very expendable they are).

The Descent sets out to do one simple thing, and that’s to cause the collective crapping of the audience’s pants. And though I didn’t soil myself (for which I’m very proud), I was scared witless by this film, and I consider it to be the most fear-provoking film I’ve seen in a very long time.

Horror has made its frighteningly glorious comeback in the form of The Descent.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (McKay, 2006)

***
Former SNL writer Adam McKay made his directorial debut with 2004's uproariously funny Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, and he's at it again with Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. Both films follow the life of a charming oaf (played by Will Ferrell on both accounts), who happens to be famous for the only thing he’s good at – in Anchorman, Ron Burgundy is a famous news anchor, and in Talladega Nights, Ricky Bobby is a legendary NASCAR driver.

Actually, if you really stop and think about it, the two films are almost identical in their plotlines. However, if you can get past the fact that you’re essentially watching the same movie you saw in 2004, Talladega Nights is a funny, compelling film.

Ricky Bobby (Ferrell) is a man with a passion for speed and a love of winning. With the aid for his lifelong friend and fellow driver, Cal Naughton (John C. Reilly), Ricky consistently comes in first. Loved by the fans, and adored by his wife and two sons (Walker and Texas Ranger), Ricky Bobby leads a life of speed and bliss.

But his life falls apart with the arrival of Frenchman Jean Girard (Sacha Baron Cohen), who is a champion Formula 1 driver back in Europe. After Jean breaks Ricky’s arm in a bar fight, Ricky loses to him in a race and crashes his car. His wife leaves him for Cal, and Ricky Bobby is left with nothing. At rock bottom, Ricky is reunited with his father (Gary Cole), and together they set out to conquer his fear of losing.

Talladega Nights has some very funny bits, as when Ricky has to tame a wild cougar as part of his father’s training, but it lacks any real memorable comedic moments. Nothing came close to the news team gang fight or the rendition of “Afternoon Delight” in Anchorman.

Will Ferrell is hilarious as always, and there’s some great supporting performances from John C. Reilly, Gary Cole, and Michael Clarke Duncan. But the strength of the charming performances wasn’t enough to keep me from comparing the film to Anchorman.

New directors face this test often, especially filmmakers with a successful debut like McKay had. Can their second film live up to the first? Is it as good? Better? Or is it a letdown, a disappointment with what we’ve come to expect. Talladega Nights is that film, but even more so, because it’s just so very similar to Anchorman.

But McKay has a good head for comedy, and the screenwriting pair of him and Ferrell really come up with some funny stuff. I hope to see the two of them work together again soon.

Talladega Nights: The Balld of Ricky Bobby is definitely a worthwhile comedy, and it keeps the chuckles coming. I simply hope that for his next film, McKay tries to do something different, and that he delivers a film that is both hilarious and unique.

Writer's Block

I feel I must apologize for the lack of updates.

I'm currently experiencing a horrible case of writer's block and I couldn't be more frustrated. It's getting to the point where everything I type is just pure nonsense. I mean, for God's sake, I'm having trouble typing this!

Anyway ... I have no idea how long this creative slump is going to last. Knowing me, it could be a couple weeks. I'll try to update if I feel a bit of writing energy, and I'll probably resort to videos for a bit.

Video Blog Edition: I'm unemployed and bored

Nothing of real consequence. I'll have a substantial video up next week. Stay tuned for more reviews.

Clerks II (Smith, 2006)

Clerks: *1/2
Clerks II: ***

Note: Because I reference the original Clerks several times in my review, I have included my rating for that film as well.

I am not a fan of Kevin Smith -- not of his films or of him personally. I find him to be a bit of prick, if you'll please excuse the term. I think he's cocky and self-indulgent, and his movies are dull, repetitive and childish.

However, he has managed to garner a large group of clingy fans who worship the ground he walks on. I consider myself an antipode to those people … a “hater,” if you will.

After hearing endless praise for Clerks, his first film, I decided to check it out. I found myself questioning the very existence of the film, I hated it so much. I couldn’t grasp the concept of it – it’s a film about two guys talking in a convenience store. Subplots and antics aside, that is the basic gist of the film. And though some may find that charming and quirky, I find it to be pretty uninteresting.

But I digress.

Clerks II picks up a decade after the last one ended, with Dante (Brian O'Halloran) and Randal (Jeff Anderson) still stuck in their dead-end jobs at the Quick-Stop convenience store. But when the Quick-Stop burns down (Randal left the coffee pot on), the two slackers are left to find new minimum-wage jobs. They find themselves working at Mooby’s, a McDonald’s-esque fast food joint (which was featured in Smith’s film Dogma).

Dante’s life is a bit different since we left him. He’s engaged to be married, and is planning on moving to Florida to start his life anew. But when he falls for his manager, Becky (Rosario Dawson), things get a bit complicated.

Clerks II, suffice to say, is a vastly better-made film than the original Clerks; the main difference being that SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENS. There's this thing called a plot happening. With Clerks, we are given two characters that, throughout the course of an entire film, don’t develop at all. Some would call this unique. I call it bad filmmaking. With Clerks II, Dante and Randal actually resolve the conflict that arises. They develop as characters, and aren’t as two-dimensional and dull as they were in Clerks.

Smith’s signature brand of humor (translation: the humor of a 13-year-old boy) is still overwhelmingly present. However, there are a few genuinely funny scenes. In my favorite scene of the film, Randal gets into a heated argument with two geeks over which is the better trilogy, Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. One of the nerds gets so mad that he vomits.

Though the characters do make quite a bit of progress through the film, the ending of the movie is overly anti-climatic. And frankly, it makes this sequel a bit unnecessary. At the end of Clerks II, Dante and Randal are right back where they were ten years ago – the Quick-Stop convenience store. It's a very disappointing way to end a film.

Clerks II isn’t the masterful achievement some claim it is, but it is a better film than the original Clerks, and I’ll admit that I enjoyed it for the most part.

Hit counter added!

Due to requests made by several of my readers, I've put a hit counter on my blog. If you're interested, scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll see it there. Cool, huh?

If this thing depresses me too much (five hits in two weeks, are you freaking kidding me?!) I'll take it down. But for now, there it is, in all it's glory.

It even matches the Mattinee color scheme, thanks to the magic of CSS code! StatCounter.com is hosting ... so, big thanks to them. It's a great, easy to use tool (and no, I am not being paid to write that -- though I kinda wish I was).

Great Movies: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)

In this new category of entry, I write a short little opinion on an older film that I've watched recently that I feel is a classic movie. Let me know what you guys think. First up is Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece Apocalypse Now.











When most think of Francis Ford Coppola, they think of The Godfather. But my favorite Coppola film is Apocalypse Now – which is saying something; I consider The Godfather and The Godfather Part II to be masterful achievements of filmmaking, but Apocalypse Now is Coppola at his very best.

The film opens with one of the most striking images in modern cinema: a jungle of palm trees, swaying in the breeze. Suddenly, the muffled sound of a chopper, it’s rotor blades slicing through the air. It zooms past the frame, gone as quickly as it appeared. A second chopper follows, and a third.

Then, fire and smoke erupt from the tree line as the soundtrack kicks in. Napalm at work. The explosions blossom into the air like burning flowers. The sky ripples with the heat of the blaze as more choppers rocket past the frame.

Apocalypse Now is a beautiful movie to watch. The cinematography is some of the best in modern film. Coppola’s use of shadow on the character’s faces in the last few scenes is superbly surreal.

Martin Sheen is excellent as the lead, and Robert Duvall is fantastic in his charming, albeit small, role. But the real heart of the film is with the performance of Marlon Brando as Kurtz. We wait the entire film to see Kurtz, to hear him speak, and we are not in the least disappointed when we finally enter his camp. Brando is poetic and melodic, and yet so chillingly unsettling as Kurtz.

The film is truly one that you find yourself lost in. Halfway through, you realize that you’re not aware of your surroundings or even the people watching it with you. It’s a movie experience like no other, and it’s fantastic. Apocalypse Now is truly a classic film.

Miss me?

Of course you did.

Yes, I have returned from my absence. I was in Cannon Beach with my family, if you really want to know. Anyway, my Lady in the Water review is up (see below). I'm sorry it wasn't submitted sooner -- the hotel I was staying at didn't have WiFi (*GASP!*), so I was unable to do anything online. But I'm back in action.

Anyway, expect a few more entries in the next couple of days -- I wrote a few while I was gone.

I missed you guys.

Lady in the Water (Shyamalan, 2006)

**1/2
With exposure comes expectations, and with expectations comes disappointment.

I admire M. Night Shyamalan greatly as a filmmaker … but his last two movies have shown a considerable drop in quality of direction. With The Village, Shyamalan frustrated the viewer with a lack of depth and a reliance on cheap plot gimmicks.

Some will insist that the failures of The Village were a result of Shyamalan tackling a different genre – but the same could be said of Unbreakable, which was perhaps his strongest film. The Village wasn’t terrible, nor is his most recent film, Lady in the Water; but neither scored much when compared to films like The Sixth Sense, Signs or Unbreakable.

Cleveland Heap (Paul Giamatti) is the lonely super of “The Cove,” a rundown apartment complex. He spends his days maintaining the building and chatting with the various racially-stereotyped tenants. His life gets a little weird, though, when he discovers a woman named Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) living in the apartment building pool. Story – who identifies herself as a Narf – immediately sets out to confuse Cleveland and the audience with her stories of fantastical things to come.

Apparently, Cleveland has to help his wet friend get home (to a place called The Blue World) by meeting her with a writer who lives in the building (actually, the writer is played by Shyamalan in the largest “cameo” role in history) and then sending her off with a giant Eagle who comes around to pick her up under cover of night. Unfortunately, there’s a wolf-like creature – called a Skrunt – lurking out in the grass, just itching to get a bite out of poor Story.

On top of all this, there’s a bunch of evil monkey things – called the Tartutics – that are supposed to show up at some point and enact “justice” on the Skrunt.

If that synopsis sounded confusing, it’s because it is.

With Lady in the Water, Shyamalan presents us with a fairy tale – a not-so-sleight departure from his usual drama or thriller. It’s charming at first, but the wild whimsy of the plot declines into utter silliness as the movie goes on; as more crazy characters are introduced and more details of the Narf legend revealed, the film becomes more and more ludicrous until it finally explodes in a big, hectic sphere of fiery confusion.

However, Lady in the Water isn’t without its redeeming qualities. Refreshingly absent is the obligatory Shyamalan plot-twist, which almost ruined The Village. The film is a bedtime story of such dreamlike substance that you can’t help but enjoy it. The characters are all likable and quirky (my personal favorite was the pompous film critic character), and they keep the insane premise grounded for the most part. Giamatti delivers a stellar performance, and Richie Cunningham’s daughter is becoming a versatile acting force.

Despite being a bit inane, and even though I felt like Shyamalan was just making the story up as he went along, Lady in the Water wasn’t a terrible film – Shyamalan’s sense of dialogue and keen eye for cinematography are still present – it just wasn’t a great one. But I haven’t lost all faith in Shyamalan or his ability, and I hope that he pulls himself out of his rut and delivers another great movie.

Though, for his next film, instead of making a bedtime story for his daughters, he needs to make a sequel to Unbreakable for me. Get on it, M. Night.

And The Joker will be ... HUH?!

Comic junkies and film fans alike were left in shock last night when it was announced that Christopher Nolan had selected his Joker for the highly anticipated Batman Begins sequel. The topic has been one of heated debate on online forums for over a year now, and fan favorites have ranged from Crispin "McFly" Glover to Hugo "Agent Smith" Weaving and Gérard "I'm French" Depardieu to Adrien "The Nose" Brody.

But Nolan caught everyone by surprise when he chose heart-throb Heath Ledger to play Batman's greatest (and most beloved) adversary in his upcoming film.

My thoughts? Nolan knows what he's doing. Much like Cillian Murphy in the role of Scarecrow in Batman Begins, Ledger could take us all by surprise.

I'm not willing to make a judgement on this before I see Heath in white face paint, with a green wig and an enormous set of yellow choppers. I trust Nolan's casting and I trust Ledger's acting ability.

I don't have much of an opinion on the matter as of yet. I'm not one to hate or love a casting choice from the get-go. We'll see how this pans out and I'll still be eagerly anticipating the sequel to Batman Begins (speaking of which ... when are they going to title the thing? I'm thinking Batman Keeps on Keepin' On).

It's about time: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in 2007

Greetings from Medical Lake (a tiny town of 4,000 in Eastern Washington)! I have a few minutes free on my eventful vacation here, so I thought I'd share this fantastic teaser trailer for the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with the readership.

It would be in everyone's best interest to watch this teaser.

The newly titled TMNT is due out in 2007. The film will be completely CGI and will stick to the darker tone of the comics, as opposed to lighthearted earlier films. Personally, I'm psyched out of my mind about it. Feel free to leave comments about your feelings on the trailer.

Later!

Video Blog Edition: Goodbye ... For Now

Video Blog Edition: Ask Matt!

Here it is, guys. Big thanks to everyone who sent in questions. A couple of the questions got cut in the editing process due to time, but everyone who sent in got at least one question in there. Enjoy and leave comments!

Lady dead in the water ...

Most of you have already heard about M. Night Shyamalan's new film Lady in the Water. You've seen the trailers online or in the theater and the TV spots during commerical breaks. Or ... maybe you haven't, I'm assuming here. If you haven't ... here's the IMDb page.

In any case, Shyamalan began marketing his film as a modern day fairy tale -- a bedtime story, he called it. It was very intriguing, to say the least. I don't think I was the only one intrigued, either. The premise is interesting; combined with Shyamalans distinct directing style, this film could be great.

However ... the geniuses over at Fox are shooting themselves in the foot with a double-barreled shotgun with the marketing of this film. They made the mistake with Shyamalan's The Village two years ago of marketing it as a horror/thriller. Apparently, they haven't learned yet. They're doing the same exact thing now with recent trailers and TV spots for Lady in the Water.

It's ridiculous. People can cope with the fact that Shyamalan isn't directing another thriller better than they can cope with finding out that the scary movie they paid money for turned out to be a fairy tale.

I hope the inept marketing doesn't affect people's experience with the film as much as it did with The Village. Shyamalan is a great young directing talent, and I would hate for him to be a passing fad.

Video Blog Edition: Update

Eagerly awaiting my "Ask Matt" video blog? Yeah, didn't think so. This is why it hasn't happened yet, people!

Send questions to:
rocketnumber09@gmail.com

Pirates loot the box office

Rotten Tomatoes reported today in this story that "Dead Man's Chest" has completely shattered all kinds of box office records. At a whopping $132 million on its opening weekend, "Pirates" is the absolute epitome of "blockbuster."

Sour reviews and a lukewarm reception from critics wasn't enough to deter people from the theater this opening weekend. "Dead Man's Chest" is a box office behemoth.

I'm not going to say that I didn't see it coming -- "Pirates" was the surprise hit of the summer two years ago, and it's gained a following thousands strong. Still ... $132 million? That's absolutely insane.

But is "Dead Man's Chest" going to hold strong against the tide of the summer? It broke the record for opening weekend, but only time will tell if this "Pirates" flick continues to dominate the box office to take the crown of highest box office earnings.

Video Blog Edition: Episode 4

Hey guys!

Get featured in the next video blog! Send your questions, comments and topic ideas for "Ask Matt" to:
rocketnumber09@gmail.com

Priates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Verbinski, 2006)

***1/2

Well, here it is – the review you’ve all been waiting eagerly for. I now present to you, the Mattinee faithful, with my review of “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest,” the second installment in the hit trilogy.

Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley reprise their roles as swashbuckling trio Jack, Will and Elizabeth. The film picks up shortly after the events of “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” with Will and Elizabeth prepared to be married.

But when an East India Trading Company official (yes, the same who branded Jack with his infamous “P” for pirate) arrives with arrest warrants for the couple, along with James Norrington (Jake Davenport), the wedding plans come to a screeching halt. The deal is, Will has to find Jack Sparrow and claim his “broken” compass or he, his fiancé and poor Norrington will hang.

Thing is, Jack has his own set of problems. Turns out that Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), a tentacle-bearded demon sea captain, is out to collect Jack’s soul. Now Jack, Will, Elizabeth and Norrington are all out to find the fabled “Dead Man’s Chest,” in order to stop Davy Jones and return home. And the only method of finding the chest? Jack’s “broken” compass.

The first “Pirates” flick was a charming, swashbuckling romp that took everyone by surprise, both with its quality and its prowess at the box office. This second foray into the world of pirates and magic is also looking to shatter box office records, but director Gore Verbinski has also opted out some of the charm and a lot of the substance.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed “Dead Man’s Chest.” Just maybe not as much as I enjoyed “The Curse of the Black Pearl.” Why? Well, it comes down to this. “Black Pearl” was a film you could watch over and over again and never get bored – it had a fantastic rewatchability (just made up a word) factor to it. I just can’t imagine myself wanting to watch this second film again and again and again.

The characters that we came to love in the first film are strangely unlikable in this movie. They fight and squabble, betraying and lying to one another through the entire course of the film. Even Jack Sparrow, possibly one of the most likable characters in recent film, is a despicable scoundrel. And yes, I know – he’s a pirate. But at some point, we need to see a bit of good in the character. We saw in the first film numerous times, but it’s coldly absent until the very climax in “Dead Man’s Chest.”

The action in the film is also absurdly over-the-top. Yes, it’s a movie about cursed pirates, giant squids and magic compasses, but at some point – possibly when Jack, Will and Norrington are all dueling atop a giant mill wheel while a crew of cursed fish-men chase after Elizabeth and two formerly-cursed pirates, who have a chest containing the still beating heart of their immortal captain, Davy Jones, who also has command over a giant squid known as the Kraken – we might want to question the direction of the film.

Scenes like the one mentioned above are crazy and entertaining at first, but the novelty soon wears off and they become daunting to watch. I’m typically one for over-the-top action sequences, but when a film starts to feel like it’s nothing but, it becomes tiresome.

The character of Davy Jones is also criminally underdeveloped. There’s a vague back story at one point that hazily explains why he might be the way he is, but I definitely felt like I enjoyed Geoffrey Rush’s Captain Barbossa a bit more.

However, on the bright side of things, the film is splendidly entertaining. There wasn’t a single boring moment, or a wasted inch of screen. “Dead Man’s Chest” is chock-full of vibrant, exuberant characters, situations and settings.

My reaction to this movie was hard to pinpoint. The film was immensely disappointing in some aspects, but completely satisfying in others. I suppose I might feel differently towards “Dead Man’s Chest” once “World’s End” is released next summer. Maybe the two films fit together snugly like a single one and complete the picture.

If nothing else, the final scene alone gives me immense amounts of hope for the third installment.

If my review was a little heavy-handed, I apologize. The film is a solid piece of work; maybe not as full and odor-free as the first, but still a quality summer action flick.

I look forward to seeing “World’s End” next summer.