July is nearly finshed, as August begins to knock on our door. It all started back on May 4th, when Spider-Man swung into theaters for his third time around. Nearly $335 million dollars later, the film is kind of viewed as a failure, due to its mixed reviews and slightly less than average box office for the series. But it's still the #1 grossing film for the year so far, and will most likely stay that way, despite the fact that the major blockbusters like Harry Potter and Transformers have been very successful.

The polar opposite of Transformers is Hairspray (A), the laugh filled, smile-inducing riot that could make any frown turn upside down. John Travolta is quirky and endearing as Edna Turnblad- but even Travolta gets upstaged by his filmic offspring Tracy Turnblad played by newcomer Nikki Blonsky. Blonsky's bright attitude and adorable presence is totally infectious- her castmates including the amazing Elijah Kelly, heartthrob Zack Efron, among others who compliment each other with magical ease. While this is a John Waters film at heart, the picture is still able to balance the slick innuendoes typical of a Waters’ fare, in smart ways that go over any youngsters head, with the PG rated sheen and joy that the musical needs to incorporate with its message. I'd say that Hairspray is the best film I've seen this year (so far). It's the perfect high to cure any woes brought on by this oppressive heat.

The Simpsons Movie (B+), a film that almost anyone could be attracted to, from the notoriety of the long-running television program, has finally hit the screens. So does america's favorite family transition well from the small screen to a longer format on over 3,800 theaters nationwide? Absolutely! The film is a bit obtuse with its plot centering around Springfield being declared a natural disaster area, all thanks to a certain Simpsons family member (D'OH!). The family soon moves to Alaska after their friends and neighbors revolt against them, as they also fear the looming EPA (environmental protection agency), led by the determined agency head Russ Cargill (Albert Brooks). The gags and laughs are constant, as well as the usual wit we expect from the series. The film is able to go further than the show typically can, and if a show like The Simpsons can be successful in syndication, it's prime to make major cash at the box office, which it does rightfully deserve.

Knocked Up (B-), the latest from Director Judd Apatow, is easily the most fun and somewhat realistic gross-out comedy of the year (haha). Pretty blonde Allison (Katharine Heigl) finds herself pregnant from a drunken romp with slacker Ben (Seth Rogen). Hilarity ensues, obviously, with some mildly fresh dialogue in a strangely heartfelt package. While Knocked Up may not be a perfect film, it’s unique and genuinely funny enough in its own ways to be worth seeing, although it does have one of the most standard plotlines in the book.

What else did I see?
MICHAEL MOORE’S SICKO : B+
WEDDING DAZE (releases soon) : D-
HOSTEL: PART II : D
SPIDER-MAN 3 : B-
SUPERBAD : B-
UNDERDOG : F

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS? What is wrong with Fox! What is wrong with Bruce Willis? And why on earth is Len Wiseman directing this motion picture?

The sum of these pieces has resulted in a crime against cinema - a Die Hard film, not only taking the motto of my current home state, but being rated PG-13. When I was quite young, my parents were big Bruce Willis fans (and pretty much still are)- my mother had one of his albums (that "Blues" stuff), and would frequently see all of his motion pictures. Die Hard was one of these prominent fixtures in the film going habits of my parents. I waited eagerly to see Die Hard and its sequels until I was allowed to, since I was just a young child when they were released in theaters. But now all that stuff that made the Die Hard series so amazing and successful might as well be erased from our memory, according to the stance that Fox has taken with this new film. A PG-13 Die Hard isn't going to incorporate the kinds of things that we expect with such a film- fearless action, badass terrorists, foul-mouthed McClane (and sidekick in some situations), and bullet-heavy life or death situations for our hero.

So now, with this watered-down version of the adventures of John McClane, they might as well revoke the title- since this is the state of Live Free or Die, living free includes saying what you want, doing what you want, and being able to live your life as an individual. Die Hard being Die Hard didn't ever include pleasing teenagers to rake in extra cash- it was about surviving against those who want to harm us- and the issues of terrorism in the series hasn't been for the faint of heart. Sorry Bruce- this Die Hard is already dead to me.

The one new element of the film involves the very way that these young, unsuspecting americans meet their grisly end in the hands of perfect strangers- through a mobile phone auction, businessman Todd selects his prey, calling up his buddy Stuart to come along with him so that the two can each enjoy the death of an unsuspecting females. These two new characters don't feel like anything beyond that you'd expect- and director Eli Roth finds easy means to negate these characters at any chance he can, by destroying their manhood both in mental and physical ways. The pair of men are on-screen through Roth just so we have a chance to see some T&A through their actions, not for any deep reasons in examining the mindset of someone who wants to murder someone for their entertainment, as we'd all assume.

Getting back on course with the plot, the nerd of the group Lorna is snatched up first, and meets a disgusting end in the lone bloody (and rather overdone) scene of the film, but from then on, Roth drags us on through the same ups and downs that we already saw in the first film. This Hostel is not exciting, it's not shocking, and it surely isn't funny- the film soon results to tactics that make us want to root for these women, but they've merely become the victims of Roth's desires for content that so-called raises the picture above the horror fare of the past and present.

The ending of the film resorts to shock value content instead of a desired resoultion to the tactics of the Hostel/Torture workers, and why they make such a profit off of these dead Americans. Why actually get somewhere with the story when you can, instead, just execute so-called graphic imagery and call it a day. I don't think that this Hostel is worse than the previous picture, since it does try and clean itself up by not having so much gore and sex revolving around the females (however, this stuff is just left for the guys), but then again, it's more of a let-down because Roth clearly doesn't really know how to do anything with these women besides just get a few them killed and hit the auto-pilot. With the lesser success of this film at the box-office, we might be lucky and not see another Hostel picture. But this is definitely not the end for Eli Roth and his cheap horror.

RATING: D

Will 2007 hold the same issues for filmgoers? We'll just have to wait and see.

HONORABLE MENTIONS
DRAWING RESTRAINT 9
THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE
A SCANNER DARKLY
THE DEVIL AND DANIEL JOHNSTON
TRISTRAM SHANDY : A COCK AND BULL STORY
V FOR VENDETTA
SNAKES ON A PLANE
LITTLE CHILDREN
ART SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL
DIXIE CHICKS - SHUT UP AND SING

Funnier than you think- and smarter than it seems. It's a smack in the face to popular culture, but Director Weitz still wants to kiss the boo-boo and make things all better in the end. Not for everyone, but should be admired anyway for the crafty nature of events in their context. Hugh Grant's performance is witty and endearing, while the rest of the varied cast seems born to play their roles.

GAH! Not exactly the most fun/cheery motion picture ever, but instead the kind that Dateline's To Catch a Predator wish it could be in the realm of true shock and awe. Both Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page command this film, as well as your attention, as the pair bring this sly tale of terror and trial alive.

Daniel Craig makes me forget that Die Another Day existed and looks extremely fresh, as well as sincere as the new Bond. Getting back to basics, Bond gets his groove on the saucy and smart dame Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), while he carefully plays his hand with M (Judi Dench, great as always), who is watching out for Bond on his risky missions. And to think... those bitchy internet haters didn't think it could be done... ha!

Well gee... isn't this relevant! Alfonso Cuaron, the coolest and most versatile director working in the biz today smacks your face and breaks your spirit as Clive Owen's Theo attempts to survive in a world without hope. But when a pregnant refugee falls in his lap, he decides to go ahead and save the world - one fetus at a time. Hats off to Owen and his driven cynic Theo, and Alfonso for allowing the audience to experience a film, so devoid of cliche and yet extremely accessible, even to the general public.

Jonestown is more than just a troubling subject - it's an event in history that left much unanswered for those related to the victims, as well as the survivors. This documentary is a riveting glimpse at the promise, confusion, and devastation that Jim Jones left in his passing- usually, a subject as such could be overdone with interviews that allow a connection and face to the events, but the real star of this picture is the footage of Jones himself. Jones' speeches and convictions are the stuff of nightmares.

It's the most provocative and explicit romantic comedy/drama you'll ever see-
Director John Cameron Mitchell let's it all hang out for the audience to see, as his characters suffer from emotional and sexual dysfunction in the heart of a fragmented city- New York.
It's not for kids and it's definitely not for your mother- but it is for those who are willing to give any good story that is *gasp!* realistic a chance.

I wasn't expecting to love Clerks 2, but I did. And while it's not exactly a true View Askew film, nor is it something that everyone will love, but it's a touching glimpse at growing up while still holding on to the same immature mindset, for the sake of being what you are.

Enough really can't be said about United 93 - it's not a documentary but it gives you that feeling-
it might be the best non-narrative feature in a long time... a film that doesn't care about pleasing everyone except those who lived the events and the loved ones who still miss them dearly.

Darren Aronofsky has finally released The Fountain, a film with a much troubled slate before it even faced a release date, but with a surprising and rather brilliant result. Hugh Jackman experiences three pieces in time all in the name of saving his girl Rachel Weisz, so that their love can flourish in that point of their lives. But only time and reality will get in their way, in a remarkable and visually arresting dramatic sci-fi-esque romance that's as original as films get.

And it's all come down to this. The most intoxicating and vibrantly trashy movie I've ever seen. Tom Tykwer's Perfume is almost too much to handle at times, but it's just so unbelievable that it has to be seen. If Smell-o-vision should ever come back into the theaters, I've love to experience this masterpiece with such a format.

As we begin our story, things are just swell as usual for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and his girlfriend Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). She's about to star in a show on Broadway and her bf is there opening night to support her. But from there it's a downward spiral for MJ as she puts on her emo face for the rest of the motion picture. Communication issues aside, Peter and MJ make a great couple- now if only she'd just talk to him more about her real feelings, then we wouldn't have to see Kirsten Dunst try and emote without looking ridiculous.

Spider-Man/Peter Parker has problems too though, as his former best friend Harry Osborn has discovered the lair that his father used for all his Goblin technology- Harry wants revenge against Peter because he believes that, in the suit, Parker killed Harry's dad (we all know from the previous films that this is not the case). Harry uses his newfound weaponry against Spider-Man in an all-out duel that's both subtle and totally awesome. Harry does not succeed in killing Peter, and thankfully, from a little bump on his head, we're spared from seeing James Franco try and act "really angry" from some very convenient yet temporary memory loss.

MEANWHILE, Spider-Man saves Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), who's dating Eddie Brock (Topher Grace). Eddie Brock wants to take pictures of Spider-Man for the Daily Bugle, which is Peter Parker's job, right? Also, at the same time, Flint Marko has become the Sandman (in a transformation which is the best CGI sequence of the entire trilogy thus far), yet another villain for Spider-man to deal with. Marko needs money to save his bed-ridden daughter and prove his worth as an ex-con on the run. But it turns out Mr. Marko killed Ben Parker. Is that going to go over well with Peter Parker? Hell to the no- he wants revenge to help Aunt May sleep at night. Oh, and did I forget to mention that a black symbiote landed near Peter Parker, eventually latching on to him, and giving him this broody power to be a total badass as Spidey and a jazz dancing ladies man? PLUS, Eddie Brock is pissed at losing his girlfriend and prospective career at the Daily Bugle, and that symbiote just so happens to like him as well... Still with me?

Setting aside the extremely complex plotline, all problems in this 140 minute epic are due to the atrocious script. The errors in the script are so significant that the entire first hour of the motion picture is enough to make you want to leave the theater. I'll go ahead and say that all three major actors Maguire, Dunst, and Franco, do the best of a job they can, despite the script which caused them to have such terrible dialogue and unbelievable emotions. The entire conflicting trifecta story of their characters practically destroys what we thought of them in the two previous films.

However, the side characters that support this flagging juggernaut are given much, much, MUCH better lines and chances with their execution. Topher Grace does a great job as the slick Eddie Brock- Thomas Haden Church's Flint Marko isn't nearly as significant as he should be, but we're able believe him when he tries to convince us that he's not as bad as he seems. And of course, J.K. Simmons' J. Jonah Jameson is hilarious- thankfully, he's give the biggest chance to shine in this film- his ferocious humor is better than ever and gives us something to laugh at to forget the other glaring problems.

If you're able to survive the first awful hour of Spider-Man 3, you'll realize that the picture becomes better as it gets along, resulting in a passable conclusion with big action and little amazing moments along the way. But just how is it that such a successful and excellent film series has become as mediocre as this? So much of Spider-Man being seen on screen is because of the investment in the series from Sony. The more money that can be put into the picture, the bigger and better it gets- but even with a record-breaking first day box-office of nearly $59 million, this series is in big trouble if a film like this is going to be apart of it. Director Sam Raimi had done such great things with the first two pictures- it's just a damn shame that he is partially responsible for the script that he co-wrote with his brother Ivan Raimi and Alvin Sargent. Not enough money in the world can save a bad script. And even though I did like this film with all its flaws, it just goes to show that not even a hero such as Spider-Man can save such a colossal blunder.

RATING: B-

Children of Men, based upon the novel by P.D. James, is a movie that will someday be watched by high school and college students- to be examined for its principles, examples, context, and above all, intent. It's not a perfect film (I'd give it a solid 8/10), but it's definitely an important film, and can strongly recommend it more than anything else released in the previous year. And even with my love and slight biases for Director Alfonso Cuaron, I feel safe enough endorsing this movie for reasons beyond his obviously skilled craft. So drop what you're doing, and go see this mature, thought-provoking motion picture.
In my own opinion, I feel that it should be nominated for Best Picture in any awards ceremony that it hasn't already- but will this happen? I really doubt it- do one better and put your dollar towards a movie that couldn't be more relevant at a time like this in our own world.

DIS-HONORABLE MENTIONS
Basic Instinct 2
Blood Diamond
Bobby
The Break-Up
For Your Consideration
Little Miss Sunshine
Mission: Impossible III
The Oh! in Ohio
Stick It!

A masterpiece of grand delusions, only to be outdone by the massive egos that crushed any chance for a glimmer of light to shine out of the bowels of this adaptive catastrophe. DID the real Augusten fudge his life story for recognition? Who cares. Hopefully in the future, someone won't give writer/director Ryan Murphy the pen if the studio is lame enough to hand him the camera. Remember Annette Bening's awkward, strained, robotic acceptance speech at the Golden Globes a few years back for Being Julia? Sure you don't. But it's more painful than that. Like, times a thousand.

5) THE DA VINCI CODE

Ron Howard has balls. Big, shiny balls. He made an outrageously expensive movie based upon an even most outrageously bad book that everyone bought and read, except me...
and what did he do? He hired the worst fecking writer in all of Hollywood to pen the 2 hrs and 30+ (or equal to eternity) movie. Akiva Goldsman, the guy who gave us Batman And Robin made Tom Hanks seem amateurish for the first time (it is worse than Bosom Buddies), and Audrey Tautou drab (you thought it could never be done... me as well). Only Paul Bettany got to have some fun in this super pop-religious-action-adventure blockbuster. He played Silas, the albino monk with a dream, a hit-list and a gun... and made me wish I did too.

4) NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM

... BUT THIS IS A KIDS MOVIE... I'm an adult, and I'm not the target audience. Tough cookies, half pints! I shoulda, woulda, coulda LOVED this movie about 10 years ago, because 10 years ago, I liked Jumanji, no matter how much it deviated from the book. But this? It's not even worth compromising for the sake of my inner child. Dopey divorced cliché dad Larry is played by Ben Stiller. Concerned ex mommy who- guess what!- is dating a dopey guy, wants Larry patch things up with dopey son (played by the worst kid actor in a long time, who's name is Jake Cherry- and thankfully, he doesn't have any new projects listed on IMDB).
I admire Robin Williams (Theodore Roosevelt... who woulda thought) for making two not-so-fantastic family films this year and getting away unscathed from both of them- rightfully so, since Night At The Museum (Ishtar to RV's Lawrence of Arabia) is all about the lameness, and nobody makes lameness less painful like Robin Williams. But the colossal lameness of Night At The Museum is the unforgettable kind- the kind where, you'll see that its still making money at the box office, or in the near future, is listed the #1 selling DVD of the week/month/century, and just feel like ripping as many copies of the film apart with your bare hands... even if it requires your own blood to be shed. This isn't a movie- it's junk food at 24 frames per second.

3) WHEN A STRANGER CALLS

It's a PG-13 horror remake produced by a studio called Screen Gems. Oh, the irony.

2) THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA

It's like Pretty Woman. Pretty Stupid Woman. Anne Hathaway does the same stuff she did in BOTH Princess Diaries movies... except this time, she doesn't get the guy. No, she doesn't. She instead gets the shoes, the bag, the coat, the blouse... all the material, shallow things ladies like me want, but don't end up sacrificing our ENTIRE CAREER GOALS ON for the sake of being a total masochist. Having a bad job is one thing, but suffering through an abusive job just because there are soooo many other girls out there who would "die" for it is to be devoid of a brain. All I got out of watching this picture was seeing Meryl Streep look bored, for absolutely no reason besides the fact that she's the villian, and having the one conscious individual in the film, Emily, played by the slightly entertaining Emily Blunt, get hit by a car, when Anne Hathaway's guppy Andrea jaywalks a dozen times or so. Life is not fair, and The Devil Wears Prada is not good filmmaking- the film is much like a stereotypical model- long, thin, lanky, and without any substance.

1) HOSTEL

I did doubt the awfulness of this movie a short while ago, but when a sibling of mine described it as "Gore 'N Porn," I started to boil inside. Not only is Hostel not scary, it's obvious that Roth himself wants nothing more than to gross-out the audience out as much as possible, all while paying homage/ripping off other movies that did it better time and time again... oh, and don't forget the useless scenes of gratuitous sex for the male viewers.
Takashi Miike, the filmmaker who's made a few movies that actually made me cover my eyes, shows up as one of the sicko businessmen in a cameo, but that's not to suggest that Roth himself will be a master of gore much like Miike one day- Eli Roth has the passion that any filmmaker needs to be successful, but at the current rate he's working at, is that going to happen anytime soon? Probably not- Hostel: Part II hits screens this summer.

With a title like Blood Diamond, you'd assume we'd be talking about an action picture -
the film does have some violence, but not enough to warrant an entry in the genre. The picture is instead a drama (cue the violins) about diamond harvesting/smuggling in the late 1990s, amidst the chaos brought on by murderous jewel-hunting rebel forces in Africa. Djimon Housou plays Solomon Vandy, a family man who must succumb to the murderous rebels in order to spare the lives of his loved ones. While being forced to work with the rebels in their quest for jewels, to be exported to serve mostly rich westerners, he finds rare diamond - one that is pink, clear, and worth a hell of a lot of money. Unfortunately, one of the rebel leaders knows what Solomon has found, but he is unable to acquire the stone from Solomon, due to an ambush on their camp. Luckily, Solomon hides the stone in the dirt off the banks of a river- And as you'd assume, the climax of the film happens there, in one of many predictable moments brought to the screen in this despicable, two-hour inspired-by-true-events motion picture.

I use the word "despicable" to describe this film because almost everything in this film is strategically placed to work our emotions. You might think that this wouldn't be a bad thing, but the way that Director Ed Zwick plays with our hearts couldn't be any more obvious nor laughable -
in order to help us realize the severity of the violence and the dastardly ways of the rebels, we see innocent people have their limbs removed, be pumped full of bullets, or cry in pain for all the suffering they experience. Piece by piece, this film unfolds, with every moment becoming more calculated than the other. Thankfully, Leonardo DiCaprio shows up to give one of the worst and most annoying on-screen accents in recent history - but isn't he supposed to be South African? Sure, believe that if you want- it's still not tolerable for 130 minutes. Jennifer Connelly plays the lovely (but really concerned!) journalist Maddy Bowen, who meets DiCaprio's manipulative Danny Archer to spew fightin' words at each other to explain their separate causes - there's some chemistry between these two, since they are both straight single adults of opposite genders, and it's rather painful to watch. They both convince Solomon Vandy to go along with them through Sierra Leone and elsewhere to save his family (so he hopes)- Connelly's journalist Maddy Bowen may want just the journey, which will give her a story and some nice pictures, while DiCaprio's Danny wants that damn stone.

The more Blood Diamond advanced, the less and less I cared about the issue- seeing Solomon cry in front of his wife and children at the fenced-in camp where they are held, while Maddy Bowen snaps photos of their sadness, as well as the many other young victims who have lost their limbs to the rebels, is a prime example of the intent of this picture- these people are suffering and dealing with pain, while the non-victims stand back and examine for their benefit. It's quite fitting that Ed Zwick would continue his "cultural issue film starring a white man" saga with this devastating and cliché melodrama, which ends with a demise for DiCaprio reminiscent of his freezing near-death state towards the conclusion of Titanic (except this time, it's really funny, and our hearts "won't go on"). Connelly is basically here to support and give face, while Leo has to be the bad guy who wants to do good, as long as he gets something in the end. Only Hounsou's Solomon Vandy is the true winner in this film, with a storybook ending that will make you stand up and cheer (not because of a fitting resolution or the quality of the movie- the filmmakers want you to, dammit). I still can't exactly explain how much I hated this movie without resorting to expletives.

Movies like Blood Diamond are what make me hate Hollywood - the abuse of problems in Africa for use as an issue film (sort of like Tears of the Sun and The Constant Gardener- which are both better films) is becoming extremely tired. And for what cause, if there is any (besides making diamond owners feel guilty)? Consider the release date. Djimon Hounsou will be up for the Best Supporting Actor prize without much effort, since this is awards season. If the film industry is going to churn out movies about problems in the world, they could at least make them not feel like opportunistic garbage.

Sharon Stone's role as a middle-aged hairdresser in The Ambassador Hotel (where this whole picture takes place) is her best role in a long, long time- she's not allowed to spread her legs, but instead find out that her Hotel Manager husband (William H. Macy, who phones in his performance) is having an affair with Switchboard operator Heather Graham (nothing notable here). Add Anthony Hopkins, Lawrence Fishburne, a worn out, slightly depressive couple played by Helen Hunt and Martin Sheen, Freddy Rodriguez, Demi Moore, Joshua Jackson (Charlie from 'Ducks', supporting Coach Bombay), Shia LeBouf, and a bunch of other actors, and you still don't have a stellar picture- Bobby feels like PT Anderson's Magnolia, but really wants to be Altman's Nashville- the sincerity and intent of the picture is completely lost until the final scene where the known tragic event happens. Only then do we really care about the well-being of all these fragmented people, and it's a bit too late for our sake nearly two hours down the line.

With a better script, Bobby could have been something other than a multiple segment feature for all these groups of characters, giving them 15 minutes spread through the film to spew their quotations that signify the times and the parallells to the present. It doesn't feel trite, but it becomes all too clear half-way through the film that this is Estevez' format. In the hands of a better director, this picture could have worked with the false script, but if RFK had never been shot, who knows what this world would be like. That is what the film is trying to convey and let us in on, as if you couldn't tell from the beginning.

Although Harold is played by one of the funniest mainstream actors working today, Stranger Than Fiction is not truly a comedy. It's more of a dramatic examination of a simple man, paired with some slightly unbelievable yet heartfelt romance. Harold encounters Ana (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who he declares an anarchist when she decides to only pay about 78% of her taxes for specific reasons. Her rage and hatred of what Harold has come to audit her for only makes him more infatuated with Ana's aura. Although we are supposed to believe that Harold has strong feelings for her as a human being and a desirable mate, he probably has those sort of thoughts about any woman who yells at him and is slightly attractive at the same time. But of course, since Karen Eiffel is writing about Ana and not any other women in Harold's life, we are given the confirmation of Harold's infatuation with Anarchist Ana.

To assist Harold with his quest to resolve the situation, he meets up with Professor Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman). Even though I was excited to see both actors interact with each other, Hoffman's character is ultimately disappointing, and I was frequently bored with his and Harold's interactions to solve the source of the narrative. Queen Latifah is also quite dull as the assistant named Penny, who is sent in by Karen Eiffel's publisher to cure Karen of writer's block. Director Marc Forster does an okay job balancing the reality of both Harold’s world and the sudden changes he must make to live his life. However, he just isn’t strong enough as a director to really put his stamp on this piece of work, as well as really bring what's on the screen to another level of depth for us to feel and experience. Also, quirky digi-art qualities, no matter how neat they make the footage of the film seem, do not make a movie.

In the end, so much of the film feels awfully cute and calm, especially in dealing with Harold and his life, but so much of it is still a let down. Even Emma Thompson feels strangely bland on-screen, especially acting as the somewhat neurotic but mostly hyper chain-smoking Eiffel. Stranger Than Fiction could have been an obscure comedy, even romance, but it just feels like a big 105 minute blob of mush by the end. Although the film feels strangely frustrating and boring in its realm, it did make me tear up at the finale, which is somewhat acceptable as a conclusion, but only in a bored-on-a-rainy-day kind of way.

Okay, first off, I have a question to those who are registered readers :
(I say this because I know there are some who view and do not comment)-

Should I add ratings to my reviews?
I've strayed from doing so because I sometimes feel like I cannot chose a specific numerical/star/alphabetical, etc, ratings system that I'm comfortable with.
But if you feel it's something I should do, a bit of input will be enough to persuade me.

Also, what is WITH this rash of spam comments?!
Mostly, they're silly entertainment news, but there are the abstract adfnaudkfnasudf versions.

Anyways, give me some input if you like... and take care of yourself, since it's almost the Holidays and life can be chaotic this time of year. Enjoy life -and go see a good movie or two between the turkey and the gift-giving.

--- Mallory

From New York, where does Borat go? What can he see and find out about this strange country, where a plantation dinner goes awry, and a Virginian rodeo results in Borat being booed by the audience that previously cheered him for his support of the war "against" terror? A simple mockumentary it is, as Borat's quest of discovery turns into the road where his lust drives him, as he seeks to go across the country to California, to marry his new love Pamela Anderson. Nudity, crudeness, and frank behavior encompass in every single moment of the film, which often feels like a Jackass movie with a plotline. But you know what? I like the Jackass movies- and the plot and development of the character Borat and his discoveries are far from boring. The movie is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended, while it is not for the closed-minded either. Borat is a worthwhile mirror laced with hilarity and observances, most that so often we forget are part of the perception of our own nation.

Yes, I did see this movie called Little Children, and while I did enjoy it very much so, it's kind of hard for me to make a general statement about it, since I didn't come to realize its true meaning until I had come home an hour after viewing the picture. It's one of those films that, if you watch it straight without thinking much at all, you'll think its simplistic, probably dull, and pointless. But if you watch it taking all factors into mind, you might just see something else.

Let me give you my perspective- I didn't even know the main plot of this movie before I viewed it- I figured that the plot would revolve around parenting. These parents doing not-so-good things, but it was so much more than that. I find it so much more affective when, thanks to the trailer, not much is given away, yet so much is said. I also didn't know what the poster for this film looked like, thankfully, because that was a major spoiler, even after the fact.
Although I had wanted to see this movie for a while now, knew that it was based upon a novel, written originally by Tom Perrotta. and am very familiar with Director Todd Field, it was as if I myself was a child, experiencing this movie with fresh eyes, and open ears, taking in all the elements to examine them for myself. I almost don't want to spoil or even talk about it for the sake of others, since I know that the movie isn't playing currently in the NH Seacoast. In my opinion the best way to experience the subtle complexities of the film would be with fresh senses.

If you don't want to know anything about this film before you see it (I strongly suggest doing so), do not click below for the rest of my review.

We learn about Brad, this father who stays at home with his son, while his wife Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) wears the pants. Kathy is perfect. Sarah is not. And yet Brad finds himself imagining the kiss between the two of them constantly.

Sarah strives to do her best in her awkward home situation, taking care of her daughter when she'd rather be power walking to escape her- her husband has a simple life and job, which leads him to fantasize about an internet sex object, who sends her a pair of underwear through the mail. He most likely does love Sarah, but just wants an escape, not to insult her but to instead fit his abstract needs that he wouldn't ask of her anyway.

After getting to know him better through their days at the local pool, Sarah finds something in Brad- a slight bit of tension paired with a longing attraction- but won't admit it to our faces. When Brad discovers a hint of her attraction for him after sifting through her belongings, he instigates and releases physically through her. Sarah cannot believe what is happening through their mutual affair, but believes it as much as Brad does, although never forgetting her life outside of their steamy afternoons.

And where does the conflict meet in the lives of these people? A convicted sex-offender named Ronald McGorvey (Jackie Earle Haley) has moved back into the neighborhood - Brad discovers this when an old buddy of his Larry, a former cop, begins posting signs around the town, allowing people to be aware of the creature now back from jail.

Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson are fabulous together, both bringing strong complexities and erotic tension into their suburban exteriors. Their chemistry is awkward at first, much like their characters, but they make it believable. We want to see them together, not just as afternoon lovers. Winslet is often a great actress- she compliments Wilson, who is at the best of his career, perfectly. However, it is Jackie Earle Haley's performance as McGorvey that is to be seen, as it is possibly the best performance of the year so far. So often his character is in control of himself, and only through his simple admission of his problems are we let into his reality. Will this performance be remembered come Oscar season? I doubt it.

Writer/Director Todd Field

Little Children is not without faults, and surely isn't as impactful as you'd expect, but the embrace of satire, comedy, and drama, mixed with the magnificent work on and off screen elevate these flaws. The narration provided by Will Lyman could be seen as a negative for most, but I personally loved it. So often these characters have feelings, and while they can express them through movements without speaking, the thought process of what needs to be said without a character saying it still works quite well. Todd Field's direction is stellar, much like his previous picture In The Bedroom, and sets the film apart from any other dramatic release this year. I hope that Field continues to follow his masterful path set so far, but doesn't lose his fresh quality by subjecting his talent to what he isn't suited for in the future.

The synopsis is as follows :

Young Augusten Burroughs (Joseph Cross) absorbs experiences that could make for a shocking memoir: the son of an alcoholic father (Alec Baldwin) and an unstable mother (Annette Bening), he's handed off to his mother's therapist, Dr. Finch (Brian Cox), and spends his adolescent years as a member of Finch's bizarre extended family.

A wolf in sheep's clothing, Running With Scissors is not a good movie. It's not about good people either, but that doesn't factor into my opinion. I'll actually admit that I like movies about bad people vs. good. Ryan Murphy, the creator of FX's Nip/Tuck has his name splashed all over nearly every inch of this production. Could it be that he was infatuated with the book? I'll go with yes. His lack of experience as a director and writer are obvious, and painfully not up to par to helm a motion picture. Where we could have seen a cutting drama and satire about the abnormal psyche, we are instead left with a bland excuse to play groovy 70s tracks here, there, and everywhere. Where we could have characters, there are instead caricatures. And where a story, no matter how unbelievable and obscure, feels lifeless... even DOA. I sorta feel bad for Augusten. Not only did he have a truly messed up and sad childhood, the poor guy has this limp sack of a film as an example of it.

Annette Bening is a good actress, right? Well, that's questionable, since she still doesn’t have that damn Oscar, which she’s totally begging for here as Augusten's mother Deirdre Burroughs. She just seems to have taken her character Carolyn Burnham from American Beauty and put her through drug addiction- one such addiction that is oddly unenthusiastic, typical, and weak. Evan Rachel Wood does what she does best - play the young sex pot who can emote as much as a Mr. Potato Head. Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes, and Brian Cox, however, are probably the only unscathed beings from their parts, as their characters are so crazy that we accept it, just to get along with the rest of the picture. I will say that Paltrow's insanity did bring a slight smile to my face, as well as Fiennes' pouty photographer who beds Augusten. Joseph Cross' Augusten is sort of in the middle ground- he will go unscathed, and most likely lost in the mix. But the others? They're just minimal side characters who show up once in a while to say something goofy.

You know what? I'm not even going to elaborate beyond that because its just not worth your time or my own. The ENTIRE movie is a wash. Oh, and you know what? I just forgot that Alec Baldwin was even in the picture. That's how insignificant he is, much like this entire film. A silly, terrible, boring, flat, and rather contrived exercise in dysfunction. Thank goodness for free screenings.

Sofia, a couples therapist, has a major problem that is plaguing her everyday life, as her internal noise interferes with her job and how she functions as a human being. What's Sofia's diagnosis? She can't have an orgasm. The reality that her husband can't give her an orgasm keeps her from being open about the problem.

Jamie and Jamie (or James, as he changes it to accommodate their situation) are looking to possibly add another person into their relationship. A threesome, yes. Jamie is in love with James, and James is in love with Jamie. But James has issues with his past that haunt him so much that he is filming a personal movie... what it's for? you'll have to see for yourself.

Finally, the dominatrix named Severin, the seemingly simple single female, compared to the Jamies and Sofia, just wants a relationship. She possibly hasn't had a single one ever in her life, and would like a connection to another person, which doesn't have to be sexual, but should be deep and involving.

So where do these four conflicted souls meet to work their lives out? None other than Shortbus, the orgy/brothel/sanctuary/salon with a conscious thought process and much awareness to so-called sexual "dysfunctions," giving pleasure to those who need it, either with others or with others watching. Nobody at Shortbus rides the big yellow Schoolbus, and the palace opens itself to them, giving their pain and needs a home to feel what they want and do as they please.

The film Shortbus is not afraid of the problems that hamper the main and supporting characters. In a day and age where movies can be edited for content, Mitchell's film wants to rip the rug off the stain on the floor and expose the open wound of not only these people, but for their New York City. The love note that the film gives to these oppressed feelings and the undeveloped ground-zero leaves both with nothing but respect, and exposure that is anything but judgmental. You will not find a stereotypical gay couple or a frigid married female or a slutty S&M goddess. Too often perception puts on the blinders and prevents the reality to be brought out in front of us on film- and that's the beauty of this movie. Often these are not actors playing people with problems, but actors putting a face to what we chose not to face in others and ourselves. While not all of us have issues with our sexuality or in the act of sex or just with other people- are we so sure of it? Can we look inside our core, accept who we are and face the issue without degrading ourselves?

While it is not a perfect film, Shortbus is a revelation. Again, it is not pornography, but Mitchell's seamless placement of sexuality and drama is stellar. This could possibly be one of the most important films of the year, if not the decade. And it most likely will not be able to be seen by those who should. So thank goodness for DVD. Put "Shortbus" on your "To-do" list... no pun intended.