New poll! (Aren't you excited?!?!?)

In celebration of The Simpsons Movie (and its $70M+ opening weekend), I ask you to pick your favorite Simpson. Is it one of the animated clan? How about The Juice? Or maybe it's one of the singing sisters, Jessica or Ashlee? Sadly, father Joe did not make the list, nor did famed (and dead) Hollywood producer Don. Maybe when there's a poll for people associated with Jerry Bruckheimer...

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Joshua; Waitress; Talk To Me

It's time to play catch-up. So, as I've seen three small movies recently, here are three small reviews.

Joshua
Sam Rockwell, Vera Farmiga (The Departed) and Jacob Kogan star in what might alternately be titled The Omen: Without the Religious Overtones. Kogan plays the 9-year old son of Rockwell and Farmiga, and aside from being generally disturbed already, he's not too thrilled about the new baby in the house. See, his whole life, Josh has been around a near-psychotic mother and a too-consumed-in-other-stuff dad that he thinks doesn't love him (which may be true). The new child provides an outlet for Joshua to vent his frustrations and try to get himself noticed (and it works).

The film's biggest asset is its shock value. It plays out like a horror film, albeit minus most of the horror. What's left is a fair amount of suspense and a fair amount of proselytizing (Is Joshua gay? Should the family introduce religion into the house, as per grandma's wishes? Are these parents fit for raising any child?).

In the end, you can't and don't end up feeling sorry for Joshua, as he seems too self-aware for a 9-year old, not to mention a bit too savvy. But it's fun watching him hoodwink his parents, no matter how disastrous the results.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"You seen a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."


Waitress
Looking for something sweet in a movie? Something sugary and fruity and full of dough? How about something sappy and syrupy? Let's just say that Waitress cooks up one cliched character after another, throws them together in the tin of life and cooks until overdone.

That's all bad way of saying that Waitress isn't very good. Sure, Keri Russell brings her considerable charms to the role, but the movie plays out like a novel that might have Fabio on the cover or a made-for-TV movie starring Nancy McKeon, showing now on the Lifetime Movie Channel. The men are all plot devices rather than people, and all fit into pre-made shapes - hunky and sweet, dirty bastard or quirky outsider - only Andy Griffith (still sharp at 81) gets a fun role.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"I want you to punch me as hard as you can."


Talk To Me
In case you haven't heard, Don Cheadle is a good actor. No, really. Chiwetel Ejiofor is, too - though you may not be as familiar with his work. Well, this is a good chance to see two great actors in action, as well as an opportunity to see Cedric the Entertainer play something he doesn't often get a chance to play - a Lothario and a ladies' man.

The film starts off strong - funny, smart and full of great dialogue (not to mention an in-your-face Taraji P. Henson, of Hustle & Flow fame), as Cheadle's "Petey" Greene slowly gets his hooks into Washington D.C. Unfortunately, despite a strong first hour, Talk To Me runs out of steam in the last half hour, as the story starts to resemble many other bio-pics, from Private Parts to Walk the Line. See Petey struggle with alcoholism. See Petey struggle with fame. See Petey destroy relationships all around him. See redemption and a bittersweet happy ending.

Nonetheless, worth seeing.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Darn tootin!"

And then...

TGIDNMAR (7/27/07)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released.

Okay, so this version of TGITDNMAR should actually be revised to include some verbiage about being the day after new movies are released, as I am writing this as of Saturday, but better late than never, right?


The Simpsons Movie
You know the story - 400+ episodes, 20 years, lots of donuts - Homer, his family and the rest of Springfield hit the big screen at last. Though I'm a fan of the show, I've never been a fanatic about it - as such, I can't say that I'm all that psyched to see this, but the reviews coming in are saying that it's funny (though the plot ain't much), and it's not like there's really a lot of competition.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 82%


Who's Your Caddy?
I've already discussed this here. Outkast's Big Boi stars in what looks to be the poster child for the worst movie of the year, and the reviews from IMDb concur - a few weeks ago, I reported that the rating was a 3.7/10; today, it stands as a 1.5/10, good enough for placement on the famed "Bottom 100." Ouch. Somewhere, Sinbad is laughing his ass off at Jeffrey Jones (see Houseguest).
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 0%
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (on cable): 99%


I Know Who Killed Me
Oh, how the (not so) mighty have fallen. No, I'm not talking about star Lindsay Lohan. I'm talking about Julia Ormond, one-time star of the much ballyhooed (and then much blasted) Sabrina. What looked like a for-sure star turn turned into a non-existent career (though the badly titled Smilla's Sense of Snow, her next film after Sabrina, is vastly underrated and never-seen), as it seems that Ormond has been reduced to playing Lohan's mother here.

Then again, it looks like her career may be on the rise, with upcoming high-profile projects such as David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Steven Soderberg's Che Guevara biopic Guerilla.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 39%


No Reservations
If you loved Big Night, you'll love No Reserv - wait a sec...no, you'll probably hate No Reservations. Let's try that again. If you loved Spanglish - damnit, that's right - no one loved Spanglish. Oh well. Anyway, despite co-starring the likable Aaron Eckhart and Little Miss Sunshine's Abigail Breslin (to be seen in a mugshot on Access Hollywood in eight years), this looks like (insert bad cooking/food joke here). Go see Ratatouille instead, or if you've already seen that, go see it again. It's bound to be better than this.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 2%

And then...

Thursday's Things to Click On (7/26/07)

No foreplay...here are your things to click on. Don't have too much fun!

* The Critical Critics count down the top stoner flicks. Great list, but having Dazed and Confused that low is blasphemy.

* Know the words to Pearl Jam's "Yellow Ledbetter?" Glad that somebody does.

* Remind me not to see any Disney movies in the future. Recommend things all you want, but banning? Movies are still art, if I recall correctly. Also, here's an opinion on the "ruling" that I might have written were I not beaten to the punch.

* Movie Poster Addict takes a look at the new one for 3:10 to Yuma. Very cool.

* "Your mama was a snowblower!" (If you don't recognize that quote, you really need to study up on your Steve Guttenberg movies.)

And then...

Pro & Con - the Star Wars prequels

For whatever reason, I own all of the Star Wars prequels on DVD. Additionally, I turn into a paraplegic whenever one of them pops up on HBO, as I find myself unable to change the channel.

Why this is, I don't know. The fact of the matter is, I don't particularly like any of the movies, and most of the time, I detest them. In an effort to be timely and current with the pop culture trends of the day, I thought maybe if I balanced out the pros and cons in my head (read: here), then maybe I would be able to make up my mind on them once and for all (not likely). Let's go in order:

Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Pro: Darth Maul. One of the better characters from all six movies. He has everything a 13-year old boy (or a 30-year old man) wants from his movie villains. He talks with a raspy voice (albeit, a dubbed one), has horns on his head, and is painted black and red. Oh, and the double-sided lightsaber doesn't hurt, either.

Con: The death of Darth Maul. What a waste of one of the better characters from all six movies. Instead, later episodes gave us the oh-so-memorable AARP-eligible Count Dooku and the HMO-eligible General Grievous. Lame.

Pro: Natalie Portman, actress. Playing dual roles, Portman gets to play a strong female role model. She also gets to wear some goofy clothes. A good role well done.

Con: Yoda, non-Muppetized. Sometimes (often in this series), technology is a bad thing.

Pro: It's an origin tale, for chrissakes! They're almost always the most interesting.

Con: The fact that the origin tale is split into three and filled with garbage (say, the pod racing subplot, for example).

Pro: For this go-around, Lucas decided to get some fine actors involved. Liam Neeson, Sam Jackson, Ewan McGregor, Terrence Stamp and Pernilla August all bring some class and depth to their roles and the film (some more than others). Dominic West (The Wire) and Keira Knightley even have bit parts. Well done.

Con: Jar Jar. Naturally.

Episode II: Attack of the Clones

Pro: Jango Fett. How could any Star Wars fans not geek out over the sight of Jango. His son Boba is one of the more beloved characters from the original trilogy - even while having no more than 5 lines total.

Con: Gaffes caused by the Jango/Clone troopers storyline. C'mon - we're supposed to go back to the originals and pretend that the storm troopers all have the same voice/body? Gimme a break.

Con: Dooku. Christopher Lee may be an accomplished actor, but the believability here was negligible at best. The man was 80 when the film was released. I have an easier time believing that a 400-year old green midget can fly than believing that an arthritis-ridden octogenarian can best two Jedis under 30.

Con: "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth." Jake Lloyd could have written better dialogue.

Pro: Anakin getting revenge on some sand people. This was the Anakin/Darth we were waiting to see. Unfortunately, a mini-Con must be handed out here as well, as Lucas wussed out and cut away from this scene, as he did with the murder of the young Jedis in the third installment. Does that make me evil? C'mon - it's character building!

Con: Natalie Portman, Frogger. Watching Padme shuffle about through an industrial maze felt like something the folks over at EA dreamed up. This may in fact be a "Pro" due to its comedic value.

Pro: Dooku's kite/parachute/spaceship. Too ridiculous to hate.

Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Pro: Wookies. However forced the inclusion of Chewbacca and his ilk felt, it's hard not to enjoy seeing 8-foot tall hairballs fighting.

Con: Palpatine's transformation/electrocution. I can just picture George and the gang trying to figure out how to explain how the Emperor went from having a normal face to a Play-Doh face. Again, this has comedic value, so some points are rewarded.

Con: Again with the continuity. Yeah, I get that the movies were made 20 years apart. However, someone might have mentioned that to the filmmakers. It was great watching the "universe" go from uber-high tech in Phantom Menace to somewhat-low tech by the time the original film rolled around. A bonus Con for the devolving fighting styles and Jedi abilities as well. Funny how killing most of them off led to crappy training for Luke. He might have beaten his dad in Empire had he known how to do flips and 30-foot leaps.

Pro: "It's over Anakin, I have the high ground." Remember this when watching any fight scene from any movie from now on. Should one person ever get the "high ground," you too will know it's over.

Pro: The "you were the chosen one" speech. Literally intense and chilling for true fans.


I'm sure that given the desire and time, I could come up with 40 more Pros and Cons for each film. In the end, though, it's all too exhausting and really - what's the point? These movies were made to sell toys, not inspire any kind of dissection or intense analysis. So I'm left to continue fighting with myself whenever I see them. Nostalgia tells me that they're not that bad, that it's fun to see this or that (like the E.T.s in Episode I or the Millenium Falcon in Episode II), but common sense and adulthood tell me that these are pieces of crap. I think my being in limbo with these films is, as the Emperor might say, my destiny.

Got more Pros and Cons? I know you do - let's hear 'em.

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Transformers

Well, I've put this off long enough to the point of irrelevance, but I figured I ought to at least post a short take with my thoughts on Transformers.

It's funny, really. For all the crap Michael Bay takes, he is generally regarded as a good "action director," experienced with big set pieces and complex action with a lot going on, be it gunfire or explosions or - most often - both. However, the big action sequences in Tranformers, expensive-looking as they may be, are probably the worst thing about the movie.

Most of the problem lies with the 'bots themselves. With this modern take on the 80s cartoon focused on a bit of realism when it comes to the origins and capabilities of the alien robots, the end result is a semi truck that, when transforming from upright form to truck form, seems to be made of a billion parts. The same could be said for any of the other robots. Now take that complexity and throw it into fight scenes between two or more hunks of metal that change shapes seemingly constantly. Add on to that the fact that the Decepticons all look generally the same (grays, blacks and whites) and the confusion really sets in (luckily, the Autobots are easier to tell apart).

What you're left with is essentially Independence Day with incomprehensible action. Sure, it's a loud, shiny spectacle (albeit with some very cool moments for anyone who grew up with the cartoon and toys), but in the end, it's empty, shallow and destined to be forgotten within moments of leaving the theater. So, a typical Bay film, in other words. Whether that's a good thing or bad thing for you depends on your feelings going in, I guess.

I'd expand more, but is it really necessary? Instead, just a couple more unorganized thoughts:

* Some may deride it, but I really enjoyed the "hidden location" (and explanation) of one of the robots. It's just the kind of geeky conspiracy theory that's just dumb enough to be brilliant.

* The movie would have been a good 2-3 times more enjoyable had they scrapped the entire "hackers/Aussie chick/Anthony Anderson" storyline. It added nothing, and was annoying and time consuming to boot. Jon Voight was laughably bad as well.

* John Turturro, playing essentially a role that looks like it belonged to Steve Buscemi, bombs. He's meant to be comic relief, and a bit of a threat to Shia LaBeouf, but just comes off as a pest.

* Though I wouldn't want to spoil the aforementioned location, let's just say that upon leaving that location, the action moves to a metropolitan area that was seemingly concocted just for the film. I found that interesting.

* Though I know some hate him (Gaylord, for instance), The Boof is probably the best thing the film has going for it - outside of the obvious. He doesn't take himself too seriously or too lightly, which is a good tone for these sorts of movies. It's the same reason Will Smith excels in these roles.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Whatever."

And then...

The new phone books are here! The new phone books are here!

Perhaps the analogy is a bit strong. After all, I doubt anyone is nearly as excited about the news as Navin Johnson was about receiving (and looking up his name in) his new phone book.

Nonetheless, in case you haven't heard, I thought you should know: after a 27 year wait, the black Caddyshack is finally here.

Who's Your Caddy stars Outkast's Big Boi as a rap mogul who attempts to join a "conservative country club" (read: old white dudes who passively hate young black dudes), but shockingly runs into some resistance from the board president.

First of all, nice to see that Big Boi is really stretching himself. I'm sure the role of rap mogul was one that required years of research and preparation. In other news, the board president is played by Jeffrey Jones. Whither Ed Rooney? For the folks out there into female ogling, Wild Things 2/The In Crowd star Susan Ward plays Jones' wife. I guess such an age difference isn't a big stretch for the bad behaving Jones.

Early reviews in the IMDb system had this ranked as a 3.7/10 (though the ratings are mysteriously gone now), with some commenting that this is "possibly the worst movie ever." I can't wait until it hits HBO. Ted Knight, meanwhile, must be harrumphing from his grave.

And then...

TGITDNMAR (7/20/07)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released. Let's get down to business...

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
With all the animosity that surrounds Michael Bay, you'd think director Dennis Dugan would get his fair share. I suppose it has to do with their relative "popularity" (ticket sales). However, a look at his filmography has to make you wonder how he still works. The only funny things I see on there are Happy Gilmore and Big Daddy, and even those are hardly recognized as cinematic masterpieces. The rest? Garbage - the lot of it. Beverly Hills Ninja, Saving Silverman, National Security, The Benchwarmers? This man deserves some spite, too. Then again - Chuck and Larry is improbably co-written by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, whose resume is pretty well respected (Sideways, Election).
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 53%

Hairspray
You've got to be kidding me.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 0%

Sunshine
Yes, please. With Danny Boyle directing Cillian Murphy again, and 28 Weeks Later star Rose Byrne co-starring, this film has a lot of positive elements going for it. Word is, even Fantastic Four's Chris Evans (The Human Torch) give a good performance. That's a feat in and of itself.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 96%



Goya's Ghosts
Any time the word "muse" is bandied about, much less when referring to a painter, I'm immediately turned off (as you may be with the word "bandied"). Then again - talk about an eclectic cast. Javier Bardem co-stars alongside Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard and...Randy Quaid?? Consider me intrigued. Milos Forman, whose last film was 1999's Man on the Moon, directs.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 40%

And then...

Thursday's Things To Click On

To paraphrase an album cover from those Irish pixies of the 90s (The Cranberries), I must ask: everybody else is doing it, so why can't I?

It's true - a links post is highly unoriginal. Then again, that never stopped anyone else from doing it, either. I'm sure I can live with that knowledge. I imagine I'll keep mine mostly movie related, but if something strikes me as wildly important/funny/whatever, that could make the list, too. That's what happens when I makes the rules.

* A Guy, a Blog and a Photoshop gives us his take on the new Harry Potter film. Watch out for the polar bears.

* Kevin over at Pointless Banter loves chick flicks. Wait, maybe he just loves chicks. I get confused.

* Like things that blow up in movies? So do the Fat Guys over at Film School Rejects.

* NFL Adam found a way to squeeze in yet another Cannonball Run reference.

* This one is just for you, Wampa. (Hint: that means its Star Wars related.)

* Finally, Movie Poster Addict takes a look at some of the best posters from last year.

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: You Kill Me

It's really a privilege to be able to watch Ben Kingsley in action. Now, I know that sounds like some rabid gushing, but it's not quite. Instead, Kingsley could be likened to a Christopher Walken, who (aside from also being a pretty talented guy, despite his inability to say no to anything) is a good actor, but is even more of an onscreen presence. Good luck explaining the appeal of Walken (should the topic come up) to your grandkids. He's hilarious and captivating and a train wreck all at the same time - and is otherwise incapable of being labeled.

Kingsley, meanwhile, has more serious acting chops, but is just as hard to pin down. He literally commands your attention when he's on the screen, even in a quiet role like the one he plays in You Kill Me, the latest from director John Dahl (Rounders, The Last Seduction). Despite being a somewhat slight man (5'8" and trim as can be for a 63-year old), he's larger than life, as evidenced by his commanding, twisted role in Sexy Beast.

In You Kill Me, Kingsley plays a Buffalo (NY) hit man who just happens to also be an alcoholic - and it seems as though the booze has gotten in the way of the way more than once. As such, his family (who he works for) sends him out on a forced vacation to San Francisco. The orders? Get dry or die.

It's a somewhat sitcom-ish plot (and it shares a "killer who goes to AA" storyline with the recent Mr. Brooks), but good direction from Dahl and a sharp, funny script (from Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely - a writing team, apparently) keep the movie flowing at a brisk pace and never let you think about the somewhat absurd/whimsical nature of it all, even when Kingsley's Frank starts dating Tea Leoni (who, at 41 could be Kingsley's daughter).

To the contrary, Leoni is a welcome sight here. She's not been seen much since getting married (to David Duchovny) and having children, but she's a big part of what makes the movie work. The rest of the cast is filled out with some notable character actors, including Dennis Farina (in an all-time stretch playing an Irishman), Philip Baker Hall, and Bill Pullman (almost unrecognizable, but nice to see). Luke Wilson also plays a supporting character in the truest sense, and does a nice job of doing just that. As a mentor to Frank, his Tom is a crutch for Frank and provides some of the comic relief.

The bottom line is that the film plays out more or less like Grosse Pointe Blank, minus the high school angst and 80s music, and plus some alkies and DeVotchka.* And, like the Cusack vehicle, what it lacks in believability and relatability, it more than makes up for with humor, style, and charm. Nostrovia!

Fletch's Film Rating:

"It's in the hole!"


Yes, Dahl got my attention right away by using a Devotchka song over the opening credits (a good segment involving shovelling snow and a bottle of vodka). If you're not familiar with the band, they're a Colorado band that, upon hearing, you would swear are not an American band, as they mesh many Eastern European (and French and American) sounds into a big, awesome stew. If you saw Little Miss Sunshine, their music was featured prominently throughout the film, but especially during the opening credits. They are the most interesting band in America - check them out.

And then...

Mid-term Report Card

Summer movie season is nearly (but not quite) over. With the release of the last big mega-movie (Harry Potter) coming last week, I thought this would be a good time to look back on my box office predictions from May. Sure, there are still some possible hits and sleepers left (The Bourne Ultimatum, Superbad, The Simpsons Movie), there's pretty much no chance in hell that any movie yet to be released will be cracking the top five of 2007.

Though I won't be confused with Nostradamus anytime soon, I did manage to get a few things right here and there. Let's do some reflecting. Below are my top 10, followed by their predicted gross and the expected final gross, and comments, and a grade:

1. Shrek the Third
Prediction: $280M
Expected Final Gross: $320M
Comment: Shrek will end up as number four overall, though I wasn't terribly off in terms of dollars.
Grade: B

2. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Prediction: $270M
Expected Final Gross: $310M
Comment: A little hard to gauge the final this soon after the opening. I'm basically looking at Transformers' opening and adding a few bucks.
Grade: B+

3. Spider-Man 3
Prediction: $240 million
Expected Final Gross: $335M
Comment: Yea, I blew this one pretty badly.
Grade: D

4. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Prediction: $195M
Expected Final Gross: $302M
Comment: But not as bad as this one.
Grade: F

5. Transformers
Prediction: $180M
Expected Final Gross: $305M
Comment: Low-balled this one, too, though, in my defense, people were all over the board on this one, with some estimates going over $400M.
Grade: C-

6. Surf's Up
Prediction: $170M
Expected Final Gross: $56M
Comment: Did I put Surf's Up here? I meant Ratatouille.
Grade: F

7. Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer
Prediction: $165M
Expected Final Gross: $135M
Comment: For some reason, from the trailer, I thought this looked better than the first. The reviews have effectively proved otherwise, and the business followed suit. Better luck next time. Grade: B-

8. The Bourne Ultimatum
Prediction: $160M
Expected Final Gross: TBD
Comment: The jury's still out on this one.
Grade: Incomplete

9. Knocked Up
Prediction: $150M
Expected Final Gross: $150M
Comment: Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Grade: A+

10. Evan Almighty
Prediction: $140M
Expected Final Gross: $105M
Comment: Unlike Fantastic Four, this looked bad from the start; however, since their really are no "fans of the "___ Almighty" franchise, this one just plain tanked (especially given its budget). Look for the Steve Carell backlash to continue with the upcoming Get Smart movie.

As for me? Aside from honing my techniques for next year, I'll be busy doing a voodoo dance in the hopes that Bourne comes close to my prediction; if not, I may need talking down from a ledge (or not).

Thanks to Box Office Report for additional reporting on this column.

And then...

TGITDNMAR (7/13/07)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released. These mid-week releases are really wreaking havoc on this feature, as, once again, I've already seen (and written a review for) the highest profile film released. Nonetheless, I will trudge on despite the obstacles being thrown at me (if this were a movie, the captain would have just turned on the "Oscar Speech" sign).

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Typically, series that have a fifth entry are either Bond movies or of the horror ilk, and have had the gas run out of them two (or twenty) sequels ago. Harry Potter, however, is a different bird somehow - one in which the number in the title (if there were a number, that is) makes little to no difference in the quality of the film at hand. One thing that helps is that we all know that there is an end in sight (coming to theaters in 2010) and I suppose it also helps that J.K. Rowling has put some pretty good source material behind the films. Enough foreplay, I suppose - you can already see that I saw this...

Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 100%

Captivity

Did you know that Elisha Cuthbert is only 5'2"? Did you know that she's also throwing any semblance of a career away via a steady diet of torture porn? Sure, she's been in a couple quality movies (Old School, The Girl Next Door), but c'mon...House of Wax and now this? I can't understand how anyone would willingly go see this movie.

Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 0%

Rescue Dawn

I'm sure that the real story is inspirational and sad and uplifting all at the same time, but I wish Rescue Dawn weren't based on a true story, as all suspense and drama is drained via our knowing the outcome of the tale (much like A Mighty Heart, only the complete opposite). Nevertheless, I remain a big Christian Bale fan, and though I'm a bit dumbfounded by the Steve Zahn buzz, I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as he's been such a good supporting character for so long.

Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 73%

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

I'm feeling conflicted, really. See, I have this certain opinion, yet I disagree with myself. Unfair as it may be, I'm sticking with my opinion, in spite of the fact that I think it's wrong in this case. Let me explain.

About every other year, a good-great comedy or action movie comes along and around Oscar time, we wonder first of all, if said film will be nominated for Best Picture, and if so, does it have a chance in hell of winning. Outside of the win by Lord of the Rings: Return of the King a few years back, said film typically doesn't have a chance in hell of winning (and even the Return of the King win felt more like a comprehensive win for the series rather for being recognized itself as a tremendous movie.

Why does this happen? Why are comedies and action/adventurers not taken as seriously or appreciated by cineasts as much as your run-of-the-mill drama?

I don't know - and generally speaking, I'm guilty of it, too. Ask me (or many others) what some of my "favorite" movies are and I'll cite Fletch (naturally), Office Space, The Princess Bride, Raiders of the Lost Ark and other such films; yet if you ask me (or those others) what the "best" movies are and the chances are pretty solid that none of those films (save for perhaps Raiders, which was nominated for Best Picture) will make the list. For whatever reason, we (collectively) just don't grant the same respect to these movies.

And here I am again, doubting myself. The latest in the Harry Potter series is, unbelievably, the best yet, and one of the best movies I've seen this year. It was generally accepted that Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the series, and I shared that sentiment as well - Alfonso Cuaron's entry was the first that felt more like an adult film and less like a child fantasy (not that there's anything wrong with that necessarily). Yet Order of the Phoenix is this series' Empire Strikes Back - it has far and away the best plot of the series, and despite its origin book being the longest, the film clocks in at a (by comparison) brisk two hours and eighteen minutes. Free of time-consuming distractions like meaningless quidditch matches or the misguided band/dance scene from Goblet of Fire, director David Yates is able to focus on the meat and potatoes of the story.

That's not to say that there aren't things that might have been improved. There's more than one character that feels less like a character and more like a plot point, present only to advance the story or to impart some wisdom on Harry and his friends. Others, like Hagrid and even Professor Moody, feel like also-rans, squeezed out of the movie in favor of bigger fish that need frying (even Harry's "love interest" Cho Chang is generally dismissed, though I don't really see that as a bad thing). On the bright side, Alan Rickman's Severus Snape finally gets a much deserved meatier role, and Michael Gambon's Dumbledore finally shows us some of what has made him a legend in the wizarding world. Also, for the first time in the series, the more anonymous "Harry allies" like Neville Longbottom and the other Weasley siblings (especially twins Fred and George) are more than just background characters.

The script and effects deliver as well. Despite the series' progressive (and much ballyhooed) "darkness," there are probably more laughs in Order of the Phoenix than in the previous three films combined. Meanwhile, there were several occasions where I had to drop my jaw and say "Wow" to some of the creativity and execution of the special effects, culminating in the dazzling finale.

In the end, I'm guilty of succumbing to my own preconceived notions about action movies, much less sequels. As much as I might like to ordain this amongst "the best around," a part of me still sees it as an effects-laden summer movie based on a book dealing with standard themes about teamwork, loyalty and friendship. Nevertheless, while it won't be confused with a trailblazing film like Pulp Fiction anytime soon, it's the best movie of the summer (thus far), one of the best of the year, and the best yet in a great series.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"It's in the hole!"


For the record, I haven't read any of the books in the series. Also, just for fun, here are my ratings for the previous movies in the series:

Sorcerer's Stone




Chamber of Secrets




Prisoner of Azkaban




Goblet of Fire

And then...

Fletch's Favored Five: Renaissance Films

I figure its high time I class up this joint, and what better way to do so than to honor some films that have gone beyond their appreciation of film stock and enriched our lives with that more respected medium - painting. Keep in mind, I'm no art expert, and I don't know much, but I know what I like...

While recently re-watching The Royal Tenenbaums, I was able to fall in love again with the Miguel Calderon painting to your right (and its complement - not shown) that is prominent in one of my favorite scenes. I'd rather not spoil it, so if you haven't seen the film - shame on you, first of all, as it's one of the best of the last 15 years - do so immediately and pay particular attention to a scene between Luke and Owen Wilson that takes place in Owen's characters' apartment.

Some other objects of my affection:

Much as I'm busying classing up the joint, John Hughes did so some twenty years ago with Ferris Bueller's Day Off. In what some might classify as merely being a teen comedy about a smartass slacker, Hughes not only had his trio of high schoolers taking in the stock exchange and fine dining at Chez Quis, but in what is one of the more memorable scenes, had them visit the Chicago Museum of Art, where Cameron famously gets lost in Seurat's "Sunday Afternoon."


Though the above entries are certainly hard to miss in their respective films, none are irreplaceable, and have no bearing to the plot. They most likely could have been replaced with another work of art with the audience not losing out on much. However, Magritte's "The Son of Man" gets a more prominent showcase in 1999's The Thomas Crown Affair, becoming a plot point central to the film's finale.


Amongst the many memorable sights to be seen in the Harry Potter series, the talking (and seeing, and apparently feeling) paintings that adorn the walls of the many stairwells and the dormitories has got to be one of the most creative and interesting. Though featured in some small part or another in all of the films thus far, they are given a more robust look in Prisoner of Azkaban, as the matronly woman who looks over the Gryffindor house is given quite a scare by the threat of one Sirius Black.


The work of artist Michael Sowa is featured in 2001's Amelie, and some are given speaking (or at least moving) parts as well. In what is often described as a "whimsical" film (though I find that description dismissive), seeing the artwork move and talk isn't all that unexpected, and Sowa's form lends itself perfectly to the tone of the movie.

Got more? You know what to do...

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Sicko

I'm happy to report that I was wrong. With both his curveball and fastball still intact, Michael Moore's Sicko is no different in tone than any of his previous efforts. Alternately informative and infuriating, Moore still finds plenty of time for his sardonic wit to shine through.

Through possibly an easy task, those that spend their time picking holes in Moore's arguments and/or railing him for his stunts (he attempts to take a group of folks to Guantanamo Bay for treatment, for example) are wasting their time and missing the point. Slanted as Moore may be, and however uninformed he may be in regards to the health care systems in place in Canada, France, et al, Moore's heart and head are squarely in the right place at all times. He sees a (big) problem with the US health care system and is looking at countries that maybe, just possibly, have a better system.

Amongst my few complaints with Sicko is Moore's inability to let the past go. Despite my feelings for Bush and his administration (hint: they're not fans of mine), it smacks of bitterness and stubbornness for Moore to take unrelated potshots at Bush in this film. Rail him all you want as it applies to health care, but leave the Iraq/election jabs in the editing room. There aren't many to be heard, but there's enough.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"It's in the hole!"

And then...

Some of my favorite "characters"

Steve Buscemi. John Turturro. Eric Stolz. J.T. Walsh. Paul Giamatti. R. Lee Ermey. Samuel L. Jackson.

What do these men have in common? Aside from large filmographies, all were known once upon a time as "character actors." The best of them, some would say. Early in their film careers, they were not stars - until the indie scene took off in the mid-nineties, you could argue that none would have ever had the chance at starring in a film. However, as time went on and their profiles grew, they went from being "that guy" that you recognize from 10 other films to quasi-household names (or even more, in the cases of Jackson and Giamatti). Sadly, J.T. Walsh died too young, and Ermey has always been typecast (and rightfully so); but the rest got their due.

So just for the hell of it, I'd like to list some of my current favorite "that guys" or character actors or whatever you want to call them. Some are familiar faces, some are familiar names, but chances are you've seen all of them at one time or another, and will most likely see more of them in the near future:

Karl Urban
This Kiwi is probably the biggest name of those you'll see here, as he recently starred in a major (sort of) action flick (Pathfinder, which bombed). Urban compares favorably to someone like Jason Statham, perhaps minus the martial arts training. Nonetheless, he has shone in previous films such as: The Bourne Supremacy, the disappointing The Chronicles of Riddick, and, most notably, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, where he appeared prominently in the latter two films. Up next: co-starring with Laurence Fishburne in the next Tony Kaye (American History X) film, and Run, from director John McTiernan (Die Hard).

Alan Tudyk
Yarr! Though not in character in the picture to your left, Tudyk famously played Steve the Pirate in Dodgeball and, most recently, played Katherine Heigl's E! boss in Knocked Up. He's also had voiceover roles in both Ice Age films, as well as the "lead" robot in I, Robot. But he'll always be Steve the Pirate to me.





Geoffrey Arend
Though he'll probably be forever remember for his bit part in Supertroopers ("The snozzberries taste like snozzberries!"), Arend has been pretty visible over the last few years, from a role in Garden State to numerous TV and commercial appearances (looks like he's hit the Law & Order trifecta, having had a role on all three versions), to his work as a video game voiceover actor. He even played a mentally challenged guy in Johnny Knoxville's The Ringer. Whatever he's doing, just seeing him onscreen is enough to get a laugh out of me.


David Wenham
Though you probably don't recognize him from the picture shown, he's been a go-to guy in some of the biggest action movies of the past five years, having also appeared in the latter two LOTR movies in addition to his prominent role in this year's 300. Before his American breakthough, the Aussie had been toiling around since the early 80s, with later appearances in films such as Moulin Rouge and Dark City.



Want to see more great That Guys and Gals? Fametracker is an awesome site that more or less catalogs the rises and falls of a number of them, from the ones listed at the top of this page to other great ones (who you've definitely seen time and again) like Stephen Tobolowsky, Xander Berkeley, and J.K. Simmons. Their virtual encyclopedia can be found here.

Some more resources:
* http://www.cracked.com/index.php?name=News&sid=1990
* http://www.avclub.com/content/node/48274
* http://www.what-a-character.com/

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Live Free or Die Hard

Apparently, the critics and movie audiences of the world have lowered their standards. Considerably. To think that Live Free or Die Hard is currently rated at an 8.1/10 on IMDb, or that the film regularly scores four out of five stars is all a bit disconcerting. Because, really, there isn't all that much to crow about.

I guess, in some respects, I can understand it. After all, this is the fourth in the series, and number fours aren't typically very representative of the overall quality of a franchise. The laundry list of fatal fours is long and undistinguished: Batman & Robin, Lethal Weapon 4, The Phantom Menace. Not a decent film amongst them. So, in comparison, Live Free looks like a masterpiece.

For a mindless summer popcorn flick, it's pretty effective - just be sure to remember the "no mind" portion. With almost nonstop action (it starts within 12 minutes or so of the opening credits and continues throughout), the movie certainly fulfills its requirement as an adrenaline-pumping, testocerone-fueled explosion and crash-fest.

However, it's not particularly great (or believable, which I guess goes without saying) action. Also, it may as well have been titled Generic Action Film No. 4, as there's really no connection to any of the previous films outside of some character names. As I've mentioned in this space before, for all the talk of John McClane being "an analog hero in a digital world," well, is that even true - much less relevant? Was there really that much character established in the first three films? For all the things we knew about McClane previously (troubled marriage, smoker, recovering alcoholic, NY cop, smartass), the only things that really carry over are the cop and smartass part, which makes him and the film unique to no one. Toss in Willis' bald head and he doesn't even look like the McClane from the earlier films.

Then again, all of this is pretty unimportant. The fact is, people want a rekindling of the film that they recognized as one of the best of the action genre some 18 years ago, and this edition falls far short. Though the story starts off pretty strong, the action gets ridiculous in a short time and just keeps getting more ridiculous from there on out, culminating in a borderline offensively bad sequence involving a semi, a fighter jet and a freeway (all of which feels totally egregious and serves the plot in no way whatsoever).

On the bright side, Justin Long and Kevin Smith add a light touch. Unfortunately, Timothy Olyphant's talents are wasted on a boring role that will disappear from your memory within minutes of leaving the theater. Can't say that about Jeremy Iron's Simon, that's for sure - and an action movie is only as good as its villain, anyway.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Whatever."

And then...

TGITDNMAR (7/6/07)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released. Unfortunately, due to the holiday, we're just going to have to pretend that today is Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday all rolled into one, as one of the films below was released on each of those days. But none of us wants to see the title for this feature listed as Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released, As Well As A Couple Of Other Days From Earlier In The Week. That could get a bit lengthy...

Transformers
Peter Cullen is officially one of my new heroes. I implore you to click on the link and check out his resume. Sure, the man is already an icon amongst most people (okay, males) between the ages of 25-35 for the simple fact that he is the voice of Optimus Prime, leader of the Autobots and star of the show. However! Would you have ever guessed that he has been the voice of Eeyore for some time? How about a number of characters from GI Joe? Or Voltron? He even did a voice on the Transformers knockoff GoBots! All this and the man is barely 50 years old. Anyway, I've already seen the film (review to come next week), so...
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 100%


License to Wed
I like John Krasinski. Mandy Moore's alright. Robin Williams used to be tolerable, even hilarious or poignant at times. Throw all that out the window. I think I'd rather watch Gigli or Monster-in-Law before heading out to see this steaming pile. But if you're a fan of director Ken Kwapis' The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, you can be my guest.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 3%


Joshua
This is the film that last year's Omen remake could have been, if not in story, then at least in terms of ambition and/or mood. If you've seen the trailer, you know that this looks like a twisted, perverse movie, starring a kid who (if the film grabs any amount of success) will be typecast as "the creepy kid" for years to come. Sam Rockwell and Vera Farmiga (The Departed) co-star.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 49%

And then...