Author: admin

Director: Michael Cuesta
Cast: Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Tracy Morgan
Release: July 5, 2006
Synopsis: A wannabe dad (Shawn Wayans) mistakes a vertically challenged criminal on the lam (Marlon Wayans) as his newly adopted son.

Prognosis: Negative. So, on my way to see ICE AGE 2 with the fam I saw the lobby display for LITTLE MAN. I’m no expert and I don’t purport to know such things but the line on the standee proclaiming this new film is from the same dudes who brought us WHITE CHICKS is not one I would choose to use willingly, publicly.

I had the sharp misfortune of watching a part of WHITE CHICKS and I am positive you do not want people to know you’re the masterminds behind that movie. Absolutely positive.

Keenen Ivory Wayans, a true comedic talent who brought us I’M GONNA GIT YOU SUCKA and In Living Color when it didn’t suck so much, is the guy behind the directorial lens and I don’t see any mention of this guy’s work which is a little disappointing. That said, though, this movie disturbs me a little.

When we start out the Voiceover Guy talks about a world of crime and for some reason I guess the phrase “world of crime” means being shown a static shot of a prison cell. I don’t know what one has to do with the other but it’s odd. Next, we get Marlon Wayans, a really solid actor when placed into a film like REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, starring in a weird amalgam of a kid and midget. I don’t think I can overstate that it looks weird, really weird.

Tracy Morgan comes in to help play the straight man in the beginning of this trailer as Morgan helps to boost a car that already has a Denver Boot attached to it. Ha ha, very funny, I know, but Marlon tries to play up this whole ruse as best he can, him being this mutant midget of sorts. I’m not sure if we’re supposed to be freaked out by this or that we’re supposed to take it at face value but when Tracy and Marlon go into a jewelry store to boost a diamond, with Marlon being transported via a duffel bag, I’m not sure whether to be insulted that we’re supposed to believe this or think it’s hilarious that this is going on.

I’m honestly torn because some part of me is laughing on the inside while another part of me is glued to the screen as I try to figure out why this looks so freaky.

Long story very short, the guys have to recover the very same diamond Marlon stole just a few moments ago as Marlon ditched it in some woman’s bag. Sooooo”¦Marlon is placed in a basket and pretends to be a baby to infiltrate the household.

I’m still reeling as I try and come to terms with my sense of humor on this one. Supposing that this is the accepted norm I am at least comforted by comedian Fred Stoller’s comments that the kid is adorable in a, “National Geographic sort of way.”

The trailer, for the most part, hits the notes that it has to in order to sell this as a goofy comedy: you’ve got physical humor as you have Shawn and Marlon drinking warm milk only to discover it’s breast milk; you’ve got the obligatory nut shot when Marlon swings for the fences during a game of Wiffle Ball; you’ve got about as close as you’re going to get with a fart joke as there is a struggle to apply a rectal thermometer to Marlon; and there’s the whole wife/mistaken identity situation that has been done before in other flicks and has been rehashed here for our pleasure.

I don’t think I am as willing to break bad on this flick as I am sure that I’m not going to see it. It doesn’t look like my kind of funny but, for some, this might be just the right thing for people come July.

Director: Oliver Stone
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Michael Peña, Maria Bello, Maggie Gyllenhaal
Release: August 11, 2006
Synopsis: Director Oliver Stone tells the true story of the heroic survival and rescue of two Port Authority policemen ““ John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno ““ who were trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, after they went in to help people escape. The film also follows their families as they try to find out what happened to them, as well as the rescuers who found them in the debris field and pulled them out. Their story shows how the best in people rose above the tragic events of that day.

Prognosis: Negative. I was sitting in grade school, math class, when one of the octogenarians who passed for a comprehensive disseminator of information to our nation’s youth busted into our discussion of fractions to say the Challenger had blown up. Without the Internets in 1986 I had no way of really contextualizing what that moment meant until I went home and had it replayed for me later that day. Fast forward to 2001 and I was just getting into my lat routine in the very tiny country club workout room when the singular television in this 20′ x 20′ space filled with the announcement that some “˜tard had flown his tiny prop plane into the WTC. The news chopper CNN was using showed the image and, honestly, on television, it didn’t look bad. Economies of scale, I guess. It wasn’t until a few more minutes before the scope of what happened was realized: I watched the fast moving second plane slam into the side of the other WTC.

Is it too soon? Do we really need this movie? Can you really make an honest movie that doesn’t feel fabricated or false?

All these questions are valid but I think this is really a matter of whether this movie can be made well. If you can be respectful of the material, more power to Oliver and Co. The trailer gets some of the things right while, I think, in some areas plays too heavy on the schmaltz.

The opening is damn near requisite: you’ve got to have everyone waking up to a Folgers morning, everything crisp and in place. You’ve got the WTC delicately shown in the way way back in a shot of the New York skyline, you’ve got Nic Cage kissing his wife (Schmaltzy Moment # 1) while it’s still dark out, in their bed. I don’t about the rest of you married dudes but I usually don’t get a smiling wife first thing in the morning when I leave for work; I usually have to slide out of my bed like a ninja so I don’t wake her and am usually pushed away for a kiss in the morning because of my dragon breath.

I like that the voiceover for roll call at the NYPD is Nic doing his best to affect an accent that seems trapped between Brooklyn and The Jerky Boys. Kudos to the use of a fast moving shadow and the sound of a jet plane to establish the effect of how many would’ve come by the experience of what happened this day; the ZOOLANDER billboard in the background of one of the shots is oddly memorable.

We’ve already got the drama cranked up to a Lifetime Television level when Nic really pushes the moment as he and another popo are on their way to the WTC, Nic saying, “We’re prepared for everything (dramatic pause) Not this (another dramatic pause) not for something this size”¦There’s no plan”¦”

The violins are threatening to turn this trailer into something else besides a promotion for a movie and as Nic, at ground zero, asks for volunteers to go evacuate people the moment seems stuck as no one wants to volunteer and you’ve got a real cheesy thing happening when one guy does it and declares that he’ll do so and then another. Seems fabricated, not really in the realm of verisimilitude.

Cue Nic and a slo-mo moment as he yells “Run!” in that sort of John Rambo lip thing where it tries to be full of impact but looks like someone’s trying hard to evoke emotion out of me.

You’ve got Maria Bello sniffing the sheets of where her husband once slept (SM #2), you’ve got slo-mo of a mother hugging her daughter (SM #3) , you’ve got one of the trapped popo’s involved in a flashback with Maggie Gyllenhall as he’s spooning her and then as he’s writing I [heart] U on a piece of scrap paper (SM #4) and, again, what is being sold? Is it the idea of a dramatic piece or is it a truthful rendering of the events that transpired? I’m not quite sure but the marketing is all over the place on this and the tag line that “The world saw evil that day”¦Two men saw something else” is enough to make me scratch my head like an ape, wondering what in the hell they’re talking about.

If I was the teacher I would give it back and ask Oliver to work on it some more and give it back to me by next Monday because, as it stands, this is just not a very compelling trailer.

Director: Sam Fell, David Bowers
Cast: Kate Winslet, Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis, Bill Nighy, Simon Callow, Shane Richie, Geoffrey Palmer, Jean Reno, Douglas Weston
Release: November 3, 2006
Synopsis: Roddy is a decidedly upper-crust “society rat” who makes his home in a posh Kensington flat, complete with two hamster butlers named Gilbert and Sullivan. When a common sewer rat named Syd comes spewing out of the sink and decides he’s hit the jackpot, Roddy schemes to rid himself of the pest by luring him into the “whirlpool.” Syd may be an ignorant slob, but he’s no fool, so it is Roddy who winds up being flushed away into the bustling sewer world of Ratropolis. There Roddy meets Rita, an enterprising scavenger who works the sewers in her faithful boat, the Jammy Dodger. Roddy immediately wants out, or rather, up; Rita wants to be paid for her trouble; and, speaking of trouble, the villainous Toad – who royally despises all rodents – wants them iced”¦literally. The Toad dispatches his two hapless hench-rats, Spike and Whitey, to get the job done. When they fail, the Toad has no choice but to send to France for his cousin – that dreaded mercenary, Le Frog.

Prognosis: Negative. I’m just not feeling this.

I don’t know why I have such an aversion to this trailer but I don’t have a great affinity for rodents, not really endearing themselves to great connotations in the mind, and the trailer doesn’t grab your attention. It sort of meanders, plods and expects to just ease its way into establishing the premise but that’s not really good when it’s kids you want to hook. Sure, you’re going to get these little rugrats to come out en masse but if you can generate enough buzz what studio wouldn’t want more to come out and be repeat viewers?

When we begin I’m at a loss to really feel excited. Sure, Dreamworks put out that crap flick MADAGASCAR, did great guns with WALLACE AND GROMIT, put out tripe in SHARKTALE, has done well for itself with OVER THE HEDGE but for all the great animated films they’ve put out they’ve been accompanied by solid trailers; they excite when they should, they get in get out and get on with it and they leave you thinking that even though you’re an adult you would like to see that.

I don’t get that here.

I am confounded as to why we start so damn slow. Yes, we have to establish that this rodent gets the rule of the roost but when I am rapping my fingers a third a way into this preview because I am wondering why I’m watching a rat play polo, have a bath and dress himself in a tuxedo that’s not a good thing.

What is a good thing, though, that I can say is when Syd, the dirty mischief maker of the rat-a-tat-tat duo, appears I am pleased because this where we get the first notion that this is a movie for kids: we get some spirited belching. A lot of belching. A lot. Not only do we get sound effects but we get a green puff of belch with every booming punch into the sound field.

The toilet humor keeps going, the very things that kids and adults can agree upon, with our uppity rat trying to flush Syd down the pipes under the rouse of the Porcelain God being a fandangled Jacuzzi of sorts and ends up in a place called, appropriately enough, Ratropolis.

One of the things that confound me is that this is supposed to be a trailer, not a teaser. The crux of what seems to be my biggest complaint of all is that our well-to-do rat ends up coming down into this place that looks like a mash-up of Times Square and Piccadilly Circus but we don’t get any context of this new land. This rat even lands in the “vehicle” of who, ostensibly, is a girl rat who will probably be some kind of love interest but no one says anything for the rest of the trailer.

There has got to be more here but I cannot explain why we’re not shown more than we are. Yes, this film is not coming out until the end of this year but I’ve been teased better than I’ve been trailer-ed in this advertisement.

Director: Michael Cuesta
Cast: Linus Roache, Annabella Sciorra, Jeremy Renner, Jayne Atkinson, Marcia Debonis
Release: May 19, 2006
Synopsis: Explores the complexities of children losing their innocence and adults struggling to guide them. In the suburbs of America, three close knit 12-year-olds ̱ introverted Jacob (Conor Donovan), precocious Malee (Zoe Weizenbaum) and vulnerable Leonard (Jesse Camacho) Рstart down the path of self-discovery.

Prognosis: Positive. This one is a head scratcher.

You don’t really want to desperately see this movie like you would a SUPERMAN when you see Routh milling around in his tight red Speedo briefs but you feel a certain uneasiness when you try and grasp exactly what it is that’s happening, I’m not sure I do know, though, what it is that I am supposed to be identifying with, a key component in any good grab for one’s attention or cash, but I like it; I appreciate the sentiment that I’m not entirely comfortable by trailer’s end.

While I know that this is not going to be a gleeful romp through this coming-of-age tale you’re instantly drawn into what seems like a rather poignant set-up: identical twins who don’t share much in common and who have a troubled time relating to one another.

We have our collective attention switched to two friends of the twins, one who happens to be fat; and I can’t understand why there needs to always be the fat friend in movies with kids. You need to look no further than most every kid movie and see where there is an obvious chunky collective at work here. I’m not saying it’s as organized as, let’s say, the mafia but there is something afoot. Of course the fat kid is eating in the first scene we’re shown and I am floored by the other friend’s declaration, who happens to be female, that she is now able to be with, and care for, a child.

(Insert surprise here)

This is not going to be Disney’s THE SANDLOT.

So, the quad squad gets themselves a tree house, get into a little tiff with what seems like an ornery kid of East Coast dialect (I mean, really, aren’t all kids with New Yawk accents just thieves-in-training?) threatens to kill one, or all as these East Coasters are just murderous little shiats, and then ends up accidentally killing one of the twins.

The bleakness and quiet that the next moment inspires of seeing the blanketed coffin is disquieting.

After we move on from the death we get an odd theme of sexual awakening by the girl in the trio and then rage by the single twin who confronts the alleged killer while in prison; sex and violence, I guess, like a two birds and a feather. The violence takes the next step as the girl produces something off screen while in a room with the dejected brother but I think we all can safely say it’s a heater of some caliber.

The subsequent montage of clips that don’t really have any adhesion outside of just giving us more opportunities to see these kids’ environment is actually useful here. It’s good for three reasons: 1) The soundtrack is inspired. A modern “Don’t Fear The Reaper” fits in a macabre way. 2) The quotes that this movie has garnered are solid, the film festival locations this has played at are pimped quickly. 3) We actually get an abstract way of relating to these kids’ world. The clips are effective at relaying movement and emotion.

I’m not comfortable when we finally finish things here but that’s commendable. I shouldn’t be after seeing how complex things will get in this flick as Cuesta’s L.I.E. wasn’t a smooth pill to swallow so I shouldn’t be expecting anything less than a story that’s uniquely his own to tell.

Director: Martin Campbell
Cast: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench
Release: November 17, 2006
Synopsis: James Bond must thwart a dangerous Russian spy from winning a game of cards worth millions.

Prognosis: Positive. Yes.

This is what this franchise needed.

I don’t purport to know Bond lore any more than I have a handle on the Harry Potter series; it’s not much, I don’t have any interest knowing more than I do and, most importantly, I’m just here for the ride.

However, knowing what I do about 007 and the enduring iconoclast symbol he represents for British folk, as he shatters the notion of all Brits having teeth that could pop open deadbolts and bodies that are pastier than white paint, this is exactly what I’ve come to expect from this kind of film: guns, explosions, chicks who have no other purpose than to be objectified by a Cro-Magnon throwback and fast cars.

And, to wit, give it up for the sly entrance into this trailer. Instead of going the route of blazing through the aforementioned delicious bits that make every Bond film a variation on a theme we get Judi Dench doing the voiceover. Now, even though I had to look up whether her perennial character was named M or Q, again, I don’t have a firm grasp on these things, it’s quite moot because of how wonderfully this thing opens up.

“This may be too much for a blunt instrument to understand”¦”

I like the mystique that’s being created with the initial black and white scenes that we’re given. Sure, we could have been given that distinctive 007 instrumental suite with Craig walking before shooting the screen with that lame ass blood effect, a calling card that really should be revamped. No, we get something different. The voiceover that Dench does is actually pretty good as, unbeknownst to the dudes who are drawn to these films, it subverts in its own way the established masculine overtones these films are unquestionably all about.

Craig, in slow-mo, beats down dudes in hand-to-hand combat whilst being a patient listener to Dench’s assessment of the kind of operative a 00 should be.

“I understand that 00’s have a very short life expectancy.”

Yes, Craig has it. He’s got that ability to be glib and smarmy while being flirtatious. He’s also has that look of dangerousness. It’s there and as the trailer transitions from black and white to color you see that he’s everything that a disposable Bond should be.

I do have to suffer through the animation of Craig “shooting” the camera but as it’s a device used to accentuate the transition, much like SIN CITY used red in it its initial trailer, and this is where we move from just meeting Craig to seeing him move within the character.

Now, we don’t see a lot of stability for the duration of this teaser but that’s just the nature of these things; especially because people want to get whetted for what’s to come this piece of promotion has to just hint. With the elaborate action sequences shown, the car that will be Craig’s little coupe and the lingering gaze we’re allowed to spend on some faceless woman getting out of the water in a bathing suit I would say this is more than just a satisfactory teaser.

Director: Pierre Morel
Cast: Cyril Raffaelli, David Belle, Tony D’amario, Bibi Naceri, Dany Verissimo
Release: June 2, 2006
Synopsis: Paris, 2010. An isolation wall surrounds the ghetto cities. Damien is a member of the police elite task force. This time, the government has assigned him the most extreme expedition of his entire career: a weapon of mass destruction has been stolen by the most powerful gang of District B13.

Prognosis: Postive. Excellent concept but wretched execution.

I would like to think trailers like this serve a purpose beyond just pimping their own films, These are little examples by which to observe and take away little bits of ideas, ways of doing things. Much like in the case for this trailer there is also the opportunity to state what isn’t such a good idea when trying to get people interested to make an effort to see your film.

The idea with the trailer, especially one that is making a voyage beyond its own little borders, is that you want to start people thinking that they have to see it, need to see it. When you use that faux computer screen with the green letters as icons you not only are saying that you still believe people are communicating in Dos and don’t have a basic understanding on how modern GUI interfaces have vastly improved since the Apple IIe but you’re also stating that this story takes place in 2010, thus, rendering your visualization of said computer screen a sad attempt at trying to seem technologically with it.

See, I don’t want to sound harsh as this trailer opens up solidly. You have the sound of a helicopter humming in the audio foreground as you peep the barbwired walls of desolate cement ghettos. Quickly you see that these aren’t desolate areas at all and are filled with many people. You do, though, get acquainted with the kind of police state, a heavily armed police state, that these people are living in.

Black screen, green computer letters: “Paris”¦2010″

The “ugh” begins as this “harsh” new reality reveals that the streets are run by the rejects from THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS. Driving souped up Yugo’s and the like it appears to be that the gangs who control what happens are about to come into possession of a nuclear weapon.

Now, the cinematography harkens back to the salad days of the first TRANSPORTER and I’m not disappointed to know that the story is explained even further by our green screen companion that “the lone cop”¦that is sent to stop them”¦” establishes our protagonist.

I’m confused.

At first I thought we were dealing with just these little gangs in post-apocalyptic France but now we’ve got a French Jason Statham getting buck wild with these perps. I get ready to go absolutely monkey shines on this concept but something quite important changes my mind: we get another protagonist thrown into the mix.

Instead of just one Jason Statham we get two. Not only that but these guys are acrobatic on the level of a Tony Jaa mixed in with those dudes who did those leaping commercials for Nike a couple of years ago; they were French I believe, as well.

The end result has me eating all sorts of crow about how goofy this was getting. The stunts here are just a joy to watch as you try and figure out the logistics of a man running across the vertical façade of a building. We get hipped to the fact that the producers of BOTH TRANSPORTER 2 and ONG-BAK have diddled with this story and like a connoisseur who can tell vintage from swill I feel vindicated by the knowledge that this movie has their kind of fingerprints on the screen.

I do, however, have advice for these people promoting the movie: getting it established early, the people behind this film, would be a good thing in stoking giddiness. If I didn’t know better I would’ve just rolled on to another trailer but I had to wait literally until this trailer was all done to find out what pedigree this film had.

Selling a foreign film is tough enough without having to make dumb mistakes like this but I would lose nearly the entire first half and just launch into the ass kicking and explosions. Sorry, but it’s the truth.

The last half of this trailer brims with excitement, passion, violence, martial arts and the hint that one could enjoy 90 minutes of this; I sure as shit would after seeing what these two dudes can do. It’s far too small of a world to be sitting on this kind of flick for just regional audiences to enjoy. I want to watch other countries’ ass kickers, too.

Count me in on this one but just clean up this trailer.

Director: Paul Dinello
Cast: Amy Sedaris, Stephen Colbert, Paul Dinello
Release: June 28, 2006
Synopsis: A prequel to the critically acclaimed series featuring Jerri Blank, a 46 year-old ex-junkie, ex-con who returns to high school in a bid to start her life over.

Prognosis: Hell No. I am officially out of touch with what people think is funny.

Sure, I loved Arrested Development, Da Ali G Show and other cancelled programming but I never understood about the funny factor when it came to Strangers With Candy. When Comedy Central ran this I was deep in their clutches with Upright Citizens Brigade, The Daily Show and South Park so I just tried to find the angle with what this show’s ethos was all about; I guess the answer was there all along: retardation and bad Tracy Ullman humor. These two elements, when mixed, made for a delightful mélange of idiocy and good ratings.

Now, I tried to give this trailer the benefit of time. I hadn’t heard anything from Amy Sedaris for a while and hearing that this movie was being made I figured there would be a chance for me to get introduced properly to this world.

I don’t want to be introduced anymore.

This trailer begins with what is intended to be a really funny premise: Jerri Blank needs to make the honor roll.

“Be prom queen!” our titular hero yells in hopeful auditory miscommunication.

“Make the honor roll,” our straight man quietly retorts.

Really. This is how it’s going to be? It sure is as the next lame mule joke about what Jerri’s IQ is does not go over well. “Pieces,” is her reply and it is not the right answer for a lot of reasons.

Following this little moment we go on with a montage of Jerri being herself in all her resplendent ickiness. We see her corn chip sized toenails, get a gander as she tries disgustingly to sex us up and then rides a broom in a cackle-induced hysteria that I don’t know to be afraid or laugh out of embarrassment.

From what I can take away from Steven Colbert, an overrated comedic talent judging by his reliance on his static, deadpan delivery style, his role is to be co-performing along with Amy as his one-liners and additions to Amy’s set-ups seem to be dependant on her reactions. It shouldn’t be this hard to be funny or to figure out why it is that other people find these things giggle-worthy but I can’t see it and the trailer does a miserable job in even letting the lay person in on the comedy.

Oh, and the last bit of Jerri’s mother telling her, while eating dinner with the family, that, “we don’t talk with food in our mouth,” and Amy’s “physical humor” as she empties the contents on her plate saying, “I don’t have food in my mouth”? If she was 12 I am sure the kids would love it. Seeing a grown woman do it in attempt to show how funny she can be is just sad.

Director: David Jacobson
Cast: Edward Norton, Evan Rachel Wood, David Morse, Bruce Dern, Rory Culkin
Release: April, 2006 (Limited)
Synopsis: Set in the present-day San Fernando Valley, the project revolves around a delusional man who believes he’s a cowboy and the relationship that he starts with a rebellious young woman.

Prognosis: Make That Another No. Couldn’t Ed be making movies where he’s beating the hell out of himself or curbing some Neo-Nazis?

No? This is what I’m left with? Well, I can’t say that I’m all that pumped about a cowboy who hasn’t ever known anything more than the range of the South but I also can’t even muster enough joy on my femme side after seeing this trailer to even make this a recommended flick for chicks.

It starts out well enough, though. There is a light musical arrangement and a slow opening as Ed narrates the way he’d like to be under a sky full of stars, hear nothing but the wind and, possibly, out humping some sheep.

Evan Rachel comes off as a bitchy teen that needs to have her MySpace account taken away and defaced, along with everything else she no doubt takes for granted as she whines about how it sucks to be a disenfranchised young person. I’m not sure if this is trying to win me over to her character but she seems a little disillusioned with how life works. I hope when the tramp finally gets to the beach where she so defiantly tells her dad that’s where she’s going that the Zodiac is there, waiting.

It looks like I won’t be getting my wish as when Evan is fueling up at the local Unocal 76 Ed looks like he’s semi-working there, I don’t really know for sure as we go from him peeping a view at her possibly underage, glistening bodice to him throwing down his oil rag in mock disgust as he’s invited to the beach with this girl; I’m not sure of whether I’m supposed to be giving him a mental high-five or calling NBC’s Dateline and reporting this perv.

So, they’re at the beach and it’s like a scene from Real World: California when Jon, that lump of Branson backwater molded into a doughy form with a blonde-ish mullet, went to the beach in his Hulkamania t-shirt and cowboy boots. I don’t know if this a put-on or if I should feel endeared toward Ed.

Lo and behold, children, not only does Ed manage to start making out with Evan in the ocean but the chick puts out on the very same night. Obviously a whore and needing a good ass whooping of atomic proportions Ed decides to play the gentle pedo with his clap-trap about finding one’s self, believing in whatever, blah blah blah.

When the girl finally goes home (!) after her night of sexing and cavorting like a tramp her dad is there waiting, pissed, and understandably so. Even has this look of “What did I do?” as she runs into her room, her dad just being comfortable with pounding on the door once. Now, I have to call bullshiat on this one. If that were me I would have one of those Cops sized battering rams with accompanying riot helmets that have those hard plastic Samurai flaps on the back of it and put that bitch down with a few taser blasts to the temple. Does that happen here? Noooo”¦the chick ends up seeing Ed AGAIN and whines about her crap life.

Sure, there may be problems but when you’re trying to spin this movie as a romance and you’ve got Ed trying to “defend” her honor by being all cowboy with the dad it does a very poor job doing so.

The montage of the scenes of this film are a train wreck of discombobulation and mixed messages of underage copulation, family togetherness and the search for being true to one’s self.

I think I’ll just watch FIGHT CLUB and AMERICAN HISTORY X on cable.

Director: Stephen J. Anderson
Cast: Angela Bassett, Paul Butcher, Jessie Flower, Spencer Fox, Jordan Fry, Daniel Hansen, Tom Kenny, Wesley Singerman, Harland Williams
Release: March 30, 2007
Synopsis: Boy genius invents a machine that recovers forgotten memories, and inadvertently travels forward in time, where he encounters a family whose survival depends on his ingenuity.

Prognosis: Leery. It couldn’t be worse than CHICKEN LITTLE.

I couldn’t be more sure than any animated film that utilized Pixar-like animation could have been more messed up than that turd nugget. I mean, really, when you have three discordant storylines converging in an inglorious explosion of confusion and lameness you’ve got the ingredients for a bad movie. Even if it is a kids movie the children, and the adults taking them, deserve better.

This movie, though, looks a little more focused than its previous studios’ offering. One of the very first things you notice about this flick is the full-on animated rendering of the evil villain. The guy is everything you would want in a maniacal antagonist. He’s rocking a dashingly devilish cape, dons a twisty moustache that will, hopefully, be twirled from time to time and has got a mouthful of jacked teeth that any Briton would be envious of.

Now, the hero of this tale is a Jimmy Neutron nerd of sorts. I could see the wagon wheels rolling off this gravy train should the kid develop an annoying parlance that includes copious amounts of the words “awesome” or “cool” but from what is revealed here there isn’t any indication of that.

The kid in this movie looks like he’ll be “playing” off the eccentric family members that comprise the people who he has never known existed”¦until now. Yes, the heavy handed goofiness that seems to make this flick look more cartoonish than it does reflective of the smart writing which has come out of Pixar is a little disconcerting. You’ve got impossibly weird and odd moments that threaten to make this movie solely enjoyable to just the little ones but you’ve also got this one moment at the end of the trailer that made me hope there is something more to this movie.

A woman extols the wonderful effects of the caffeine patch and while it’s superficially funny the general sense of goofiness and slapstick that’s employed is promising to me.

Animated movies have raised the general bar insofar that the greats have challenged the accepted notion that kids movies are animated; adults are being included in the making of the films, their presence being recognized in well-written moments for them, while respecting the kids who ultimately will want to see these films.

CHICKEN LITTLE failed as a film, at least in execution, because of its exclusion of material that would entertain the adults who had accompany their kids to the theater. TOY STORY knew how to play to this part of the audience and so did a handful of other memorable animated movies. These things aren’t just for kids. Disney would do well to remember that.

Director: John Moore
Cast: Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Mia Farrow, David Thewlis, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Gambon, Seamus Fitzpatrick
Release: June 6, 2006
Synopsis: A remake of the 1976 horror classic The Omen (1976), an American official realizes that his young son may literally be the devil incarnate.

Prognosis: Ahh..No. I really didn’t see the original.

I figured, Satan incarnate in a little boy, starts some smack, some people die, there’s some wicked climax and somehow, some way, the kid somehow survives; saved myself the hour and a half, I figure.

The power of Christ, I guess, compelled some people to make this picture again except I don’t know who is supposed to be the evil one: Damian or Julia Stiles. One is evil on the screen and the other is just an unsuspecting little boy.

Never minding my own bias against the whimsy blonde I am a fan of the opening sequence. You’ve got a full-on carnival going on in the backyard of this rich kid’s place. I don’t see any carnies or cotton candy machine so I have to call shenanigans on the realism but I am a big big fan of the nasty look our little blue eyed devil child gives one of the help as this leads to a great way to start things off: a public hanging.

The woman who kills herself does it with great flair, getting people’s attention before she tosses herself of a very tall home. It’s shocking, jolting.

“He’s cold as ice”¦”

I also appreciate the following snippet of Damian riding in the car with his parents. He stares at a church steeple while Julia takes his boy’s temperature as he keeps his eyes fixated on the visage of Christ and Co.

The two steps back from the one step forward occurs when Damian is let loose in the monkey house at the zoo. The path of children that cut a line away from this demon dog is wonderfully captured but when Julia asks her beanie boy what the matter is he just explains that, “They’re afraid.” I don’t paraphrase Eddie Murphy’s comedy too much but just like in Amityville Horror when the house says to get out you can be damn sure the sounds of rubber wheeling away from the house is a lot more understandable than staying with it. When you’ve got a child who tosses deadly glances, is obviously not high on life and seems to cut a path of quiet destruction wherever he goes it might be time to take the kid back from whence it came.

Then, after Mia Farrow shows up (Huh?) and says that she’s there to protect Damian we get the man, the myth, the legend: Pete Postlethwaite. I wish he were in every movie to come out in 2006 but it looks like I have to settle with him being in this. His role here seems to be that of the concerned priest who knows what that little snot is capable of and wants to do what he can to subvert the kid’s lifespan.

The imagery is rich with confusing and interesting moments that have NO connection to one another, nor do they add any context to the film. I’m not sure why we’re not given more about what these weird moments mean. And it’s not just a few things here or there but when we get a 80’s era synth soundtrack that is embedded underneath video clips of weird looking people, evil dudes who wear silk robes, police who figure walking into a church with their laser sights ready to shred whatever pops up in front of them or this little boy looking even more evil than he is I am not sure what the point is supposed to be.

Am I supposed to be afraid or confused? I’m afraid it’s the latter.

Director: Gregg Kavet, Andy Robin
Cast: Aaron Stanford, Paul Schneider, Michael Rapaport, Kevin Dunn, Zooey Deschanel, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Judah Friedlander
Release: Who knows…
Synopsis: Lackluster criminals look to pull a job in the Granite State.

Prognosis: Crap. This movie won an award for Best Feature at the SXSW festival?

Seriously?

I can say with some certainty, and a little authority, that this is a really poor trailer. If you want the short version of the review it would be that this trailer depends on its players using the word “fuck” or “shit” in ways that would be amusing to a boy of thirteen but to someone who’s thirty it just feels like it’s not so much selling a movie as it is trying to put on a “funny” front.

The whole point of making a trailer is to package your film in a way that’s digestible for the most amount of people in the hopes it attracts viewers of all levels. True, whoever made this trailer made the conscious point of including a lot of swearing as a point of interest. They wanted to showcase this facet of the movie. However, and I would argue, that, out of context, swearing does nothing more than showcase the fact that your actors are juveniles who need nothing more than our complete disregard for their actions if this is the kind of sell they’re going after.

However, in the light of equal time I will try and give this thing the respect it so deservedly is begging to receive.

We start with our protagonist claim he is a “stone, fucking killer” and that he’s killed people with his bare, “fucking hands.” I’m not sure if I am to laugh or this is the point where this movie becomes about one man’s quest to kill as many people as he can.

Said protagonist seems to be scouring the landscape for more people to completely work over although that’s just speculation on my part. The trailer is taking a lot of time to put the spotlight on the “crazy” antics of our man Friday here as a way, ostensibly, to show how much fun we’re going to have just by following this dude around as he rips up the land around him. He gets a tall, Lloyd from DUMB AND DUMBER looking dude to tag along with him, providing an extra level of comedy.

Plot points? I don’t have any to explain because, frankly, I haven’t got any myself out of this thing.

I do, though, get an idea when these band of misfits pick up a third and decide to go thieving. I honestly would’ve liked to have some clue as to why these guys are out ripping people off and decimating stores, I might actually have some genuine interest in allying myself to one of them but no, none of that’s forthcoming. I do get Judah Friedlander playing every single mumble-mouthed, big glasses wearing, monotone gimmick actor he’s played in every other movie as he’s given way too much time to just do his thing.

The ending of this trailer is just filled with enough explicative dropping I wonder if there’s any original kind of dialogue in this movie that isn’t peppered with the f-word.

I think it’s funny to have an obscene movie, 40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN proved that last year, but what set that movie and this movie apart was that its advertising (GASP) managed to exclude anything hinting that it was going to be as blue as it was. There’s nothing held back here and, to me, that’s a bad thing.

Director: Hsiao-hsien Hou
Cast: Chen Chang, Mei Di, Su-jen Liao, Fang Mei, Qi Shu
Release: April 26, 2006 (Limited)
Synopsis: Three stories set in three times, 1911, 1966 and 2005. Two actors play the two main characters in each story.

Prognosis: Positive. It’s often, I would say it isn’t but it is, when I see a foreign language film and wonder how long it will be until the story is appropriated by a domestic studio and regurgitated in a form that either dilutes the original spark or until the movie is picked up and sat on like it’ll ripen with every month that goes by without a release (i.e. NIGHTWATCH, SHAOLIN SOCCER); this movie, though, seems safe from either of those impulses as IFC Films has been an excellent distributor of films that would normally just get a weak release from any of the majors.

What appealed to me most initially, then, is not so much the content but the premise. Jonsing for a peek at Aronofsky’s THE FOUNTAIN has resulted in being open to stories of just this kind. Taking place in three different time periods is a move that could either yield genuine drama or could seem like a convenient ploy, gimmick. When you see, right out of the gate, Jim Jarmusch laying out the superlatives and hyperbole for this director, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, you feel a connection to someone who many might not be familiar with. I certainly was not.

Also, I very much liked the display of film festivals this movie has played at as it doesn’t linger too long and it efficiently, deservedly, establishes credibility. Also, we’re not talking about meager festivals. This one has bowed at Cannes, Telluride and Toronto.

Our first shot is of a young woman playing some snooker. Regardless of how well she plays, it is the man standing behind her that catches our eye. The music is smoky, appropriate. What’s more, regarding the tune, it somehow fits the next scenes of our three eras being represented in tri split screen. Even though these two protagonists are going to be together somehow, someway, the chemistry is instant.

Even when we’re given the obvious, the three dates being stamped on the screen the melding of the three time periods is seamless. Somehow you just feel the authenticity of this man and woman.

The first real dialogue that’s spoken, subtitled for our pleasure, feels a little indulgent in the vein of high falutian mushiness that really only exists in cinema but that’s ok; sometimes you want to believe in the power of real strong agape between two people and if you earn it this is the arena where it can be allowed.

Seeing A.O. Scott’s blurb is de regur for a movie like this. Even though you want to believe your flick is strong enough on its own you still want to revert, at least in marketing, to those things which will get people to come out of their hovels to see a film like this.

The ending is a little quiet, a little reserved but the action on the screen is yearning for someone to pay attention to this woman who seems to be suffering from some kind of heartache. The fact that you can infer this from a foreign language trailer speaks volumes about the strength of the material. Highly anticipated.

Director: Davis Guggenheim
Cast: Al Gore
Release: May 24, 2006
Synopsis: Eloquently weaves the science of global warming with Al Gore’s personal history and lifelong commitment to reversing the effects of global climate change. A longtime advocate for the environment, Gore presents a wide array of facts and information in a thoughtful and compelling way. The film is not a story of despair but rather a rallying cry.

Prognosis: Always consider the source. I tell you what living in Arizona makes it hard for me to tell you what I think of global warming.

When the average temperature hits over 100 degrees every damn summer day I would sooner believe that the world is going to melt at any moment than try to gauge what is going on with the rest of the world, scientifically, as it pertains to global warming. The fundies would have you believe it’s due to homosexuals getting their swerve on and, thus, God’s getting his wrath on. The democrats would attribute it to big corporate greed getting in the way of sound environmental policy. And the republicans would just as soon say there isn’t a problem at all and that how dare we bring this up when there is a war that is threatening our family’s lives?

I don’t know what to believe but I do like the interesting approach to getting this trailer started.

“At Sundance it received three standing ovations”¦”

Like any good piece of propaganda, and remember that every movie with a viewpoint is propaganda no matter how “teh awesome,” the flashes of extreme weather moments is very effective. The clips go by awfully quick but the snippets of palm trees bending, video of hurricane movements and the stark pictures of nuclear power plants are begging us to do the math about what these threes have in common. Since I’m pretty stupid I don’t have a clue.

More extreme shots of limp waterfalls, deforestation, tornadoes ring the point that’s about to be made.

“If you love your planet”¦
If you love your children”¦
You have to see this film.”

Yeah, I have a problem with that. What I loathe about exploitative news reporting and mainstream journalism as of late is that I am assaulted by teasers that constantly threaten either my or my family’s life with information that they have to tell me but can’t share until I tune in at 10:00 pm. This film’s marketing is essentially doing the same thing and I don’t appreciate it as a tactic.

“By far the most terrifying film you will ever see.”

Huh? I would hope that this film is being ironic because no person would have the brass satchels to make that kind of comment unless we were getting archival footage of Vlad the Impaler impaling. No, we’re getting some egg heads talking about hot weather using the same kind of scare tactics used by Newsroom Channel 5.

“The consensus is that WE are causing global warming.”

Sigh.

Ok, Al Gore states that humans are the cause for global warming and even though I was horrid at life sciences I at least know that nugget of gold information. What else could’ve caused it? The wanton expulsion of methane gas from dairy cows?

Anyway, Gore goes on to show us the dry beds of land in Patagonia many decades ago and what it looks like now, appearing to become the next Great Lake. We see before and after shots of Mt. Kilimanjaro. The night and freaking day difference between these two landmasses and the environmental effects they’ve endured is actually interesting, kids.

The latter half of this trailer’s presentation of how bad global policy has resulted in things like Hurricane Katrina is at once compelling while also causing my BS Detector 2000 to activate. Does causal relationships mean relation? I don’t know but this trailer would have me believe it to be true.

While this trailer suffers from bad slanting of information nothing is more amusing than the last few moments where the music gets real dramatic and the music ramps up to action movie speed.

Director: Luke Meyer, Andrew Neel
Cast: Nerds, Geeks, Dweebs, Dorks, Nimrods, Dopes, Schmoes and lots more socially inept wierdos. (Sorry, but when you don’t have anyone listed in the IMDB that might as well be an open invitation for me…)
Release: HOTDOCS Film Festival, April 28-May 7 (2006) Toronto, Canada.
Synopsis: DARKON is a feature documentary that follows the real-life adventures of an unusual group of weekend “warrior knights,” fantasy role-playing gamers whose live action “battleground” is modern-day Baltimore, Maryland, re-imagined as a make-believe medieval world named Darkon. These live action gamers combine the physical drama of historical re-enactments with character-driven storylines inspired in part by such perennial favorite fantasy epics like the legends of King Arthur, Lord of the Rings, and the saga of Conan the Barbarian. As role players, they create alter-egos with rich emotional, psychological, and social lives. They costume themselves and physically act out their characters exploits both in intimate court intrigue and campouts and in panoramic battle scenarios involving competitive strategies, convincingly real props, and full contact “combat.” Because real life so often gets in the way, its easy to understand these players motivations. Everybody wants to be a hero.

Prognosis: Positive. I have ADHD.

It’s wicked bad.

Although it’s not really diagnosed by my doctor I know that my shorter than average attention span, which can be timed to a road flare, is an indication that I get really amped about some things and then, poof, it’s off to something, or someone, else. That’s why, right now, my spastic self is really rocking on the hour long ATTACK OF THE SHOW on the G4 channel every Monday through Thursday evening. I get all my geek news and reviews in one quick 25 minute block; it’s on the TiVo and, like I said, ADHD. One of the things that came up, then, a few weeks ago was this movie and after being able to sit through the entire segment without fast forwarding once I knew I had to peep the trailer.

This looks like a movie that will speak to any nerd who knows what it means to grok something; what it means to live in a geek culture surrounded by reality where others don’t get you; or, better yet, what it means to be slammed into metal lockers in high school and need to further that sense of outsidership in adulthood by dressing up in silly outfits having fake battles with one another. Really, someone should’ve shot Tolken before he had a chance to write those Goddammed books.

I kid because I kare, children.

I really like the way this movie looks simply by how the background of this movie takes shape. I liked TREKKIES for the same reason that this trailer’s opening sequence seems to really take a real look at the people who find dressing up in LOTR-style garb, and having fake battles, to be a pleasurable experience. You’ve got a guy in the very beginning buying cereal for his kid, you see him vacuuming the carpet all the while explaining that being a hero in everyday life isn’t something that’s always attainable. He looks like he’s a dad and you feel for him, sorta, but then we’re blasted with a real live geek, a real live wire, as he’s bombastically railing against his geek brother on the field of battle. The dudes are all sorts of dressed up in Old English uniforms, dragons and lions and headbands being de regur for pseudo-combat. You get the vibe quickly that these “men” were beat up a lot in high school. A lot.

Again, though, it’s fun. I find myself giddy at the prospect of being able to watch what a collective of egg heads looks like when they decide to pick up a battle ax or mace on a wooden stick.

And it’s sweet. Did I mention that? It’s so nice to see that people like this are so passionate about something whereas other folk are simply happy to live their lives in abject ignorance of their own desires. The sappy music playing underneath the sweeping visions of the landscape of the town that harnesses the collective geek sweat of dozens of these people really gets to you as understanding why these people dress up gives you that layer of understanding, that context.

One of the things I especially like, even after you get a feel for the major players involved in this escapade, is that the music takes everything over and all you’re left with are shots of how intricate this game has become. You visit the east coast of America, Pennsylvania for the Gettysburg reenactment that’s going to happen this year on July 1st, 2nd and 3rd let’s say, and you decide to watch what happens. You have two sides fighting on one battlefield. Here, though, you’ve got nerds swinging their battle axes and geeks firing their padded arrows from all sorts of directions at all hours of the night and day. There are multiple factions, multiple storylines happening, but when we cut to these same people doing their day jobs it’s odd. In a good way.

It’s hard to imagine many of us being able to participate in something so obviously steeped in fiction but it’s just as hard to look away from this trailer and not be entertained.

Director: Scott Marshall
Cast: Justin Chambers, Robin Tunney, Rory Culkin, Philip Baker Hall
Release: March 17th, 2006 (And where the hell was it? It didn’t come out near my house…)
Synopsis: Based on true events, THE ZODIAC is a psychological thriller detailing a string of gruesome murders in the Bay Area in the late 1960s and the impact on the victims, their families and the wider community. A small town cop (Justin Chambers) and his son (Rory Culkin) become obsessed with the Zodiac killer, endangering their family.

Prognosis: Negatively Confused. I was all sorts of amped when I glossed the offerings of trailers this week to see this one sitting there.

Shouldn’t there have been more of a fanfare? Was I catching some exclusive peek at a quietly released trailer for David Fincher’s latest foray into film? Wasn’t this going to be great?

No, it wasn’t any of these things.

Just like when juggernauts DEEP IMPACT and ARMAGEDDON were released around the same time, myself wondering what in hell could’ve cosmically been the case years prior when competing end-of-the-world pics went into production around the same time, this year will be the battleground for competing Zodiac dollars. It’s a curious thing when these moments pop up in moviedom but I can tell you that this picture, while I felt let down it wasn’t Fincher’s latest, doesn’t look like the smudge on the taint that IMPACT did when compared with the God-awfulness that was ARMAGEDDON.

You’ve got kids doing what they know how to do best, fogging up the windows in mom’s old Ford Festiva. The kids here, though, are looking to get themselves into some trouble of their own but leave it to the creepy darkened car that slowly pulls up alongside the kids’ car to be the one to make it a night none of them will remember.

Now, since I’m not completely familiar with how the Zodiac killer operated I can only assume his interest wasn’t in getting ladies but indiscriminately killing whoever and whatever he wanted judging by the opening sequence here. It’s a solid way to introduce me and the fact that we get the doctor from Grey’s Anatomy on the case, I don’t care what you say as I watched this trailer a half dozen times, it’s the doctor from Grey’s Anatomy. It’s not an actor playing the part. It’s the doctor, and this is how I am selling myself on it, and he’s looking to make a career change.

His old lady, Robin Tunney, comes right out and tells her man that she is scared. She should be as the lighting in this movie coats everything with a piss yellow hue. Her husband drags it with him to the office as the good doctor from Grey’s, who honestly doesn’t make the case he could be a po-po, gets an errie and spooky call from a dude who says he’s going to be kill some folks just for the fun of it.

Now, this part of the trailer is actually pretty interesting because we get some of the actual events that transpired with the way law enforcement was played every step of the way with this serial killer. Philip Baker Hall, best known to the world as Dean Patterson in HOW I GOT INTO COLLEGE, plays the TV doctor’s boss and admonishes him to catch this guy. I think that’s all well and good but as we’ve seen in previous incarnations of this story, this doesn’t happen. I mean I’ve watched the History channel. I know how this story is going to play out and I think that’s why I just don’t feel the panic that must have ran rampant though these lifers who were dedicated to catching dudes like The Zodiac. They’re playing up the drama but it doesn’t feel like it should be a drama.

And then, if you’re watching closely, his old lady and kid call him while he’s at work to start spilling diarrhea of the mouth as they both pour over astrological books to help dad out; we obviously know how that turns out. As if that isn’t enough, the good doctor’s son starts talking about the case with some girl in the neighborhood as if this Nancy Drew/Hardy Boy combo is what this case needs. It would’ve been sweet if the true definition of irony comes home to roost with the Zodiac taking out the meddling kids.

The ending of this trailer should be commended, though, in doing what it should have been doing from the beginning: creating an atmosphere of paranoia and frenetic activity. No one ever knew who this guy was, or is, and with every stranger being a potential suspect or target the trailer should have focused on this feeling from the very beginning.

I know you need to make it seem that this story has a human element but, I posit, the trailer plays it backward. You don’t feel that this is a movie about a serial killer but that this is a movie about how one guy deals with his family as it pertains to this case. While that’s fine it’s perhaps not the best route to take when you want and sell a movie with this much “reality” built into it.

Director: Doug Atchison
Cast: Angela Bassett, Keke Palmer, Laurence Fishburne, Curtis Armstrong
Release: April 28, 2006
Synopsis: A young girl from South Los Angeles tries to make it to the National Spelling Bee.

Prognosis: W-A-S-T-E O-F M-Y T-I-M-E. One of the things that must really be a drag when you’re a filmmaker is you think you have this great story and that no one else has done it and you’ve got this hawesome ass vision for a story and then, bam, BEE SEASON comes out just mere months before your movie.

Not only do you reel from the fact that you’ve got this spelling movie with Richard Gere coming out before yours but when the movie ends up tanking like the Exxon Valdez on theaters’ doorsteps you could understandably get a little fidgety. Unfortunately, I can’t see how this movie will fare any better.

What you’ve got opening this thing tells me everything I need to know about this film. You’ve got this one little girl winning her school’s first annual spelling bee and while this is all well and cheery something very Hollywoody happens. Lawrence Fishburne, along with his sidekick, Booger, nee Curtis Armstrong, jumps right into the festivities and demands this girl spell “prestidigitation.” Of course, besides the obvious weirdness of having some stranger start yelling crap at you, the camera quite visibly pulls in closer on the girl who, ta-da, does it. Her friend shiats herself, the place starts clapping but the speller girl in question bolts out of the room. It immediately feels false and hokey.

The question here is not what makes this movie so different than BEE SEASON but should be why we should care about the people in these films. The simple answer is that I don’t care about her. Unfortunately, what you get in the montage of moments of this movie which will ultimately lead to the great spelling bee is that this girl follows the time tested clichés of a wise old sage mentor educating his ward.

Yes, it must suck to live in a crap part of California. Yes, it must be rough as a black girl to have your brother harass you by comparing you to a white girl. Yes, it is hard to imagine that you have this old guy demanding you learn all these tough new words. Fact of the matter is that we’ve heard this story a lot of times before. Hard living, hard mentor, finding something to believe in are themes explored in the great BOYZ N THE HOOD, where Fishburne played his sage old guy part well, and the not-so-great FINDING FORRESTER where Sean Connery gave me nothing to believe in once he uttered. “You’re the man now, Dog.” Ugh.

This movie looks like a heated mash of both kind of dudes with the exception that there’s nothing new here. It’s well-worn and as our protagonist struggles with trying to believe in herself, never minding that she’s in grade school and not believing in anything just comes with the age, the manipulation of the music and the dramatic lighting is nothing more than just a lazy attempt to create interest where there isn’t any.

I’m sure this movie will appeal to young girls and prepubescents everywhere but, for the rest of us, this seems like an overwrought and saccharine packed sack of kiddie dramatics.

Director:Justin Lin
Cast: Lucas Black, Bow Wow, Nikki Griffin, Sung Kang, Nathalie Kelly, Brian Tee, Jason J. Tobin
Release: June 16, 2006
Synopsis: To avoid jail time, street racer Shaun Boswell is sent to live with his uncle in Tokyo. There he discovers drift racing. After losing a race to Yakuza-connected D.K., the Drift King, Shaun has to enter the Tokyo underworld to find a way to pay his debt.

Prognosis: Negative. Let me just on record just in case any of the following herein is construed as obsequious or muddled: there is a better chance I would be the next guy to appear on a viral video having my rear pumped by a thoroughbred than I would be to see this movie in the theater.

Now, that said, let’s have a little fun.

First, the opening. I won’t be harsh at all here and I’ll even give a major nod to the trailer makers here for crafting a real sense of what this movie will be about and who it’s directed toward. I realize I shouldn’t end my sentences with a preposition but a major misstep for many marketing companies for all kinds of movies out there miss not only their core demographic but other segments of the audience as well by trying to be all things to all people. There’s none of that B.S. here, friends. This movie opens with roaring engines; hot ladies in mini-skirts galloping in their high heels because we all know that only the hottest of the hot from the XX population like to frequent drag races; highly neoned Honda civics, or Peugeots I can’t really tell; and, lookie here, a view of a woman’s butt, leaving over an engine. You then have the MC of the drag race, a Western-looking John Cho, asking some more good-looking ladies (why wasn’t I told that I should’ve been seeking out illegal drag races when I was a blossoming young man) if they’re ready. Oh yeah, they’re ready all right.

And we’re off.

The cars peel out and instead of the common drag race on asphalt we’ve got dudes drag racing in a parking structure. As a 30 year-old dude I didn’t know until right now that you could do that or that it’s pervasive enough to make a movie out of it. And it’s here that Lil’ Bow Wow, or is it Big Dawg now that he’s a little older, says that if you, “ain’t out of cont’ro you ain’t in cont’ro.”

Interesting. Besides the Jedi grammar-speak I see some Mercedes take out one of these hoopties with Bow-Wow asking us if we still need a dictionary. Nope, Bow. That dude wasn’t in cont’ro. Got it.

We then figure out we’re in Tokyo. Although, the voice over only says “on the other side of the world.” I don’t know about you but considering American students’ ability to not even be able to pick out their own state on the map I am thinking an INDIANA JONES style graphic, with a green neon line (that’d be pimp, right?) shooting from Vin Diesel’s manse straight over to Tokyo; it’d be nice and would do much good in helping our public school hopefuls.

Here we get our Paul Walker stand-in, looking fresh off the boat of Ford Modeling Company, who we’re told is on the other side of the law. Ooo”¦he’s dangerous, ladies, plus he’s”¦dangerously good-looking. Looking like he’s doing his best Blue Steel pose is ready to rock Asia like no man has done before.

The montage of cars, women, street fights (in which our protagonist will get his ass kicked but not hard enough that it would leave any mark on his face), clubs and more women is enough to make any male youth anxious. And I am a real fan of this “hero” for keeping it real by racing an old P.O.S. while everyone else has state of the art vehicles.

Director: Robert Altman
Cast: Woody Harrelson, Tommy Lee Jones, Garrison Keillor, Kevin Kline, Lindsay Lohan, Virginia Madsen, Jonathan Mankuta, Matthew Modine, John C. Reilly, Maya Rudolph, Tim Russell, Geoff Schilz, Sue Scott, Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin, Jim Westcott, Linda Williams, Robin Williams
Release: June 9, 2006
Synopsis: A look at what goes on backstage during the last broadcast of America’s most celebrated radio show, where singing cowboys Dusty and Lefty, a country music siren (Streep), and a host of others hold court.

Prognosis: Very Positive…It suprised even this Garrison hater. To any person looking to boost my car you now have this clue: I’m the guy with the NPR sticker on his back window.

True, being an NPR addict means getting a lot of quizzical looks from people when you ask them if they heard a story or two on Morning Edition. I’m not a snob, mind you, but I just figured people would know, for better or worse, about the PBS that’s made for the short wave. Part of my love for all things public radio means that I have to live with the fact that I would like to see Garrison Keillor kneecapped at the earliest possible opportunity.

I’ve got no love for the land of Woe-Be-Gone and it’s all attributable to Keilllor’s intonations and vocal style; it borders on abusive, really, with the way he sort of lip smacks and draws slowly from his throat. I know he thinks he’s making great radio for the masses but unless you’re collecting social security or are eligible to get a cup of coffee at IHOP at a discounted rate on Tuesdays then you’re only really reaching a segment of potential audience share. Thus, here comes Robert Altman.

SHORT CUTS. I watched that, I believe, the week after watching BOTTLE ROCKET when it first came out on VHS. I’ve been a fan of Altman and I think, honestly, the two of them together here could make a movie that even I would want to go see.

The trailer, I am happy to report, does stoke the kind of feelings I thought I would never have for Keillor’s work. Thanks to Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin’s antics at the Oscars I am even more bolstered by what could-be for this movie.

I wasn’t too giddy by the sight of Garrison’s visage at the outset of this movie’s trailer. His droopy features and get-off-of-my-lawn vibe in full screen frames the opening sequence as my blood pressure constricts in fear that this is how it’s going to be. Thankfully, we move quickly away from the stage, and Garrison.

The stock in this movie only rises a touch when the first celeb we peep is Lindsay Lohan; she’s not terribly distracting as Lily Tomlin steps in and shoots the first volley across the comedic bow.

“I’ll Give You My Moonshine If You Show Me Your Juggs”

Meryl shows us that she can be forgiven for SHE-DEVIL and in this multiple character piece, which I can’t figure out of whether it’s period or contemporary, it amazes me how Woody Harrelson can be funny even if he’s just delivering a couple of lines; he can be a comedic talent if given the right opportunity and I know I can’t be the only fan of Billy in WHITE MEN CAN’T JUMP.

It’s not so much a definitive feeling that this is going to be a funny movie as it is just a lot of good signs pointing towards it but I am dismayed by Lohan’s wasted looking sway as she’s getting down on stage with her other musical cohorts in a song; I don’t know from what bottom bin sale she was found but her real-life persona is threatening to break the 4th wall of separation and for a movie like this it could be life imitating art imitating life imitating an anemic looking basket case who likes to flash her nipples at car shows.

And since I’m not going to let Lohan’s appearance besmirch the production on the whole I am pleased at what’s presented here. You’ve got the master of multiple storylines here to support a movie that would’ve been dead in the water for me had it been anyone else behind the lens. I might actually make my way to see this movie based on this trailer.

Director: Scott Marshall
Cast: Jami Gertz, Daryl Hannah, Garry Marshall, Jeremy Piven, Doris Roberts
Release: May 12, 2006
Synopsis: After attending a neighbor’s over the top Bar Mitzvah celebration, high-powered Hollywood agent Adam Fiedler, played by Jeremy Piven (“Old School”, HBO’s “Entourage”) is determined to pull out all the stops, and have the most extravagant celebration ever seen, for his shy, insecure son Benjamin.

Prognosis: Not even if they were serving gefilte fish. Where do they get these jaunty, smiley musical intros?

I half expect to see businessmen, dressed in their brown suits, lined up the delicately manicured streets of Nowhere, USA, donning fedoras as they all simultaneously cut the lawn. I do expect, though, to be tossed a movie that is not really steeped in any heady context, an unplug-your-mind kind of comedy.

What’s nice, though, right to begin with, is that Piven is in a fatherly role and although he’s not given much here, initially, we’re at least tossed the crux of what this story is all about. The Bar Mitzvah is one of those cultural events, on par with a quinceanera or a man’s first duct tape waxing of his a-noose by his drunken buddies, and the film comes out quickly to establish that this is all about besting the Joneses, or, I guess, the Finkleman’s.

It’s odd to see Piven in a role of playing a proud father but I guess I buy it. There’s something about trying to say that his all about a Bar Mitzvah, at one point we see a banner giving props to the Steins’ kid saying “mazel tov” but it’s not uttered that this is a Mitzvah of any sort. Is this because the trailer makers want this to be a generic, culturally neutral, “party” theme or because we don’t want to segregate audience share? I’m not sure but getting through the first quarter of this trailer with only a reference to the torah gets me wondering.

And where once my interest level in a flick that has a lot of cultural currency as of late with the big stories about 50 Cent playing a Bat Mitzvah and the book that was recently published about this subject which is a hoot to run through if any of you find yourselves wandering through a Borders, peters out kind of pathetically as Piven’s rival father, played here by the perennial antagonist to the protagonist, Larry Miller, starts to try and pry about the planning of Piven’s own party.

Again, the word party planner is used in lieu of calling this for what it is, there’s a really poor attempt to wordplay 50 Cent. “How much for 50 Cent? How about 17 Cent?” Whoa there, Leno, keep these jokes down to the minimum.

And just like that the Jewish-isms fall out of the sky like a full on blitzkrieg: we get Shamu donning a yarmulke, the Star of David comes out to say hey, Yiddish pops up its head and we are even treated to the party’s goings-on. It’s intimately amusing and poignant.

I think while the ending suffers from a really saccharine closing, with Piven giving the fatherly speech about becoming a man which completely confirms the idea that this “family” movie will have everything turning all right out in the end. Cue studio audience “Aww”¦”

And while I don’t find too much fault in things like this, I do have to make mention about Daryl Hannah’s facial credit in this flick. She doesn’t have one speaking role in what I saw here yet it’s shamelessly hinted that she’s an integral part of the movie by the ranking she’s given as we’re introduced to everyone in the movie.

Director: Bart Freundlich
Cast: Billy Crudup, David Duchovny, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Julianne Moore, Eva Mendes
Release: August 18, 2006
Synopsis: A smart, sophisticated comedy about the challenges of love and marriage among modern day New Yorkers, TRUST THE MAN features the romantic escapades of two couples: a successful actress (Julianne Moore) and her stay at home husband (David Duchovny); and her slacker younger brother (Billy Crudup) and his aspiring novelist girlfriend Maggie.

Prognosis: One of the best this year. Eva Mendes told me that I shouldn’t feel defensive about saying the words Movie Poop Shoot when I am out soliciting interviews. I should own it, she said. Almost a year later since she told me that I still think that was great advice. Odd, considering I had a physical reaction, not unlike a bad TB test, to STUCK ON YOU.

What’s nice about this trailer, though, is that I enjoy everyone’s presence here.

From Crudup, who was heralded as the next “it” man only to subsist on the fringe, Duchovny and Moore, well, not so much Moore, the opening sequence of this thing sets up everything that is about to be set off much later on.

Billy and David feel like they’re brothers, when in fact that they’re brothers-in-law, and have a good relationship. I don’t know why it’s the case but establishing a bond early between these two guys makes me feel that there’s something about them we as an audience can trust.

When we discover that Julianne publicly states that the impending marriage of Crudup and his ol’ lady is not so much sweet as it is “overrated,” the institution of it anyway, we see where there is going to be a little tension. That’s fabulous for a few reasons but the best one is that not only do we have a feel for these characters but we’re also getting an insight into the relationships these people have with one another. It’s just rare to get that quick of a glimpse so early on.

Next, we’re introduced to Gary Shandling’s presence as David and Julianne’s therapist where it’s made known that David has a more than healthy sex drive. This talk spills over to David talking to Billy and while seeing people get hit in the nuts with a whiffle ball bat is amusing, seeing a kid make a direct strike against the ball sack of David’s penne pasta incites great laughs from me.

The comedy comes delicately to a close as we descend like a Russian sub off the coast of the motherland before Alec Baldwin gets involved. The mood changes. Billy and David have some real words with one another about the nature of life and its natural ebb.

It’s announced that Billy ditches Jake Gyllenhaal’s sister, we’re not sure why and not told, but then Julianne sticks her albino nose in the whole thing and quickly sets her up on a date with a guy who has a shaky grasp of the English language. Again, I don’t know what you define as funny but foreign people trying to grasp English phraseology in movies is always a winner with me. What’s odd is that Billy is present for this “date” of sorts and I don’t understand it.

It’s odd in ways that need defining but we’re taken away from that moment to Billy asking David what’s a good flower to get a lady besides a rose. The answer is at once telling, it’s honest. Again, you feel close to these two guys as it seems that they have a genuine affinity for one another’s happiness.

The music changes and it’s “Wisemen” by James Blunt. I bring it up because sometimes you get just the right music to play against what’s happening on the screen and this is no different. It’s wonderfully used to what seems like images that are supposed to endear us to these characters even more than we are. It’s needless because the trailer earned that a while ago but it’s delightful nonetheless. The way we’re let down from what’s been built up is just as powerful.

To say that you’ve got to be crazy to be committed is smart in the sense that marriage between two people can feel that way, naturally, but it’s worded sharply, amusingly.

Director:Nicole Holofcener
Cast:Jennifer Aniston, Joan Cusack, Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand, Jason Isaacs, Scott Caan
Release: April 7, 2006 (Limited)
Synopsis: A drama about three married women, their husbands, and their lone single friend.

Prognosis: Negative. Yeah, let’s start off with the obvious.

Why would I want to see a movie where a bunch of preening, socialites who are more well off than I am have a spirited talk about where someone’s going to dump a couple million dollars?

Even if this was an inheritance, and these people are hippies who really only have jobs that pay them in hemp and Skittles, I’m not really identifying well with these well-to-doers.

Yes, by having this conversation we are able to contrast these people’s wealth with Jennifer Aniston’s obvious predicament as someone who has to work as a maid, which I don’t believe and have no ability to stretch my finite suspension power of disbelief, but who’s identifying with whom? I don’t like the rich people and I don’t believe Aniston. It’s especially bold to state that this was an Opening Night selection at Sundance when popular opinion has it on good faith that it was due to its star wattage and not necessarily due to it’s “independence.”

No matter, though, as Frances McDormand makes lemonade out of pompous pie. She really comes off as an especially likable character no matter what role she’s playing and her comment to a new mother about the size of her child is at once amusing as it is telling.

I’m not sure where you want to place Catherine Keener’s obviously vapid, stupid and/or drug addled insanity when the man who I think is her husband retorts to the question about what looks different about him by saying, “I shaved my beard”¦.Three weeks ago.” Oh, the laughter this stokes in me! Is this supposed to be funny or sad? I really don’t know.

McDormand brings me back to genuine amusement when she takes some line cutters to task in an Old Navy. She’s just spitting lines, I know, but she makes it believable enough for me to be right there with her but the moment cuts off too fast as I’m yanked back to the airless lives of Aniston’s friends who would be better off being stalked by a mass murderer than having to watch them complain and whine about their lives.

We’re treated to a philosophical Q/A with F.O.A. (Friends of Aniston) about the nature of sex and money and how one would help facilitate the other; real Einsteins, these people.

And, as if my attitude wasn’t bad enough by the end of this trailer, we get Scott Caan. I like Scott. I thought he was one of the best players in OCEAN’S ELEVEN. Not only is his presence refreshing but his quip back to Aniston when he finds out she’s a maid is, “Can I watch?” Yes, a thousand times yes. There are promo shots of Jennifer in her “outfit” and they are nowhere to be seen here. Bad move. Stupid move.

If you’re an exec and you haven’t figured out that even by showing the picture of Jennifer in her French maid’s getup might mean a few more bucks at the box office you need to have your head and nads examined.

Director: Aric Avelino
Cast: Marcia Gay Harden, Forest Whitaker, Donald Sutherland, Linda Cardellini, Tony Goldwyn
Release: March 22, 2006 (Limited)
Synopsis: IFC Films presents AMERICAN GUN, a powerful series of interwoven storylines that bring to light how the proliferation of guns in America dramatically influence and shape every day lives. A gun shop owner, an ace student, a single mother, and a school principal are among those profoundly affected. AMERICAN GUN is the debut film of director/co-writer Aric Avelino, and is co-written by Steven Bagatourian and produced by Ted Kroeber.

Prognosis: Positive. This is a gun safety video.

At first I think that I’m watching one of those safety videos people from work. When I worked for a grocery store I was compelled to watch a video where some guy and his boy walk up to an employee as the kid is literally draining blood from his nose. The guy wants the employee to put his hands on the kid’s face to help stop the bleeding. The video asked me what I would do in a situation like this. There is no such asking of an opinion here although we get some very helpful information.

“When handling a gun”¦Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.”

Good advice. Especially when you’ve got a table littered with semi-automatic weaponry. I kid but the juxtaposition of these words with the display of guns makes the point quite salient. There’s a nice tension of the black and white footage with the haunting music that is embedded underneath it all. The echoing gunshot before setting up the real plot of the movie sets a good tone.

Now, here comes the tricky nature of having a movie that has three, separate storylines. Good work on letting us know that there are three stories, first of all, as this helps those among us who are going to try and understand what’s happening. You’ve got Forest Whitaker, Donald Sutherland and Marcia Gay Harden leading these small vignettes and the hard part here is to give equal time to all the stories without confusing everyone.

You run the risk anyway of confusing people with a blazing fast trailer that hits the high points and money shots without giving much context but a movie like this has to be presented logically otherwise you run the risk of presenting a movie that isn’t quite accurate; not that hasn’t stopped Michael Bay from making trailers for his films but I digress.

All three of the stories here look compelling enough. You get the meat of the storyline quickly and without a lot of obfuscation. It gets dicey when you start having the players present start their bombastic acting moments, obviously reacting to heady contexts of their own, as I want to know what’s happening but there just isn’t enough time here. It’s done as well, though, as it can be. For that, it rises above the schizophrenia that plagues lesser films that just have to keep track of a few people.

Sidebar kudos go to Tony Goldwyn and his crying-like-a-little-woman display of emotions as a cop who just wants to have a good cry. I don’t know what has brought him to that level but I do know that I haven’t seen emotion like that since he was pissed that Christian Slater blew up the chief of police’s corvette in KUFFS.

The tempos change, oddly enough, and we’re left to ride out the rest of this trailer in the form of a musical montage. People are hugging, people are moving, things are happening, things are acting and reacting with our players. It’s a bold way to end a trailer. It’s almost like a party that’s really good in the beginning and is left to just run its course without any help from the host or hostess. It really does coast to the end on its own power.

I’m not sure I would want to seek this one out but the trailer does as well as it can for what it is.

By the way, I stated I would never assist any father/son combo where the young liege’s nose is a faucet of platelets. I was required to watch the video again.

Director: Barry Sonnenfeld
Cast: Robin Williams, Cheryl Hines, Jeff Daniels, Kristin Chenoweth
Release: April 28, 2006
Synopsis: Bob McNeive (Williams) and his dysfunctional family rent an RV for a roadtrip to the Colorado Rockies, where they ultimately have to contend with a bizarre community of campers.

Prognosis: Not a chance in hell, not a chance on Earth and not a chance whilst playing Monopoly. There is a need for there to be more family friendly fare at the movie theater, that much I concede.

I’m not someone who actually cares about these things but there is a contingent of the mass movie audience that will come out with fistfuls of dollars should there be something even middle of the road for them to enjoy. And, if I were a betting man I would put this movie up there with what THE GREAT OUTDOORS looked like many years ago; a movie that isn’t threatening to anyone, whose humor is based on simple slapstick and thinly veiled emotions of family togetherness and is destined for late night cable greatness.

I think it took me a full minute of this trailer’s running time before I had something noteworthy to say and, thus, proves my previous point.

I don’t imagine that the genesis for this kind of film was anything more than a germ of an idea that sought to have a vehicle, literally, where Robin Williams could just decompress after all of his “serious” roles that he’s been playing as of late. He’s a dude who lives in the suburbs and has a contentious relationship with his daughter and his son.

There is really nothing special about anything until the plot moves into its second act and we’re introduced to the 2000’s equivalent of the Grizwald Family Truckster. Now, I don’t see Williams mapping out his cross-country travels on a Radio Shack Tandy brand computer, with accompanying 2-bit sound effects natch, but I do think that we’re going to be relying on the chemistry between Williams and Cheryl Hines. Hines has shown herself to be a sharper comedic talent than Williams as of late and so it shall be interesting to see if one overpowers the other.

“Whenever a white man picks up a banjo”¦my cheeks tighten.”

As it stands, though, the wacky misadventures that these people are going on, with Jeff Daniels providing a nice comedic sidebar in this trailer, are fairly basic in terms of the level of edginess that seems to be present here.

If I could compare my feelings to a past trailer it would be precisely the way I felt about the RAT RACE trailer. You’ve got a road trip experience, some comedy tossed in to give it a fuzzy feel and don’t allow any kind of reality in at any cost. Case in point is at one point in this trailer Robin somehow, someway, finds himself hanging onto the front of his RV. He is rolling down a hill, out of control, holding on to dear life and screaming. He wheels past his family who has their back to him, of course, with Cheryl doing the whole “Did you hear that?” thing but it’s slapsticky. Parents will love it, kids will think it’s funny but, to me, that’s why I’m not going to spend money on it.

It’s all about demographical advertising and I am not on that list for this movie. Knowing where you level out, just like when Mr. Wizard taught us all about the density of different clear liquids, is just all a part of understanding what kind of movies are and are not made for you.

Director: Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris
Cast: Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Paul Dano
Release: July 28, 2006
Synopsis: This movie tells the story of the Hoovers, one of the most endearingly fractured families ever seen on motion picture screens. Together, the motley six-member family treks from Albuquerque to the Little Miss Sunshine pageant in Redondo Beach, California, to fulfill the deepest wish of 7-year-old Olive, an ordinary little girl with big dreams.

Prognosis: So close to making the list. Hmm, art for art’s sake or a really good movie?

I don’t know why but the eternal question for all motion pictures that skirt the line of being independent and those that are made solely because some studio head wants to see the wacky misadventures of some actor making waves that month on Access Hollywood will always remain.

I’m not sure how this one falls but with Steve Carell, the gotta-have-him guy for the moment, leading the way here I am at a loss to really try and see if this is really a flick that deserves the imprint of the ever malleable definition of “independent.” It’s a moot point, really, because this trailer really starts off well.

The family at the heart of this movie all gets their due in the first quarter of this trailer’s run time. You’ve got the questionably well-adjusted mother and father playing host and hostess to a son who chooses not to talk because of a long dead philosopher; Steve, who I can’t for sure make out of whether he chooses to be a live-in guest at his brother’s house or if there’s something else afoot; and the wily father character played by my man Alan Arkin, who plays crazy better than anyone else available.

You’ve got the obligatory pre-press for the film that flashes briefly on the screen. This is not only well-done in terms of the transitions from one to the next but the font and screen time devoted to these quotes are well timed. It’s easy to plaster big words and big name publications but they are done here with consideration for the viewer and that’s well noted here.

And, what else is really surprising, there is an extended scene that we’re left to watch play out. It’s daring to not just whip through multiple sound bite worthy moments but the decision to let everyone in the house know why uncle Steve is living with his brother, that he was in love with a grad student who didn’t love him back and thus made him want to kill himself, was a good choice. It’s not as funny as I would’ve thought it could have been with someone other than Kinnear being the straight man but it still provides the desired effect.

What’s more is that when we eventually learn that this movie is kind of not about Steve, although even after I watched this trailer I am not quite sure that’s the case, but is, in fact, about Kinnear’s kid I try and switch gears. This is about a beauty pageant in California and the road trip that ensues when the whole family decides to get in the ol’ VW van and head west into Cali. I’m kind of disappointed here as the interesting moments about this film trail off.

You get a whole lot of mugging to camera, ostensibly to show how silly this movie is going to be, but you don’t get any real substance. This is about one family’s journey to connect with something, I assume, but after learning about the pageant and Steve’s attempted suicide I’m not so sure there was anything left to get me in the mood to Steve bring the funny once more.

(Laughs)

You know, what’s funny I actually felt this pressure early on because he and I are best friends in this movie and I thought, “I am going to get some serious hate mail from Mewes’ fans.” Because I do not want to be the guy who steps into Jason Mewes’ thing and ruins this buddy feel.

But, thankfully, my character couldn’t be further from Mewes. I play a guy that’s anal retentive, a little high strung”¦so I don’t think people will be drawing too many comparisons between me and Jason anytime soon.

So, when is this movie eventually going to come out? I saw the trailer and it said this spring.

You know, I heard from Susannah and I talked with Kevin, I think the movie, for one reason or another, Sony is resituating the film so that Jennifer [Garner] can promote it when she’s still not working on Alias which will be around January of 2007. It’s just one of those things. Everyone I talk to”¦Kevin said, “You know who this sucks for? This sucks for Sam because we all have careers.”

(Laughs)

All I can say is one of the first jobs I got when I came out to LA was that I was cast in TRAFFIC.

Really? I didn’t see you attributed in the credits”¦

And the reason is because I was cut out of the movie.

Here was this movie where I thought, “This is a great stepping stone for me!” I was feeling pretty big in my britches and I went to the premiere to with my girlfriend and I’m sitting in the theater and”¦my scene passes. And I lean over to my girlfriend and I said, “That was the scene I was in.” She went, “That one?!” And it kind of dawned on her that I wasn’t in the scene she had just seen and she just kind of held my hand as my ego was horribly deflated.

Tell me, honestly, what was it like to just see that happen before your eyes? You could play it cool and tell me “It just happens” but really”¦

Yeah, I was torn. I think a lot of times in life, at least for me, when I start to feel really confident, there’s some higher being, some presence, call it what you will, that comes down and smites me and I…had been smoten. It’s just a way that keeps me from taking any role, or opportunity, for granted. There’s so many variables that go into making a movie and being a part of it that it’s just about being thankful for what you have.

Is that what keeps you going?

Yeah.

This is just an unusual job. On the one hand, I’ve never waited around for the phone to ring, I do work hard for these slim opportunities, these auditions”¦and my job essentially is auditioning, it’s not acting. It’s going into a room and trying to sell people on the fact that I am the guy they need to be in their product. That can be a very dangerous position to be in because you’re constantly trying to build yourself up and pat yourself on the back”¦I compare it, like I do to my brother back in Ohio, I’ve come up with an analogy: It’s like going in for a job interview with the perfect company, and you really feel this company is going to go some places and that you can climb the ladder and all these wonderful things”¦and you go in and you feel great about it and you leave and you start talking to your family about how this could be the best job in the world and you find out you don’t get it. Then, if you can, imagine that 50 times a year. It can be”¦no wonder actors can be so precious, so silly, because they’ve had to go through some really ridiculous things.

I am sure actors, all up the ladder, can tell you stories of being”¦insulted or cut down in certain ways.

But, it’s what I do, I’m not complaining about it, I’m really fortunate to be where I am, it’s just a process. I went on an audition yesterday and I got so attached to it because your mind starts racing about where it could lead you, what this could do for you or how you could better the film or role and then it’s gone. You don’t hear back from those people and then you start to think, “Am I good?” Yeah, we actors have such a strange sense, need for approval. I think it runs through all of us. It’s such a balancing act with telling yourself that it’s ok and being ok with realizing that the most important thing is our family, our friends and that what we do is not who we are.

Is your girlfriend an actress?

She is. She’s actually starring in a film that I am directing this summer.

What’s it about?

It’s called TAKE ME HOME. A woman gets into a taxi cab in New York and convinces the driver to take her across the United States. In the process, the two form a relationship and the relationship unfurls across the landscape of America.

One of the things that I sort of realized, especially with CATCH AND RELEASE coming out later, was that no one was going to give me these opportunities. People sit around in this city and wait for these opportunities to come to them. Even producers wait for a magic number, like people are all shooting for a budget. “If we can just get this money, we can make this film.” “If we can just get this star we can make this film.”

One of the things I found so interesting about working with Kevin is that I think he has a certain distaste for stars because they can come in and the movie comes about them as opposed to the script which should always be the most important thing about the film. You always have to serve the script and anybody who comes into the process should serve the script. And so, this movie, instead of shooting for a budget we are going to shoot for a date. So, when August 1st rolls around whether we have $5,000 or $500,000 we are going to shoot this movie. There’s no excuses now. It was a really important decision for me to make. I’m just sort of bulldozing and I am going to try and make the best movie I can by the time we start rolling film or shooting digital and it’s a really exciting process.

Did you ask Kevin for any advice?

Yeah, I’m going to sit down soon and talk to him about it but like the example he set, after CATCH AND RELEASE he said, “You know, I told Susannah, “˜Five million.’ That’s the budget.’ You make a five million dollar movie, it’s the perfect amount of money. You tell people, “˜Listen, it’s a good script, just be a part of it”¦” And that’s something he should be proud of because people are coming to that movie because they believe in Kevin and they are obviously huge fans of CLERKS.

And I will say this, this is another thing I love about that guy, is that when CLERKS II started he invited me to a pre-shooting party at his house and everyone had nametags and everyone was getting to know one another and that’s the way he has kind of built up his community. The people that love Kevin Smith love the fact he allows them a glimpse inside. His fans feel immersed in what he does and that is true. Everyone down the line feels like they are a part of making a movie and I respect that wholeheartedly. So, I am putting together my team for TAKE ME HOME and I am just utilizing that lesson I learned from Kevin.

We’re in the process of shooting it back in Ohio, pulling resources from the college I went to, trying to put people up in dorms, doing whatever we can to save money and still make it look like a 5 million dollar picture. Part of the process is also getting people who love the script, who believe in my abilities and are willing to go along for the ride.

Are you rearranging your schedule to make room for this project?

Yeah, yeah. I get too immersed in the process of making a movie that I have to remember that, “Oh, I get PAID to be an actor. Oh, that’s where the money comes from.” But, pilot season is underway and I am trying to give a lot of time to that as well but my heart has always been in film. I feel it’s like Harrison Ford who used to go into auditions where, he was a carpenter at the time, and people were mystified why he was preoccupied. He was like, “I gotta go build a deck in a half an hour. I’ve got to get this deck done today. Let’s hurry this up.” And, I think, as an actor when you give all of your vitality and all of your feelings of worth to another person or another company to a studio you end up kind of soulless and that’s just one thing I am trying to avoid. I am just trying to not let my ego get sacked by a bunch of people who judge me by whether my collar is ironed or not when I walk into the room.

How do you keep that in check? Do you say, “Well, I’ve got to do this,” regardless of the circumstances or is there some wiggle room for you to say, “I don’t have to go along with this”?

I think in talking with you I realize that I’ve never been cast for something where I was trying to force myself to be someone that I’m not.

The roles I’ve gotten are ones where I happen to be confident with who I was when I walked into the room and confident with the job I did when I walked out. That says something. Sometimes I want a part so badly that I want to immerse myself in it and hold it too tightly, as with everything else we want in life, but it shouldn’t be forced.

Thank you very much for your time.

Those soft, rounded globes pierce right through you and, I dare say, they were able to see my soul when I asked her a total of two questions during the press roundtable, which was more like one dude who felt compelled to ask every twit-laden question rocking around in his noggin and not letting anyone else ask anything, and when she looked back and answered my queries with a friendly countenance. Now, most fan boys seem the need to fawn over the notion that Natalie is the embodiment of all their geek wishes and dreams wrapped in this perfectly shaped feminine vessel. Well, she’s obviously more than that but I do admit that I felt a tinge of something very boyish as I managed to work in a question about THE PROFESSIONAL, a quintessential must-see for any person wishing to start on their education when it comes to Ms. Portman.

Even more than that, though, and I have to be honest, I think I was more in awe with the wattage that Joel Silver brought to the table more than anything else. I know the common “cool” thing to do is say his real name is Joel “Fucking” Silver, an moniker born out of homage to the man who made wearing black leather trench coats by every burn-out and overweight, goth wannabe disciple of Neo and Co. so badass, but please. How old is your average writer on most of the movie sites? Grow the hell up. That said, the guy commands a lot of fucking respect. When he talks, he does it so smoothly that you wouldn’t never guess that this man who is speaking no more than 3 feet away from me has been a part of a lot of big movies.

I do, though, have to give a sorry shout-out to the other two dudes there, the director and co-creator of V, who were all but ignored by the billowing amounts of backed-up sperm producers who almost saw their presence as an intrusion as they tried to get Natalie to speak even more.

It was a weird panel, one that would be repeated by the same kind of pole smoking at the Jack Black panel, which kind of freaked me out and I’ll discuss more of that later, but I liked the way things were going with the kinds of things people were asking about the nature of the movie. V FOR VENDETTA has a weird hybrid as the Wachowski brothers were tightly involved in the production, writing and day-to-day operations of the movie. That’s fine with me, though, as the brothers Wacho are a talented duo who needed to get the hell away from THE MATRIX for a while, yeah I liked Monica Bellucci in tight latex rubber but that only goes so far, and get back to making films.

Anyway, enjoy the panel transcription. At the conference was Natalie Portman, Joel Silver, director James McTeigue and producer by Grant Hill.

Natalie, I noticed in the clip that they played you had a British accent. Can you talk a little about that?

Natalie: I worked with a dialect coach, Barbara Berkery, for about a month and a half before we started shooting and she was with me the whole time and we would do exercises every morning before we started. So, I was pretty comfortable with it by the time we shot but it definitely is an extra thing to think about.

If you could, give us an idea of why you brought V FOR VENDETTA to the Comi-Con”¦

Joel: Well, V FOR VENDETTA comes from a graphic novel, comes from a comic book. So, it’s uniquely suited for this.

Yes, the kinds of things that are associated with this kind of genre, young male, young female, fan base seems to be drawn to Comi-Con. It seems uniquely suited because it is a comic book but it’s a great place to launch something because the viral Internet connection between the convention and the world is enormous. It’s an epidemic. And if something is really cool, and effective, and it works here, people seem to know about that pretty quickly. And I think it is run very well. This is a group that understands what we’ve done. It’s a pleasure to come here, bring everyone here and talk about the product.

The interaction here [at the Con]. You don’t get that at a lot of places. Talk about the kinds of fans you’ve met here”¦

Natalie: They just seem very passionate about this project, they really seem passionate about the comic book, the film coming out, and they seem united in their passion and I’ve seen it in other places.

Do you find any part of your life that you’re passionate about outside of your career?

Well, I definitely never attended a gathering like this. I mean I love music and I would travel far to see a band I liked if I had the time and cash to do it. Like, if I found myself in the position to do something like that, I would do that.

When you first got the script and you found out that your character is going to be shaved did you think if you would have to put on a skull cap? When did that conversation take place?

The first time I met Larry [Wachowski] and James James McTeigue. They asked me, “Would you shave your head?” And I was like, “Yeah!” Everyone else made such a bigger deal of it than I did.

It seemed the brothers [Wachowski] have done a little more on a movie that they weren’t the directors of. Can you explain the relationship between where the one relationship of producer ended and director began?

Joel: It’s the boys’ vision. No, it’s David Lloyd’s vision. And they [the director and producers of the film] took their vision and crafted a script, which they wrote even before we made THE MATRIX. The first draft they made of V was many many years ago and they came back to it after MATRIX REVOLUTIONS and they wanted to give James the chance to direct the picture. But, they were there. I mean, they were there everyday. They were on the set and they were very involved with the look and the feel of the movie. I mean the movie was directed by James, produced by myself and Grant”¦

Natalie: I also think that they are the second unit directors, they are also the producers and the writers which is more than most second unit directors so I think, just in that nature, they were a lot more involved than usual. In that respect they gave James the chance to create his own vision and do his own work. It was just they, you know, helped with ideas as writers and producers and second unit directors.

Joel: Grant, why don’t you comment on how they worked together?

Grant: Obviously, there’s a key family group which has developed through THE MATRIX films and into this. Larry and Andy developed a strong relationship with James as well as several other key people involved with the production. It’s very much a symbiotic thing. It’s very hard to sort out where the demarcation lines are, they are very much in it for James to make his movie. As Natalie has said they wrote it, they wrote the screenplay and they were very active in producing it and, fundamentally, want to make a good movie. And they wanted to give James the opportunity to do that.

Boo-yah, here’s question one of two that I was able to ask on my own. Not that anyone cares but I just thought to point that out for my own erudite and shameless reasons

Natalie, Luc Besson to George Lucas. Do you find that when you’re working with a European director versus an American director there are any fundamental differences that inform your performance or technique?

Natalie: I think it’s more an individual difference than a European/American difference. I mean, I worked with a few non-Americans. It’s hard to make generalizations but individual differences”¦all over the place. It’s very different of how people will direct you, like Luc Besson, like Larry Wachowski, like Anthony Minghella will shout things out to you in the middle of a scene, and there are other directors who will never say a thing. Woody Allen I don’t think ever said anything to me the entire time I worked with him.

(Laughs)

I don’t think he knows I worked with him. But, I think, it’s very individual difference but I think it has to do personality.

In the comic V is a terrorist but he’s also a good guy. How do you handle that in this movie?

James: You say he’s a good guy but he is a good guy, in the one sense, but he is a homicidal maniac. He’s not heroic in the sense that he only kills people that deserve to be killed. He has complete, absolute dedication to wreaking vengeance on people who maybe have changed their ways, who have reformed. He’s not really a good guy and I think that’s kept in the film. He’s very complicated, he’s a great character. I was quite disturbed when the idea of making a Hollywood movie about this guy because it would be so easy to make him a good guy. In fact, he’s not. He’s a very complicated character and he actually has a lot of the traits of the terrorists who wreaked havoc on London. It’s that complication, those nuances that are still in the screenplay and I think that’s very good.

Me again

Joel, you have a penchant for taking ideas and making them big. When I think of big picture, I think of you. When you got the comic book what did you see where you could say, “Oh, I could punch this up right here”¦”?

I acquired this thing many years ago in the late 80s when I acquired The Watchmen; I had them both and I was not able to hold onto Watchmen but I did hold onto this. I was intrigued by it. When I read it, it was black and white galleys. It hadn’t even come to America. It was just beginning to be seen by people.

I was just intrigued by this incredibly weird society and this story about this guy and this girl. And I thought, “I could make this movie.” And that’s how you do it. It’s almost 20 years later when we’re finally making it but it exited me and I thought we could find a way to make it great. And, when the boys wrote it and, again, it was before they made THE MATRIX, their script was effective but nowhere near as it was when they went back and did it again because it really came to life. It’s a remarkable film. It’s quite thrilling to watch it all come together.

Ditto, Holmes.

Is Watchmen out of your hands now?

It was one of the only DC comics left over at Warner Brothers. I was head of Fox at the time and I acquired it there. So, when I went back to Warners it was gone. And then it moved about town. But, I don’t know. There are now so many pieces of material that tread on Watchmen territory that I don’t know. When it came it out it was a blinding beacon that now it will just seem derivative because so many things have come since it that are based on ideas that are in that book.

Natalie, Now, what do you think of the message in the book?

Natalie: I don’t think necessarily there is a message. That’s part of what David is saying. It’s not a manipulative story that says “This person is the good guy, you should fall in love with him. This is the bad guy”¦” I mean, you definitely have one who you can probably identify with more but who’s heavily flawed and you can also criticize him more. I think it’s more of a provocative piece than a “This is what is what you should think” piece and trying to make you think, make you criticize, make you object, find faults in someone’s ideology or agree with parts. It’s not black and white and that’s why I liked it. It made me have questions I couldn’t answer or I had different answers to every five minutes and it has continued to be that way for me.

Did you see the script first or did you read the comic book, then the script?

Natalie: I saw the script first. The script had to condense a lot of the sub-plots to make it a film but it is very faithful to the graphic noel. I think that story”¦things that explore how we define violence is very interesting because we have many categories to how we define violence. Was it intended? Was it state sanctioned or is it individually sanctioned? All these things, we make sort of moral judgments and categorizations. That’s why some of these categorizations are in the eye of the beholder and that’s why some people who watch this will identify with the government and that’s why some people will identify with the revolutionaries. And that sort of openness, that sort of ambiguity, is interesting.

Last one, I swear

Women and the parts for them. It’s fairly common to see women in movies in the subversive roles and this part really has you in the dominant position. Do you find a good mix of interesting roles coming to you?

Natalie: Well, I see a lot of movies that aren’t very interesting for women or for men. And, in terms of things that I do, I have been able to find things that I am interested in and, when I don’t, I like not working.

(Laughs)

But I wouldn’t, like, cry over it if I couldn’t find something interesting. And, if you can’t find something interesting, make something interesting that isn’t movies. There is plenty out there that is interesting that doesn’t involve movies.

Director:Ricardo de Montreuil
Cast: Bárbara Mori, Christian Meier, Manolo Cardona, Gaby Espino, Beto Cuevas
Release: April, 2006 (Limited)
Synopsis: After almost 10 years of marriage, attractive Zoe discovers that her marriage lacks passion and surprise, and is seduced by the possibility of finding those sensations already forgotten in her husband’s brother. From this premise a series of events lead these three characters to a dangerous game of revenges, secrets and passions. Two brothers and one woman: the triangle is outlined in a disquieting way. It is a bomb that triggers family secrets, the contained rage of desire and the unmanageable power of love. An exciting story that subjugates the viewer from beginning to end.

Prognosis: Very Positive. I think that the natural evolution from being exposed to hardcore Latin cinema, courtesy of AMORES PERROS and Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, has warmed me a bit to wanting to see a flick that doesn’t include dusty and dirty youths trying to get their groove on or wanting to throw down with the nearest available ruffian.

A drama about a woman who steps out on her husband with the husband’s brother? Throw in a little sizzle, a pimp pad where all this goes down, plus set it in a warm climate where you’re gonna get a pool scene where you things aren’t going to go well for our cuckolded husband? Nice.

I feel obliged to start out by commenting on the music that begins this trailer. The musical bed directs emotion, no question, and the music coordinator here deserves some love by popping in a track that not only is pleasing but sets the mood like candles on the dining room table.

When we meet the couple that will no doubt implode like a supernova by film’s end, I’m unsure if these are actors or Banana Republic models. It’s okay, though, as that’s what actors are for; you rarely see the ugly ones holding anyone’s attention and the fact that the dude looks like Jeremy Sisto’s long lost Latin brother and Eva Mendes’ hotter sister only ballasts my superficial interest in what exactly is happening. And I’m glad I am not blasted by plot points. We take time here and I appreciate just being able to soak in the atmosphere.

Also, and this is a mind blower, this trailer allows its players to talk. As is my theory about what film studios want their foreign language films to do in order to get people to see them, not allowing the native language to be uttered is usually the norm. Not here, though, and I genuinely love it. You get a feel for this couple’s relationship with one another and, after seeing her splayed out on the bed in her underwear, I can honestly say my interest level increases with regard to what seems to be the issue.

As this husband, this wife, talk you are much better served in defining who is hurting whom by listening to their voices, their intonations.

We meet the brother who treats his hair like it’s a refuge for birds but dresses nice and seems to have a vibe about him that lures the young wife away from her distant husband. What I like here is the slow motion close-up of our bride placing her wedding ring and band on the nightstand, ostensibly to start hittin’ it. We don’t see the act happen, we never see the brother and the wife kiss, it’s all implied and the husband’s questioning of whether his wife loves him is emotionally effective. I believe it.

The modern style house that all this infidelity happens in is great eye candy. The mood of the house also reflects the relationship between these two people: cold, clean, gorgeous but, ultimately, heartless. Our people talk, the subtitles come up and none of it is a distraction to me; it helps to establish these characters.

The highest honors go to this trailer and I promise to do all I can to see how all of this translates, ultimately, to the whole film.

Director: Nathaniel Hornblower (AKA Adam Yauch) (dir.)
Cast: Beastie Boys (MCA, Mike D, Adrock)
Release: March 31, 2006
Synopsis: A formally innovative feature film experience, the Beastie Boys handed out 50 cameras to audience members at their sold-out performance in New York’s famed Madison Square Garden in October 2004. These 50 different passionate perspectives shot from the point-of-view of the audience take the viewer deep inside the world of a live Beastie Boys show.

Prognosis: Positive. Now this is a concert film worth getting excited about.

Thanks to Chappelle’s BLOCK PARTY the party line about what can draw in an audience has changed a bit. You can have an entire feature filled with music and not run the risk of completely alienating the audience and my only hope is that hype meets with performance for this one.

“In a world”¦”

The Beastie’s have always been known for their ability to rock a mic but they’re also adept at being fun without looking silly. They’ve got senses of humor and everything from their video for SABATOGE (always a fun video to watch all the way through) to their first real single unleashed on the world, FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO PARTY, has always reinforced their ability to lay it down about injustices in the world while also telling you how great it is to be married, “rockin’ the sure shot.” That’s why opening this trailer with the voiceover that starts in with the words “In a world”¦,” one of the most tried and true tropes of trailer creation, rings that superciliousness bell once more.

The next shot that shows us the back heads of the Beasties, dashing past the pretzel concession stand while in slow motion, the building of anticipation for what’s about to come is executed really well. Most everyone knows that this is all being done tongue-in-cheek but it’s great fun.

“When pure evil reigns over the realm of humans”¦ “

The shot of the guy who is no doubt sporting Kentucky Mud Flap under his mesh hat and handlebar moustache, his hands flailing around in slow motion comedy, does nothing less than induce laughter in me; he’s a fan, to be sure, but I guess he gets credit for rocking out.

“Only the strongest can rise to the challenge”¦”

The shot of the swirling mosh pit of enthusiastic fans and churning energy that’s being released with every shove and push captures the rawness of how this show is going to go. I never thought that a Beastie’s show was so physical but the buildup of the three guys about to get on stage helps to foreshadow the fact that they are about to break it down in a big way.

What’s also important to note is that the switching perspectives that’s shown here helps to establish the fact that there are multiple people responsible for shooting this movie but it’s never said. The montage at the very end of what dozens of cameras recorded, I am positive, only whets the appetite for any casual fan in showing that this movie’s experiment to show what happens when you entrust the shooting to your average person is going to have a huge payoff.

I can’t say for sure of whether this will be an ok film or that they should’ve entrusted someone like Spike Jonze with directorial duties but the world needs more concert films and I am glad that this is the band that’s comin’ correct to the big screen.

Director: Nick Cassavetes
Cast: Emile Hirsch, Justin Timberlake, Anton Yelchin, Shawn Hatosy, Ben Foster, Sharon Stone, Dominique Swain, Lukas Haas, Bruce Willis
Release: May 12, 2006
Synopsis: ALPHA DOG is inspired by the true story of Jesse James Hollywood, a mid-level drug dealer from the San Gabriel Valley whose thirst for power led him to become the youngest man ever to appear on the FBI’s Most Wanted list. Emile Hirsch stars as teenage suburban drug dealer Johnny Truelove, an ambitious young man whose lifestyle is a mecca for guns, sex and drugs. When a “client” cheats Johnny and a deal goes bad, he devises a plan to get his money back by kidnapping the client’s younger brother. But things take an unexpected twist as Johnny and his crew get caught up in the dangerous and violent world they once idealized.

Prognosis: Negative. I really don’t want to believe that Justin Timberlake is a good actor.

I try to spend all my waking hours avoiding reading about this pop pud and his string bean girlfriend but along comes this movie that everyone’s talking about and I find myself having to give that gimp a fair shake instead of recusing myself from the flick altogether. My natural instinct to dismiss the movie because of him but that’s just not fair and I’m glad I didn’t.

The initial moments of this movie play out like a David Hockney painting; the American idealized, suburban lifestyle is one that has been derided as being soulless and that’s what comes across as you feel the numbing effects of suburbia.

You’re given images of turnpikes, po-pop’s responding to a disturbance at the local Krispy Kreme, kids playing little league. This is when a woman, someone off camera, says that the kids who are ostensibly going to meet, are good kids. The latter statement usually is in response to something completely awful that a pack of juveniles who have been given everything have done and are in need of defending.

The woman goes on to explain that the kids were living the rap version of “the life.” Again, these are kids who spend their afternoon playing X-Box, possibly schmoking a lil’ weed in between while the parents are off making the money to afford the lifestyle they’re all accustomed to.

“Inspired by true events.”

Now this is my favorite tagline and I give props to the filmmakers for busting out this little wee factoid so early in the trailer; it always makes me pay attention a little more closely.

Now, I’m a little thrown by what comes next. Our pro/ant/agonist is Emile Hirsch who, we’re told, is the ringleader for this little tribe of teens who are getting involved in something illicit. Now, the assorted images of Emile and his “crew” don’t tell me anything. Yeah, we’ve got Justin Timberlake doing pull-ups, his skinny frame belays any attempt to make him seem tough, and we even have Angel himself, Ben Foster, talking in a riddle-ish type speak to someone who’s looking to hang with him for the evening.

It’s all very scattered. Emile tells some guy who owes him some money that he go and make himself useful by working off the debt but I am getting a little aggravated that we’re not really being told what in the hell is going on. Is it drugs? Is it a gambling ring? Is it a high school prostitution ring and, if so, why couldn’t this have been going on in 1993? (West side Barrington representin’, yo.)

We’ve got a lot of innuendo but nothing to show for it.

When I see that we’re halfway through the trailer I begin to think that, for sure, we’re gonna get some context. It’s all about context and even though I had a little faith that we would get somewhere I get Ben Foster, donning that creepy ass tenor he used when he was on Six Feet Under, as he squaring off Emile. Ben, too, owes Emile money and decides to kidnap Ben’s brother until it gets resolved.

The hostage is oddly calm and optimistic throughout this whole ordeal, which is a little weird, and, of course, Ben’s parents flip out when they figure out Ben is using that creepy voice from Six Feet Under again; nothing good ever happens when he does it.

And, then, out of nowhere, we get a card that says 3 days, 38 witnesses. Now, three days I get. I understand that. 38 witnesses? That’s a few dozen people and I haven’t seen a few dozen people in this trailer but then I get our hostage getting his flirt on inside a pool with some lady. At first I’m thinking I’m watching the video to the Smashing Pumpkins’ “1979” but I remember that this all about Emile.

I’m flat out confused. Is this drug related or what? Why was this boy kidnapped? I don’t have the answers to any of these things and you can lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of improper contextualization. If I don’t know why Emile stole a boy for ransom why should I care about any of these events? I don’t feel trusted as a viewer, like it’s a reveal that needs hiding, and I don’t like it.

I appreciate that the trailer ends with a wicked cool card that tells us that Emile’s character fled the country in 1999 and then was arrested in Paraguay in 2005. Now that’s the kind of “ooh” “ahh” I like in my trailers. I find it amusing that the final, final card tells us that the names, events and details of this “true” event have been changed for whatever reason but a quick search on New Line’s own website yields us all the information we need right here. It befuddles even me, people.

Director: Michael Caton-Jones
Cast: Sharon Stone, David Morrissey
Release: March 31, 2006
Synopsis: Novelist Catherine Tramell (Stone) is once again in trouble with the law, and Scotland Yard appoints psychiatrist Dr. Andrew Glass (Morrissey) to evaluate her. Though, like Detective Nick Curran before him, Glass is entranced by Tramell and lured into a seductive game.

Prognosis: Funniest thing I’ve seen all year. Two thumbs up.

“But you know I saw this movie this year called last year called ‘Basic Instinct.’ Okay now…Bill’s quick capsule review: Piece-of-shit. Okay now. Yeah, yeah, end of story by the way. Don’t get caught up in that fevered hype phoney fucking debate about that Piece-of-shit movie. “˜Is it too sexist, and what about the movies, are they becoming too dddddddd.’ You’re, you’re just confused, you don’t get, you’ve forgotten how to judge correctly. Take a deep breath huuh, look at it again. “Oh, it’s a Piece-of-shit!” Exactly! That’s all it is. Satan squatted, let out a loaf, they put a fucking title on it, put it on a marquee, Satan’s shit, piece of shit, walk away. “˜But is it too, what about the lesbian connot.. ddddd.’ You’re, you’re getting really baffled here. Piece-of-shit! Now walk away. That’s all it is, it’s nothing more! Free yourself folks, if you see it, Piece-of-shit, say it and walk away.”
-Bill Hicks, 1992

“People just are sitting there going, like, ‘I don’t care what she’s saying, I don’t care what she’s saying, I just want to know, does she get naked in the movie? Is she naked? Nude nude nude naked Do I see her boobies? I don’t care what she’s saying, I don’t care, I don’t care, is she naked?’ So let’s just get through to that…YES!” […]

And I called my publicist, who’s this great, Jewish woman…”
-The Sharon Stone Experience, 2006, while sitting down next to Simon Peres in Israel discussing her latest role in BASIC INSTINCT 2 by way of Defamer.com

My vote is getting cast early, children, for my favorite comedy of 2006: BASIC INSTINCT 2. I would put the Billy Ocean World Tour ’06 on my list of needless things right above this movie’s existence and I am doing everything in my power to not shred this thing before we’ve all had a chance to indulge in this trailer’s goodness.

Because we are an equal opportunity column here I will reserve judgment until we make our way through this one which begins, oddly enough, solidly.

You’ve got a nice wide shot of London proper, with po-pos, or Bobby’s as you crumpet eating limeys would say, all descending on a crime scene. Our detective in charge of this investigation, a rough looking man with his tie sexily loosened up just a wee bit, is ranting that some chick’s fingerprints are all over the crime scene and that a psychologist is needed in order to declare our “suspect” insane.

Now, while I am all about having a woman kept behind bars, the world needs more movies about caged heat, I found my nads recoiling as we see Sharon Stone, looking quite mannish, trying to affect the sexiness of a woman who knows she is on the other side of a wall that is littered with the faces of ladies who should just let nature take its course.

“So, is this where we’re gonna do it?”

Oh, sweet Lord, did she really drop that double entendre? I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

So, she starts in with this psychologist by telling him that she’s a writer that toils in sexual perversions and power relationships that are about as healthy as anything you see on Desperate Housewives on a good day. She’s trying, really hard, to make us feel that her deviancy and lustiness are combos that will get dudes all schweaty in their drawers. Unfortunately, she just comes across as holding on too long like the old Asian madam in BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA who is harboring the hotter meat in the annals of her cherry ranch; it’s sad, really. I half expect Kurt Russell to charge onto the screen but, alas, it doesn’t happen.

Not more than a few seconds later, the most unintentional, comedic moment happens. When her interview with the police’s psychologist rages on, Ms. Stone straddles a chair from the front. Instead of her beav being flashed to us the chair’s thick back support fully covers Stone’s privates like a big censor’s obstruction. I’d like to thank the Academy for that. It made me laugh.

I am at a loss to try and make sense of our psychologist’s attraction, and eventual giving in to, Sharon’s wiles. I guess the movie wouldn’t be as interesting if he called her out on her obvious insanity and delusions of grandeur but that moment when the two of them kiss I don’t immediately think this is a romance between two hot people; it’s an obvious cougar attack and our young boy has been vanquished by this woman who would probably fit in better at the Howard Johnson hotel bar on Karaoke Jam night than she would at a hipster night club.

“I feel like a cigarette”

Yes, Sharon has the last word in this trailer and I couldn’t agree more. For what better of an image of a smoldering, old butt that’s about to be flicked to the ground and twisted into the concrete to describe how this film’s going to be received?

I think if you’re going to see it, be open to it, don’t let what I’ve seen here be any indication of its goodness or badness. I just believe you’ve got to be in the mood to laugh.