We’re introduced to Elizabeth’s incredibly ordered life, with everything in its place and time. One gets the impression that the queen manages her affairs very well, that there’s nothing she can’t handle. Indeed, this is demonstrated when Elizabeth meets her new prime minister, an, idealistic young man by the name of Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) He’s understandably nervous during their first meeting, but Elizabeth, cool as ever, handles the situation. No matter the problem, the queen is in control.

Or so it seems. When word of Diana’s death in a car accident in Paris hits, Elizabeth’s thought is to say nothing at first. It’s not so much because she basically detested Diana, but because this is what she thinks the people want and need: in times of turmoil, a monarchy that serves as a model of stoicism and strength.

But as time goes on, the people’s outpouring of grief grows, and they start grumbling about the queen. Why hasn’t she made a public statement about Dianna’s death? How can she ignore her people’s grief? Why have a queen if she can’t even provide comfort for her subjects?

It’s that last point that lends substance to the film. The question of the monarchy’s relevance in modern times is often discussed, but even those who aren’t fans of the royals have held a soft spot for the history they embody. Most Brits have been content to let the royals be the spiritual symbols of the Empire, making speeches and appearances while the prime minister does all the real work. However, since Elizabeth’s not even doing that, the people become outraged.

Actress supreme Helen Mirren does a perfect job of capturing the prevailing image of Elizabeth II. Her every movement is the embodiment of the stiff-upper-lip Brit. There’s no over-emoting here, no panic or hysteria as public sentiment turns against her. But her queen isn’t a cold, unfeeling woman either. Elizabeth loves her family fiercely (though as Charles remarks, she’s not too good at showing that). Indeed, it’s this desire to protect her family that is partly responsible for her silence, as she doesn’t want to expose their private grief to the public. Gotta be a model of strength, remember.

And say what you will about Elizabeth, she fiercely loves her country. Overlaying the stoicism are flashes of resolve, irritation, and, as sentiment against her grows, confusion, consternation, and finally, perhaps even a bit of hurt. Mirren displays those emotions subtly: a teaspoon put down in exasperation… a walk in the woods, legs pumping determinedly…a slight drooping of the face displaying anguish. Beneath the surface is a real human, one whose inner battle of holding to tradition or giving in to the madding crowd is actually sympathetic.

Sheen plays well off Mirren. At first he’s everything the queen isn’t: approachable, passionate, openly affectionate, and unsure at times. But as the crisis continues to mount, he too is transformed. He begins to assert himself as he fights the queen to give the people a sign she cares. The most surprising change, though—especially to Blair himself—is from modern liberal to defender of what Elizabeth represents. In one memorable scene Blair angrily defends the queen to his own subordinates. The people still need the monarchy, and what it represents, states this liberal man now showing very traditional views. The moment’s especially poignant when taken in recent context, as it’s the first hints of a conservative bent that will ultimately have Blair profoundly disappointing his supporters with future moves like the invasion of Iraq. It’s an important, thrilling, and sad moment.

Later, when Elizabeth has given the people the speech they wanted, all seems to be well: her subjects love her again, Blair has shown strength and gained the queen’s respect. Both have changed, but is it for the better? How can anyone rule—monarch or elected official—in a world of constant media coverage and minute-by-minute polls where the will of the people changes like the winds? Is it worth even trying to stay relevant in a world where a dead partying princess who hung out with designers and rock stars is given more respect than a woman who has devoted her entire life to her country?

In some ways “The Queen” feels like a standard TV movie, especially given the narrow focus and time period it covers. But with a fine performance by Steen, a great one by Mirren, and pertinent questions of fame, duty, and respect, it manages to lift itself above being just another biopic. And no quibbles on my part for Mirren’s Oscar win.

Ratatouille

Category: Action/Adventure, Comedy, Kids/Family and Animation Rating: G Run Time: 1 hr. 51  min.

Distributed by Buena Vista Pictures Distribution, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures International

Release Date: June 29th, 2007

Synopsis: A rat named Remy dreams of becoming a great French chef despite his family's wishes and the obvious problem of being a rat in a decidedly rodent-phobic profession. When fate places Remy in the sewers of Paris, he finds himself ideally situated beneath a restaurant made famous by his culinary hero, Auguste Gusteau. Despite the apparent dangers of being an unlikely - and certainly unwanted - visitor in the kitchen of a fine French restaurant, Remy's passion for cooking soon sets into motion a hilarious and exciting rat race that turns the culinary world of Paris upside down.

The film is also unexpectedly moving in the way it unites all its major characters in their passion for food and the warm feelings that come with it. Bird and his sterling collaborators have created something wholly new here. It's the haute cuisine of contemporary animation. Plus it's crazy about Paris, the way films such as "Funny Face" were crazy about Paris, and rarely have you glimpsed more supple and detailed images of a great city and its eccentric inhabitants.

Ratatouille" is a tale of two young males growing up and making their way in their respective worlds, which intersect in clever ways. Remy the rat lives in the French provinces with his dad, Django, his brother, Emile, and extended rat clan. The young rat's rarefied nose and highly developed palate ("I know what this needs! Saffron!") serve the family well in the role of poison detector.

A food-finding mission takes the rats into a shotgun-wielding woman's farmhouse, to tense results. After shooting the rapids of a nearby river--an exciting scene, and not merely in the I'll-wait-for-the-video-game "Flushed Away" way--Remy is separated from his loved ones and finds himself in the City of Light. The famous deceased chef Gusteau appears to Remy in Tinker Bell-like form, guiding him along until Gusteau, and Fate, plunk Remy into the very kitchen of Gusteau's restaurant, a former five-star landmark fallen on hard times.

Without getting too serious about imparting a lecture on the subject of tolerance and understanding, "Ratatouille" hits on something most every kid feels at some point in her or his life: the attraction of a new world, a new chapter, a universe previously unexplored, preferably one with fresh spices and an eight-burner stove. Early on, a horrified Skinner orders Linguini to dispose of Remy lest the restaurant attract unwanted attention from the health inspector. On the banks of the Seine, trapped in a glass jar, Remy wordlessly entreats Linguini to save him. Slowly the young man realizes that the rat understands what he's saying. He asks Remy if he can cook. The way in which the rat responds--with a shrug and a look of sheepish but unmistakable pride in his abilities--cements the emotional core of the picture. Such fleeting moments make "Ratatouille" special. Like a lot of people, I don't pretend to know how the folks at Pixar do it. How do they make you love a rat? But you will, trust me you will.

The Reaping

Category: Science Fiction/Fantasy, Suspense/Horror, Thriller and Politics/Religion Rating: R for violence, disturbing images and some sexuality. Run Time: 1 hr. 38  min.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: C

What happens when you pair an ex-gang banging Christian turned evangelical scientist with an evangelical banger turned scientist? You get The Reaping. The Reaping got a one-day jump on the Easter weekend, which is fitting, considering it's about religion and faith. Hilary Swank plays Katherine Winter, a woman making a living debunking supernatural biblical stories. Science trumps faith in all of her cases until she's recruited to find out why a Louisiana town's river has turned bloody. Once there, frogs start falling from the sky, livestock die, locusts descend, and several other occurrences happen that indicate a plague of biblical proportions. The small scope in which it happens is not biblical but it must be something special about this town. Katherine believes all of it has a reasonable explanation, but a wild little blonde girl and the town's vigilante like inhabitants sway her opinion.

How Swanks character got to be the woman that she is, is very essential to the script. We learn that her family was killed in Sudan while she was working as a “well meaning missionary” trying to spread the Christian gospel until a Sudanese bad guy blamed them for a local drought. As of course is the image of Africans in today’s Hollywood. Africans are no longer slaves, just blood thirsty killing machines (Blood Diamonds, Last King of Scotland, etc). Its ok for movie houses to write this in because to Hollywood Africa is a country not a continent and its an easy scapegoat that is justified by any act of backward ignorant violence. Ironically the explained ignorance we see is the gang mentality of the rednecks in the town who want to kill the person they think is bringing the plagues on there town.

Hilary Swank said she was intrigued by The Reaping: "When I read the script it was a real page turner. I mean, I read it and I didn't stop and all of a sudden it was over and I was really thinking about it. I really thought about it and not just afterwards, I thought about it the next day, I thought about it the next day and I just loved the concept and the idea." All I can think of after reading what she said is that her reading "must have left a lot out of the film" because this is one fans can wait to see.

Is any of this film thoroughly explained, nope it can’t be, not if you want it to make sense. Even the things that should make sense won’t make sense at times because these slow talking southerners are talking really fast - well at least the lead character does. Swank does a decent job of re-iterating why certain biblical stories are not miracles and have scientific explanations but for some reason she is taking credit for debunking them when several hundred scientist and researchers preceding her have already done this. Ok maybe the audience didn’t know but anyway it gets really convoluted but it works itself out in the end. Actually everything does except for her weird and semi sexual relationship with her former teaching assistant Edris Elba. You won't be mad if you go see this but you might be advised to stay home and read a good book instead. - Nuff said. 

Reno 911! Miami

Category: Comedy, Crime/Gangster and Adaptation Rating: R for sexual content, nudity, crude humor, language and drug use. Run Time: 1 hr. 24  min.

Starring: Robert Ben Garant, Thomas Lennon, Niecy Nash, Mary Birdsong, Cedric Yarbrough

Directed by Robert Ben Garant

Produced by Robert Ben Garant, Kerri Kenney-Silver, Thomas Lennon

Written by: Robert Ben Garant, Thomas Lennon, Kerri Kenney-Silver

Distributed by Universal Pictures Distribution

Release Date: February 23rd, 2007

Synopsis: The officers of the Reno police department visit a national police convention in Miami Beach. When the convention center is bio-attacked, it's up to Reno's "finest" to save the day.

Eyecalone Says: Overall: C+

To be perfectly honest with you I watch a lot of Comedy Central programming, maybe too much. As such a heavy viewer of Comedy Central I've stumbled on to more than my fair share of shows on the station, some of which didn't last that long, others that simply weren't very funny, and others still that require a certain sense of humor. Reno 911 probably falls into the last of those categories for me and has always been a secret pleasure of mine. It rarely leaves me curled up laughing but or even doing much more than giggling but I do enjoy the show and the characters, and the same was the case for this movie. 

Perhaps I wasn't in a great mood to see a comedy to begin with when I went to see this film but I was a little disappointed, though I'm not really sure if I should be since I've already described my general reaction to the television show. As a movie Reno 911! Miami translates nearly perfect from the Comedy Central TV show, perhaps too well. If you're a fan of the show you'll in all likelihood like this movie as it captures all the elements that make the show funny. For instance the appearances of the hilarious characters the Reno Sheriffs often encounter when making arrest.  If you're not a fan of the show or have never seen it before you might find Reno 911! Miami amusing but you probably won't be able to fully appreciate the movie as it's based heavily on the idiosyncrasies and quirks of the officers of the Reno police department, the show's main characters, such as one Black officer's penchant for White Women, another officer's unspoken homosexuality, and the emotional instability, utter idiocy, and complete lack of regard for police procedure of other officers. In a nutshell if you're looking for a cheap laugh with a few adult situations, and a tiny bit of nudity, and/or you're a fan of the show you'll probably want to check this out. If none of the aforementioned applies to you then you might want to pass, but who knows perhaps there is enough funny stuff in Reno 911! Miami to make some new fans of my secret Comedy Central pleasure.  

Rush Hour 3

Category: Action/Adventure, Comedy, Crime/Gangster and Sequel Rating: PG-13 for sequences of action violence, sexual content, nudity and language. Run Time: 1 hr. 30 min.

Starring: Jackie Chan, Chris Tucker, Max von Sydow, Noemie Lenoir, Hiroyuki Sanada

Directed by Brett Ratner

Produced by Leon Dudevoir, Arthur Sarkissian, Roger Birnbaum

Written by: Jeff Nathanson (Screenplay current rewrite), Ross LaManna (Source Material from characters)

Distributed by New Line Cinema

Release Date: August 10th, 2007

Synopsis: In the heart of Paris lies a deadly secret. Half a world away in Los Angeles, Ambassador Han is about to disclose it. In his possession is explosive new evidence about the inner workings of the Triads--the most powerful and notorious crime syndicate in the world. The Ambassador has discovered the identity of Shy Shen, the very crux of the wide-ranging crime ring, and he's about to reveal it to the World Criminal Court--until he is silenced by an assassin's bullet. The Triads will go to any lengths to make sure their secrets stay buried, and there's only one hope for stopping them. LAPD Detective Carter and Chinese Inspector Lee are back--back where they don't belong. The unlikely duo is headed to the City of Lights to stop a global criminal conspiracy and save the life of an old friend, Ambassador Han's now-grown daughter, Soo Yung. They don't know the city, the language or even exactly what they're looking for, but their race will take them across the city, from the depths of the Paris underground to the breathtaking heights of the Eiffel Tower, as they fight to outrun the world's most deadly criminals and save the day.

Review Courtesy of Esther Iverem of SeeingBlack.com: Overall: N/A

Maybe the change is because Tucker has been spending a lot of his time chilling out and digging into his African heritage. Maybe it is because he is nearly ten years older than he was when the first “Rush Hour” was released in September 1998. At that time, he had just started to flex his acting muscles (in movies such as the classic “Friday”) and infused his film acting with the same youthful, uneducated logic of his comedy routine. Fast forward to 2007, while he still plays the part of a dim bulb, his character gives the appearance of being just slightly more mature and slightly less annoying, while still delivering his share of punch lines.

This version of Tucker makes for a “Rush Hour 3” that doesn’t grate as much on your consciousness. Again, Tucker plays LAPD officer James Carter and his buddy Jackie Chan plays Chief Inspector Lee. Together they team up to solve a crime, create havoc and try to score with the ladies. This time, their misadventure takes them from Los Angeles to Paris, as they delve into the bold daytime shooting of the Chinese consul.

Much of the Black and Asian humor is the same, only recycled into slightly fresher jokes. Chan actually works out during his martial arts fight scenes, while Tucker pretends to fight and draws laughs. The French setting also allows the writers to make fun of real-world tensions between the United States and France, and to bring the storyline up-to-date with references to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Recent buddy comedies (I’m thinking “Wedding Crashers,”) involve two men with loose marbles and even looser ethics acting a complete fool. Movies like “Rush Hour” laid the groundwork for this type of comedy and “Rush Hour 3” carries on the tradition of mindless, action-packed and funny summer entertainment—nothing more and nothing less.

(This review also appeared on www.BlackAmericaWeb.com. Please support us by ordering Esther Iverem's We Gotta Have It: Twenty Years of Seeing Black at the Movies, 1986-2006)

Scary Movie 4

Category: Comedy, Science Fiction/Fantasy, Suspense/Horror and Sequel Rating: PG-13 for crude and sexual humor throughout, some comic violence and language. Run Time: 1 hr. 23  min.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: C

The Scary Movie franchise has had the same direction for the 1st and 2nd with the Wayans Clan, and now with David Zucker for the 3rd and 4th. You either love satire or you don't and playahata.com loves satires. However the extent to which people like the film will depend on the extent to which they go to the movies. I go often but I just so happened to miss some of the films that were spoofed and therefore I probably missed a few jokes. The movies spoofed the most was "War Of The Worlds" - in fact if you missed that film, skip this film because "War Of The Worlds" imagery is central to this film. Also spoofed extensively were "The Grudge", "The Village," "Saw I" and "II,", and "Million Dollar Baby". 

Personally I found the pop culture skits with Tom cruise on Oprah and Shaquille O'neal meeting Dr.Phil to be hilarious. The disses on George Bush were funny but not insightful, it's the type of joke you can't even recall 20 minutes after the film ends. The sight of Dr. Phil mocking himself as Dr. Phil while Shaquille O'neal peddles his Shaq-ness to make fun of his poor free throw shooting. The "Brokeback Mountain" joke with two Black cowboys (Anthony Anderson and Kevin Hart) defending their heterosexuality while reaching for lubricants is funny cause every skit about Brokeback is walking a bit of a thin line. In case you haven't noticed for the most part the Brokeback jokes all deal with sex or innuendo of it. I didn't see Brokeback Mountain but I knew enough about it to recognize when it was being spoofed. This film is better than Scary Movie 3 though not as edgy as the 1st or 2nd, but as in the case with all these films it's quite skimpy on time and less than 90 minutes which is always annoying considering the high price of tickets in 2006. Scay Movie 4 is going to be good at the box office, simply because its a dumbed down film. It's okay for a few cheap laughs, but better suited for late-night cable viewing than even a matinee ticket purchase. If you decide to sit this one out, never fear - I am sure there will be a Scary Movie 5, although I am unsure who will be directing it. By the time its finished all of Hollywood may get a shot at this franchise, since it seems this series is here to stay despite my lukewarm review.

The Sentinel

Category: Drama and Thriller Rating: PG-13 for some intense action violence and a scene of sensuality. Run Time: 1 hr. 48  min.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: C+

There are a few ways to describe The Sentinel that go back and forth with how I feel about it. Admittedly it's a "well-crafted Secret Service thriller but lacks plausibility and character development." However it's "worth a look if you're in the mood for some slick Hollywood escapism that's done well enough, though not brilliantly. I consider it a thriller that begins well but muddles and ends oddly. I after all enjoyed the build-up more than the payoff, which again feels rushed and implausible. Eva Longoria's character is used as a props, she is less convincing while running in heels and pretending to look competent with a gun in her hand.

The Sentinel is not exactly FOX's TV show 24 in a movie format, despite the presence of Kiefer Sutherland and a plot where someone is trying to assassinate the president. The word is the "someone" may be a White House insider, so the head of the Secret Service (Martin Donovan) orders all his agents to take a lie detector test. The plot goes off in a half-dozen different directions, many of them familiar from other thrillers though one of the more original subplots involves the First Lady ( Kim Basinger giving the booty up to a secret service man). Here this First Lady has her own Secret Service secret. The joys of sneaking off with the country's most guarded woman are offset when he suddenly finds himself suspected of being a traitor in a looming assassination attempt on the president. Pete radiates the aggression of a riled-up pit bull straining at its leash behind a chain-link fence; the foam practically drips from the corners of his mouth. In his bizarre code of ethics, it's apparently O.K. for him to be carrying on a steamy, secret affair with the President's wife. He even drops the word love, which lands with the squishy thud of a rotten tomato lobbed from a hotel window.

We never know why Douglass does it, we know Douglas took a bullet during the assassination attempt on President Reagan. Since then, his career has foundered. Perhaps that has something to do with his focus on the job. Assigned to head the security detail for the first lady , he embarks on an affair with her. Basinger is a bit glam for the role, and the notion of such a romance is far-fetched - but that's Hollywood.

---

Shadowboxer

Category: Drama, Thriller and Crime/Gangster Rating: R for strong graphic violence and sexuality, nudity, language and some drug use. Run Time: 1 hr.  32 min.

Starring: Cuba Gooding Jr, Helen Mirren, Vanessa Ferlito, Stephen Dorff, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Directed by Paul Greengrass

Produced by Tucker Tooley, Dawn Lenfest, Sharon Pinkenson, Marvet Britto, Kareem Biggs, Brook J. Lenfest, Lisa Cortes, Dave Robinson, Lee Daniels, Damon Dash, Simone Sheffield, Chase Lenfest

Written by Will Rokos

Distributed by Freestyle Releasing

Release Date: July 21st, 2006

Synopsis: A noir thriller which delves deep into the harsh underworld of organized crime and uncovers the complex lives of trained assassins, Mikey and Rose, who share a special bond. However, on a particular assignment, when a brutal crime boss wants his wife, Vicky, dead, Rose has a change of heart when they find her pregnant. And so the trio--Rose, Mickey and Vicky, with child--begin a harrowing life on the run. Driven by fierce love, Rose and Mikey protect their new adopted family from present danger, looking to redeem their tragic past.

Bruce Banter Says: Overall: C-

Shadowboxer is Lee Daniels first attempt at producing. He directed popular films such as The Woodsman and Monster's Ball. One thing that we know from those films is that Daniels likes Hip-hop music and artist (Nas last album is heavy on the Soundtrack) and also Lee Daniels loves to show lots of interracial sex in his films. In this latest installment all couples are interracial (Black and White). No Black men love Black women, no White men love White women, only strange pairings of Black and White. The overweight Monique Parker with a skinny White doctor and Cuba Gooding with an older White woman who is twice his age and dying of cancer, they have sex more than he would with a women half his age. There is a lot that is not explained in here because Lee is busy "mult-culturlarizing" everything visually. The acting performances are up to par but there is not really a story here. The story focuses on a twisted pair of assassins (Gooding and Helen Mirren, in an Oedipus relationship). Shadowboxer cast Gooding as the often naked antihero who Daniels obvious likes to look at naked. The sexual energy and depictions of sex or violence are what this film really works with. Macy Gray is playing her usual strange act character but Steven Dorf of Blade Infamy really takes the villain role to the next level. The best part of spending my 7.50 was seeing new upcoming features like Namesake, The Quiet, Hollywoodland and Illusionist. The title of Shadowboxer has little to do with what this film is actually about. This is a soft sex film and interracial erotica. Some say that is what Daniels is all about, if so his fans won’t be disappointed with Shadowboxer.

---

Shooter

Category: Action/Adventure, Thriller and Adaptation Rating: R for strong graphic violence and some language. Run Time: 2 hr.  06 min.

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Kate Mara, Michael Pena, Rhona Mitra, Danny Glover

Directed by Antoine Fuqua

Produced by Erik Howsam, Mark Johnson, Lorenzo di Bonaventura

Written by Jonathan Lemkin, Stephen Hunter (Source Material from novel: "Point of Impact")

Distributed by Paramount Pictures

Release Date: March 23rd, 2007

Synopsis: Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg), a former Marine Corps sniper who leaves the military after a mission goes bad. After he is reluctantly pressed back into service, Swagger is double-crossed again. With two bullets in him and the subject of a nationwide manhunt, Swagger begins his revenge, which will take down the most powerful people in the country.

Bruce Banter Says: Overall: D+

I admit the action junkies get their money's worth, but the whole thing is so stupid that it's not much fun. I can’t begin telling you how unbelievable this mess is, talk about phony. Mark Wahlberg is one of the top three sniper’s in the world but he’s a shooter not phucking MacGyver. He is Rambo in the concrete jungle. Walberg does everything, knows everything and we really have to suspend our sense of reality to stay believing the progression of this story unless we really don’t know any better. He’s ego driven more than he is patriotic and but we are asked to cheer for him. He’s done bad and good but he is so jaded by his past that he groups them all in together. I must admit he is jaded with good reason. If you were working with U.S. Special Forces on an illegal covert operation in the horn of Africa and they abandoned you and left you for dead you might be a little salty also. Despite having no money, ID or government help he finds himself back in the U.S.

Yeah right, in a post 9/11 environment that’s as phony as his driving ½ way across the country with no money or credit card and being able to find some of the greatest spooks-with intelligence clearance superior to his. And we know it’s a post 9/11 world because we see that he has the 9/11 Commission report on his desk at one point. That book is indicative of the bipartisan position of the Walberg character. We are led to believe he has a dislike for the current president (presumably George Bush) but he has equal distrust for the Republicans and Democrats. Ironically he is smart enough to realize that neither parties represent the interest of the common every day American nor yet he is not smart enough to realize a lot of basic corruption aspects of politics until one senator breaks it down to him.

But you have to be naïve to accept the progression of events in the story, in one instance after a scene in which the guy wipes out a paramilitary Special Forces brigade of commandos in Virginia one evening, his truck pulls into Montana the next morning. Get ya map buddy - Montana! Means he drove the 2,000 miles going 200 mph the whole way without a rest stop. Antoine Fuqua directed this crap and I hate to rip the brothers but this movie is really absurd.

Danny Glover is used to represent the United States bad behavior in Africa in the interest of oil countries and he is quite evil but it won’t come off as bad because we see the ill will toward Africa coming from a Black face. He does his best bad guy role since color purple but he can’t save this film. This is a script full of holes and exploding head and body shots for the audience. High on innuendo, action but missing a lot of script writing, realism and endearment. In the end this is a film full of explosions and not much else.

---

Sicko

Category: Documentary and Politics/Religion Rating: PG-13 for brief strong language. Run Time: 2 hr. 03  min.

Starring: Michael Moore

Directed by Michael Moore

Produced by Harvey Weinstein, Bob Weinstein, Kathleen Glynn

Written by: Michael Moore

Distributed by Lionsgate, The Weinstein Company

Release Date: June 22nd, 2007 (NY); June 29th, 2007 (wide)

Synopsis: Acclaimed filmmaker Michael Moore sets out to investigate the American healthcare system. Sticking to his tried-and-true one-man approach, Moore sheds light on the complicated medical affairs of individuals and local communities.

Bruce Banter Says: Overall: A+

Believe the hype, this is Michael Moore's finest hour, we admit it he has a gift for making a point but the point was never clearer than in SICKO. If you've been paying attention you would have already realized that America’s health-care system is a disaster, it’s immoral, unethical, greedy and built to punish the sick and enrich corporations. But the most compelling thing may be giving movie goers a real sense of how poorly U.S. healthcare fares compared with other countries despite more money being fueled into it than all countries examined except France.

Any critic or fan reviews that do not celebrate SICKO are straight hating, biased and too partisan to give credit where it is due. Find a review which doesn’t talk good about SICKO and I am sure you will hear regurgitated talking points that the film debunks like rationed care, long waits for care, underpaid doctors and delayed adoption of new technologies.” Americans would not even need to get hit with higher taxes, our tax money just needs to stop financing phony wars abroad.

Moore’s greatest documentary ability is finding rare footage that is indisputable and driving home a point. True that Sicko" is built to persuade. It succeeds by making us ill with laughter and with shame but also uses personal candid talk from everyday Americans like you and me.

But it is the rare footage that is a key to success. Moore brings out the rare and raw footage to teach us how the American Health care system got into shambles in the first place by pulling out the now released Nixon tapes. We witness back to the Nixon administration for a fascinating secret-tapes conversation in which aide John Ehrlichman urges the president to get behind Kaiser Permanente's HMO approach to health care. (Right after, Nixon announced the HMO Act of 1973.) Moore keeps it gully and later in the film he also brings up Hillary Clinton's doomed attempt to pass a universal health-care bill and then brings it to modern day status and shows how Hillary Clinton is now the second-largest recipient of contributions from health-care corporations. Its not just her, all of the congressional people are paid off.

These are the real folks screwing us over. Moore talks to a doctor whose signature is on a series of denials to a woman suffering from a brain tumor; it turns out the signatures are stamped without the doctor ever reading the claims. SICKO is sick in a good way you better get there as soon as possible, especially if you are healthy. Nuff Said!

Silent Hill

Category: Action/Adventure, Suspense/Horror and Adaptation Rating: R for strong horror violence and gore, disturbing images, and some language. Run Time: 2 hr. 00  min.

Starring: Radha Mitchell, Sean Bean, Laurie Holden, Deborah Kara Unger, Kim Coates

Directed by Christophe Gans

Produced by Samuel Hadida, Don Carmody, Andrew Mason

Written by: Roger Avary

Distributed by TriStar Pictures

Release Date: April 21st, 2006

Synopsis: A woman named Rose, desperate to find her child Sharon, finds herself trapped in an alternate dimension as she searches for her daughter in a world of decay inhabited by strange beings. Over the protests of her husband, she flees with her child, heading for an abandoned town to which the child seems drawn. Sharon disappears in the town, and Rose follows what she thinks is her daughter's silhouette into what seems like an alternate reality. It's soon clear this place is not like anywhere she's ever been. It's smothered by fog, inhabited by a variety of strange beings and periodically overcome by a living Darkness that literally transforms everything it touches. Joined by Cybil, a local police officer, Rose searches for her little girl while learning the history of the strange town and realizing that Sharon is just a pawn in a larger game.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: D

So my kids and kin tell me this movie is based on a video game, who knew. After seeing it, I say, who cares. Even a horror movie designed to tickle the mossy twisted underside of your brain has to be rooted in some sort of earthly logic. Silent Hill is just about as lifeless as its characters. As Radha Mitchell wanders through a ghost town, searching for her lost daughter as though she was touring an abandoned movie set, you can't help but say "that's white people". The movie opens with a certifiably insane mother - whose daughter suffers from nightmares while sleepwalking - crashing her Jeep through a series of chain-link fences in the middle of the night while being pursued by the police. When mom awakens, the daughter is missing. They're in Silent Hill, W. Va., where a mine fire has been burning underground for 30 years. Silent Hill is mostly paralyzing in its vagueness. We ask ourselves who certain people are and what they're doing, and have no idea. Also: ash perpetually falling from the sky, lots of gore and giant cockroaches, plus CGI characters identified in the credits as the Red Pyramid, the Grey Children, the Armless Ones, the Janitor and the Dark Nurses. I can't figure out why parents and kids were flocking to see this movie when a really fantastic film like Akeelah and the Bee was just released. Thou this film had the ingredients it wasn't working for me, : a missing child, a creepy and possibly dead child, which everybody is tired of unless its "Damien", weird drawings, strange writing on the walls, and the usual, vaguely menacing collection of religious slogans and iconography. This hill is silent for a reason, and hopefully the critics will be too unless they're going to tell you how bad this film is. 

The Simpsons Movie

Category: Comedy, Animation and Adaptation Rating: PG-13 for irreverent humor throughout. Run Time: 1 hr.  26 min.

Starring: Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Pamela Hayden, Albert Brooks

Directed by David Silverman

Produced by Hyejoon Yun, David Mirkin, James L. Brooks

Written by: Mike Reiss, George Meyer, James L. Brooks, Ian Maxtone-Graham, John Swartzwelder,  David Mirkin, Matt Groening (Creator), Al Jean, Mike Scully, Jon Vitti

Distributed by 20th Century Fox

Release Date: July 27th, 2007

Synopsis: Homer Simpson must save the world from a catastrophe he himself created.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: B-

I am not a big fan of The Simpsons cartoon but I watch enough to follow and I must say that, Homer Simpson's oafishness reaches apocalyptic levels in The Simpson’s Movie. I watch because they offer the jokes on the fly on the show and the film does this also. "Stop in the name of American squeamishness!" hollers a cop to a naked skateboarding Bart Simpson, while carefully blocking penis shots (Rotflmao). It’s not over the top like the South Park movie, but honestly what would a Simpson's movie accomplish in 87 minutes that the show -- this great, ingenious circus of subversion -- hasn't in more than 8,000? The truth is not much but our standard for good movies is now lower than our standard for good television.

The movie is not newly ambitious. It's not attempting to explain itself to the uninitiated it just is a Simpson’s movie and you can say you saw it. In fact there is slick part of the film which calls out the movie goers as suckers for paying to watch this when actually it’s the same as what is on TV. It was a bold diss but actually you would have already paid for the ticket and Simpson loyalist appreciate the diss.

This film is very good for the first 30 minutes, we see that funny, sassy and intelligent humor that comes in that moronic Simpson’s' way. Watch or not we can probably say in all fairness that “No modern cartoon series has had a more profound influence on the quality of TV comedy. No great television comedy stoked a nation's merry despair with better zingers and quicker-witted, corner-of-the-eye detail.”

There is business to occupy the other Simpson’s, too. Lisa falls for a fellow environmentalist. Bart finds himself torn between his father's unconditional abuse and the unconditional Christian kindness of Ned Flanders. And Marge's frustration with her husband and with Springfield's quarantining drives her to profanity. But the plot's burden is on Homer, whose responsibility for Springfield's ecological catastrophe is revealed, a development that wins the murderous scorn of the rest of the town. The family flees to Alaska. Needless to say, all the dysfunction will be righted. It's just another day with this family and this town.

If you are a Simpson’s fan you have to go simply because you are Simpson’s fan. Although the film is enjoyable I suggest you wait to see it simply because you are not supposed to pay to watch The Simpsons.

16 Blocks

Category: Thriller and Action Rating: PG-13 for violence, intense sequences of action, and some strong language. Run Time: 1 hr.  45 min.

Starring: David Zayas, David Sparrow, Bruce Willis, Dante 'Mos Def' Smith, David Morse

Directed by Richard Donner

Produced by George Furla, Boaz Davidson, Danny Dimbort

Written by: Richard Wenk

Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures Distribution

Release Date: March 3rd, 2006

Synopsis: A troubled NYPD officer is forced to take a happy, but down-on-his-luck witness 16 blocks from the police station to 100 Centre Street, although no one wants the duo to make it.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: B

Does Bruce Willis really look this old or are the makeup people really that great? 

Bruce Willis plays Jack Mosley, a broken-down New York detective with a receding hairline and a sickly gray pallor. The star of my favorite film franchise, "Die Hard”, turns out to be ready to work, not sneer and wisecrack but he is just as enjoyable. Willis is at his best when holding a gun and fending off bad guys with as few words as possible. Over the course of a generally tight 105 minutes, we are introduced to a fleet of bad cops, rumpled heavies right out of a Blaxploitation film or ironically a Mos Def lyric. In the 21st century typical cop films are basic and usually offer something we've seen before, but not only had I not seen this, it felt new. I was excited and enjoyed a chaotic chase with a bus and good ole door to door foot chases.

But there is no movie without the annoying witness character, Eddie played by Mos Def. Mos Def, is a fine actor, who delivers a performance here that is at times almost as annoying as reports that he can’t meet his 8,000 a month child support payments. His voice is fixed in an inexplicable nasal whine. A real motor-mouth, Eddie doesn't often shift into idle, and there are moments when his nattering seems more like the tic of a nervous screenwriter than that of a character. Happily, the two stars spend much of their time hustling and panting over packed streets, up and down staircases, through basements and across rooftops as they attempt to cover the ¾ of a mile or 16 blocks that will bring them to safety and the film to a close. Until the creaky last act, the director creates a sense of near-vertigo, keeping them on the run — and us too. The whole plot really comes together in the end of the film because there were parts that did not seem realistic that were tied up quite nicely. It’s worth the price of admission. Yippie Kai Yai. 

Slither

Category: Science Fiction/Fantasy and Suspense/Horror Rating: R for strong brutal violence, pervasive language, some drug content and sexuality/nudity. Run Time: 1 hr. 30  min.

Starring: Nathan Fillion, Elizabeth Banks, Michael Rooker, Gregg Henry, Brenda James

Directed by James Gunn

Produced by Scott Stuber, Dylan Clark, Marc Abraham

Written by: James Gunn

Distributed by Universal Pictures Distribution

Release Date: March 31st, 2006

Synopsis: The sleepy town of Wheelsy could be any small town in America--somewhat quaint and gentle, peopled with friendly folks who mind their own business. But just beneath the surface charm, something unnamed and evil has arrived and is growing. No one seems to notice as telephone poles become clogged with missing pet flyers, or when one of the town's richest citizens, Grant Grant, begins to act strangely. But when farmers livestock turn up horribly mutilated and a young woman goes missing, Sheriff Bill Pardy and his team, aided by Grant's wife Starla, uncover the dark force laying siege to their town and come face-to-face with an older-than-time organism intent on absorbing and devouring all life on Earth.

Eyecalone Says: Overall: B+

From the twisted mind of James Gunn (Dawn of the Dead, 2004) comes the latest entry into the comedy-horror genre. Slither by no means is the type of movie I normally go see, in fact if I had not received a special free pass I probably would not have gone at all, but looking back I'm glad I did. Judging by the commercials the movie just seemed plane nasty! Giant, slimy slugs from outer space, exploding and oozing humanoids, and people eating zombies - Slither is like horror film gumbo. As the movie begins we're introduced to small-town business Grant Grant (Michael Booker), who stumbles on to a larvae looking extra-terrestrial who takes over his body. As the creature begins to take over his body Grant's begins to undergo hideous physical transformations which begin to make him look half-human, half squid, - which he explains to his wife as the result of a "bee sting". This might sound ridiculous, and that's because it is but Slither is firmly comfortable with it's 'B-movie' roots. It's not slapstick or over the top physical humor, just ironic and hilarious dialogue and situations. I laughed longer and harder at numerous scenes in this movie than I did in movies like "Date Movie" or any of the "Scary Movie" franchise, which were actually supposed to be comedies. As it turns out the the alien that apparently intends to consume all animal life on earth is something like a omni-conscious disease. Once you succumb to it your fate is one of 3 choices, either become a flesh-eating, breeder with an insatiable appetite, a flesh-eating zombie with compromised motor skills, or be absorbed back into the horrendous nastiness that is the creature. Despite the title Slither is really more funny and suspenseful than it is disgusting, even with giant mollusk overrunning this unfortunate small town. It's probably not appropriate for younger children as it earns it's 'R' rating, but if you have older teenagers it might be perfect for "family fun night". 

Slow Burn

Category: Drama, Thriller and Crime/Gangster Rating: R for sexuality, violence and language. Run Time: 1 hr.  33 min.

Bruce Banter Says: Overall: B-

I call this film, “blaxploitation meets Usual Suspects”. Its not totally Usual Suspects story telling territory because it’s not being told by just one person but LL Cool J does a lot of the narration. We want to find the Kaiser Sose character, who is Danny Luden a mysterious gang leader, being manipulated by D.A, Nora Timmer. LL is there to Drop-a-dime on a killer’s motive. That might have made the film clearer instead it’s a multiple-viewpoint mystery.

Ray Liotta stars as Ford Cole, the district attorney and mayoral candidate of an unnamed big city. His world gets flipped upside down when his assistant D A (and secret lover) Nora (Jolene Blalock) is accused of murdering a record store clerk (Mekhi Phifer) she claims was trying to rape her. Complicating matters is friend of the deceased Luther Pinks (LL Cool J), who claims Nora is part of a larger gangland conspiracy involving real estate. Twisting it even more is a Breezie named Nora who is supposed to be passing for “black” in the film. She doesn’t have a sisters style or Badunkadunk or any African features, she does have an awful looking braided weave wig that makes her seem as black as Bo –Derek on the beach in 10. She even fools the unofficial Block-Hugger played by Meki Phifer even though those cats are supposed to be the authenticators of who the sisters are. Even redbones have some authenticators like nose, lips or hips but the idea that Nora is posing as black but while really being White is not a possibility in the environment that she thrived in.

Smokin' Aces

Category: Action/Adventure, Comedy and Crime/Gangster Rating: R for strong bloody violence, pervasive language, some nudity and drug use. Run Time: 1 hr. 48  min.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: C-

Smokin’ Aces refers to Vegas magician Buddy “Aces” Israel, a mob jerk played by Jeremy Piven of Entourage fame. Everybody wants Buddy dead. Writer-director Joe Carnahan (”Narc”) stumbles around like an exposition maniac trying to explain why everybody wants him dead, but let’s just say everybody wants him dead, except the feds. FBI agents Messner (Ryan Reynolds) and Carruthers (Ray Liotta) want to keep Buddy alive so he can testify against his venal business associates. Reams of colorful assassins-for hire end up converging on Buddy’s Lake Tahoe hideout in order to “smoke” the magic man, in this awfully written script. Aces is the antithesis of Scooter Libby’s "stop snitching" campaign.

This Film is like the 2007 version of True Romance in the way it converges in the action scenes. There is a ton of gun play and murder but no real script that gets the story across. All we have is lots of action and hipster-cool people but all the singers, rappers and celebrities can’t save this multi-character mobster movie from dissolving into a story driven mess. This film wants to be Quentin Tarantino like but is really unoriginal. It’s so poorly written you can’t even have any spoilers in here.

This film was almost like it was based on a video game, that’s the vibe and the aesthetic at work here: YEAH! KILL!, followed by a few muttered expressions of the horror. There is nothing to this film although the shoot-out in the elevator is memorable outside of that and a Kung Fu lashing, Ridilin laced 10-year old kid, nothing else about this film is memorable. The only twist is that the Black celebrities don’t kill out of all that murder and mayhem. Common and Alicia Keyes come off pretty good and more importantly believable well at least Common’s character as he reverts to his smash mouth days when he beefed with Ice Cube over the direction of Hip-hop. It’s a good look for him especially considering his soft hippie look of recent. Erykah Badu must have given him his nuts back to play this tough guy role but nothing can save this film

---

Snakes On A Plane

Category: Action/Adventure, Suspense/Horror and Thriller Rating: R for language, a scene of sexuality and drug use, and intense sequences of terror and violence. Run Time: 1 hr.  45 min.

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Nathan Phillips, Rachel Blanchard, Julianna Margulies, Flex Alexander

Directed by David Richard Ellis

Produced by Penney Finkleman Cox, Sandra Rabins, Toby Emmerich

Written by Sebastian Gutierrez, John Heffernan (II), David Loucka, Sheldon Turner, Chris Morgan. David Dalessandro

Distributed by New Line Cinema

Release Date: August 18th, 2006

Synopsis: When a young man witnesses a brutal mob murder, it falls to FBI agent Neville Flynn to escort his charge safely from Hawaii to Los Angeles to testify. But in an act of self-preservation, the crime boss facing prison smuggles hundreds of poisonous snakes onto the commercial aircraft in a crate timed to release its deadly cargo halfway over the Pacific. Flynn, along with a frightened flight crew and passengers, must then band together in a desperate attempt to survive.

Bruce Banter Says: Overall: B

This film has been hyped on the title alone. It’s that film that people want to like just because of the title, although I doubt that audiences knew what to expect. Even after watching it I could not tell if it was supposed to be a comedy or a serious action thriller. Snakes On A Plane is a cheesy exploitation disaster film generating amazing buzz using the star power of Samuel L Jackson and the fact that White folks love to hear him yell. He always gets off at least one phrase that will be repeated ad nausea in pop culture circles. This time around the quote goes “Why are there motherf—in’ snakes on this motherf—in’ plane? I am sick and tired of these motherf—kin snakes.” For many that alone makes this worth the price of admission. I laughed and jumped a lot but Snakes On A Plane is still a cheesy and fun good "bad movie", which I could go see again and again. Most of the times the snakes look digitized. Maybe they had 2 real snakes and 25 special effect slimeys. They have the full gamut of snakes too; Rattlers, pythons, cobras, boa constrictors and other exotic intercontinental species.

The story starts and ends well but not sure if we can say it actually had a plot. Then again,  the title is the plot - Snakes on a plane. Folks can just have fun with this foolish film because it really has no purpose, it just is. Don't try to figure stuff like why the snakes are so aggressive to humans and never to each other. Despite the pheromones scented collars, the aggression is a wayward excuse or was that an explanation for the carnage we see. Snakes up vaginas, snakes snapping penises, you name it. Proof that this is a cheesy good film, is that they show a cool music video at the end of the film and the theatre starts singing. The other plus is that No black people get killed even the obnoxious P-Diddy like rapper character (Sean Combs ain't gonna like this) played by Flex Alexander who deserved death, but for some reason gets spared. (Don't ask me for details why I gave this film such a strong grade. Any film that has an internet presence so strong that studios bow to it is officially a cult classic and deserves at least a B! ) - Nuff Said.

---

Something New

Category: Comedy, Drama and Romance Rating: PG-13 for sexual references. Run Time: 1 hr. 40  min.

Starring: Sanaa Lathan, Simon Baker, Blair Underwood, Alfre Woodard, Mike Epps

Directed by Sanaa Hamri

Produced by Preston L. Holmes (II), Dwight Williams, Stephanie Allain

Written by: Sanaa Hamri, Kriss Turner (Screenplay)

Distributed by Focus Features

Release Date: February 3rd, 2006 (Wide).

Synopsis: While 42.4% of African- Americans have never been married, Kenya, a professional African-American woman is determined to do something about it. She is shocked to discover, however, that she's falling in love with a white landscaper.

Eyecalone Says: Overall: B-

Before you venture any further, if you haven't seen Something New and intend to, and you think you might be surprised by the obvious ending let me warn you, this review contains spoilers. 

Right in time for Valentine's Day Hollywood has hit us with another comedic dose of it's latest take on "interracial" dating in America, in the form of the film, Something New. This comedy comes not too far off the heels of the remake, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" but they're seemingly different films as this time around things seems a little less slapstick and a little more serious. The media blitz and hype surrounding this film has been astounding. If you've turned on your television or listened to "urban radio" in the past 2 weeks it would probably be impossible for you not to have heard about it. From personal experience, I can say that on several urban/adult contemporary radio stations in NYC, the ads have literally played at least once nearly every commercial break during afternoon hours. With that type of push I wouldn't be surprised to see it open at #1, although by touting itself as film basically created, directed, and "written by a black women for Black women", it might not have the demographic range to propel it all the way to the top (I can't help but wonder who's behind the apparently huge push from the studio despite the films very specific market, Black women - but I digress).

Enough about the prospects on the studio returns though, the most important thing is if the movie is any good. In the casting department Something New is solid. A true "ladies night out" kind of film it finds Sanaa Lathan as Kenya McQueen, - in a part we've probably seen her play more than enough but can't seem to turn away from - a very attractive and somewhat "Buppie" women who has "everything but the guy". Kenya is an anal retentive, workaholic, late twenty something / early thirty something, high-powered Senior manager on her way to making partner at her Los Angeles firm. She's looking for a man, but not just any man. She's looking for her "IBM" (Ideal Black Man), despite her claims to the contrary. Unbeknownst to Kenya, her "man problems" probably more than anything else are the byproduct of her lifestyle of pretense, personal hangups, and 90-hour work weeks. Her upbringing is somewhat upper class, and all the way black bourgeoisie, complete with exclusive teenage balls and socials (i.e., Jack & Jill, "Black Like Us" for those in the know). Always there to give advice and support are Kenya's team of girlfriends, Nedra (Taraji P. Henson), Cheryl (Wendy Raquel Robinson), and Suzette (Golden Brooks). Donald Faison plays Kenya's shallow and elitist brother Nelson who seems to change ditsy girlfriends like he changes shoes, and Blair Underwood steps on to the scene later in the film as Lathan's perfect shot at her "IBM" - essentially a male version of herself. Mike Epps does a solid job and plays a semi-serious role as Cheryl's boyfriend/fiancé and Alfre Woodard finds herself in a curious role as Kenya's pretentious and nominally "Afrocentric" mother, Joyce McQueen. Rounding out the cast is the Australian born, Simon Baker who plays Brian Kelly, Kenya's "landscaper" turned unexpected love interest. They're complete opposites as Brian is a "rugged outback" type and Kenya starts off annoyingly uptight, which makes a serious romance a bit of a hard sell in that outside of the physical attraction and the initial challenge it's not really clear why someone like Baker's character would be attracted to Lathan's (it's a comedy so money can't be an issue and yeah I know "opposites attract", but that's more cliché than reality). 

Overall Something New, even if somewhat unrealistic at times, is sweet, and entertaining and funny, though I may not have laughed as much as the studio planned since it has that "chick flick" vibe and I was as interested in the movie's message as it's execution. The film will probably go over well with it's target audience especially and it's a step forward that this film is written and directed by a Black (Moroccan) woman, Sanaa Hamri, making her step up from directing music videos. The film deals with the elephant in the room, "race", in a mostly surface and humorous (seemingly the only way you can openly discuss it in America) way preferring to put the characters in awkward situations rather through dialogue, except for one scene when Lathan's character has to explain to Baker's character that race and racism is always an issue for Black people, and we "don't get time off from being Black". Of course this simple observation comes after Baker's character, Brian, subtly lectures Lathan's about her preference for Black men being her "preferring prejudice", which is of course what racial discourse in America needs, White men lecturing Black women about prejudice (heavy sarcasm). Indeed Simon there is still one institution where Black men enjoy preference over White men, with Black women. Don't worry White guys, you still have the banking system, mortgage lenders, the court system, the media, and the U.S. Senate. There is also one scene early in the film where Lathan's characters survey of her Black, male dating options is a full panorama of negative stereotypes which fits right in with the films mantra that has become part of the ad campaign - "42.4% of African- Americans women have never been married". Although in her defense, I think overall Hamri spends more time in the film focusing on what Baker's character IS to Lathan's, rather than what she thinks Black men in general are not. Although I did find it somewhat troubling that Lathan's character despite her class conscious upbringing and having a more than ideal opportunity at her IBM, eventually chooses a working class, White "landscaper", who drives a beat up pickup and kisses his dog in the mouth. I suppose the film's main message is supposed to be that if you open yourself up to ALL possibilities that sometimes you find love where you least expect it, and then live happily ever after - at least that's how it works in the movies. (Click here to tell us what you think)

 

---

Shiesty Says: Overall: B-

It's no secret that Hollywood doesn't have a lot of love for sistas'. Whether it's the Tragic Mulatto or the all-knowing, all-seeing Mammy, black women have had it hard over the years. Only recently have we seen the climate shift to an era in which black women can just be portrayed as women: simple and complex at the same time. With Queen Latifah, Halle Berry, and (until recently) Angela Bassett firmly established as bankable leading ladies, the pathway has been cleared for the enormously talented Sanaa Lathan. In her first starring role, she fares relatively well in the romantic comedy Something New.

I'll be the first to admit, I wasn't too crazy about the premise of this movie. The whole "urban" romantic comedy thing peaked with Love Jones, and Hollywood's reliance on this familiar formula reeks of patronage. And since I, like 99% of the other brothas' in the nation, have had a grown-man crush on Lathan since Love and Basketball, I wasn't too enthused about watching her laid up with some white dude. Thankfully, Something New adds some debate-worthy dilemmas and a solid cast to the old recipe, sparing us from the wrath of such recent movies like 2004's dreadful Breakin' All the Rules.

Lathan stars as Kenya, an uptight thirty something accountant on the fast track to professional success, but a personal failure who finds herself dateless on Valentine's Day. Lamenting upon the fact that 42.4% (the film's original title) of all black women have never been married; she decides to spread her wings and go on a blind date. When she arrives at (product placement alert!) Starbucks and discovers her date Brian (Simon Baker) is white, Kenya is caught off guard and cuts things off immediately. But when she runs into him at a party a few days later, she is awed by his work and reluctantly hires him as her landscaper. True to form, the usual cut-and-paste romantic comedy courtship ensues: she finally gives him a shot, they hit it off, a superficial conflict arises, she momentarily falls for someone else (Blair Underwood in his usual sleazy role) and they end up married happily ever after. There aren't many surprises in this movie; the genre pretty much requires you to stick to the formula.

So why do I recommend this movie? Lathan. The camera loves her, and so will you. Finally given the opportunity to carry a movie, she doesn't disappoint. Her screen presence is notable, and even when the sometimes sophomoric dialogue fails her, she still manages to emit an aura of grace and likeability that's hard to deny. Simply put: she's a star, and stars can sometimes make average movies worth watching. Hopefully Hollywood noticed and gives her some heavier material to work with in the future. Baker, however, isn't very likeable, nor believable as her jungle lover (what landscaper do you know that digs trenches in $200 Ben Sherman button downs?), but I'm pretty sure his inclusion was one of those concessions they had to make to get the movie green lit. The rest of the cast (Blair Underwood, Alfre Woodard, Donald Faison, Taraji Henson, etc.) is a gaggle of faces and names you've seen elsewhere and, with the exception of Mike Epps, is mostly forgettable.

Sadly, like any Hollywood movie dealing with the "R" word, racial politricks are in full effect. Brian is just too perfect, and the way he wins over Kenya is unnerving. He says all the right things, supports noble causes, has all the right answers, is great in the sack, AND is hung like a stallion (an emasculating point the movie is quite emphatic in stating). Unlike every black man she's ever met, Brian is thoughtful, romantic, and allows her to be her (even encouraging her to get rid of her weave!). With very little effort, a broke white dude who drives around in a filthy truck with a mangy dog is able to smash a top notch professional sista' in less than a week. It's almost like some white guy's interracial dream come true. Would a movie about a black landscaper bedding a white woman have even been green lit, hell, even been written? I think not. The underlying message seems to be to tell black women to stop putting up with brothers' mess, and just to take any white dude, cause heck, you can be yourself with them, and who cares about color anyway? There's an interesting subplot with Epps' character (a chef) "marrying up" to a black female judge, but when you add it all up, brothers seem to come out on the short end of the stick with this movie. Big time.

Furthermore, the movie presents a very unrealistic view of how blacks handle interracial dating. Kenya's parents and friends are openly hostile towards Brian, something that just doesn't happen in real life. Sure, black folks will talk trash about you when you turn your back, but the way that many of the characters confront Brian about dating Kenya is mean spirited and borderline racist. In my limited experience, whites in exclusively black settings seem to get treated better than vice versa, not worse. Just think about the last time a white family visited your church and you'll know what I mean. Black people are oppressed and excluded enough as is, the last thing we want is to impose those same feelings on someone else. Likewise, when Kenya and Brian get into a racially charged argument about how her white co-workers are treating her, an otherwise hefty debate on how blacks are treated in hostile work environment gets reduced to a lover's quarrel. It's as if the writers had to find someway to create tension between the characters and chose to fabricate something that didn't exist. In failing to adequately address the obvious issues of race, the movie misses the mark that could have made it something far more substantive.

All things said however, I'll recommend it for no reason other than Lathan. Hell, I'd pay $9 just to stare at her for an hour and a half, but she proves herself more than worthy of leading lady status. Something New isn't necessarily anything new, but it is a smart, though-provoking date movie, and there's nothing wrong with that. (Click here to tell us what you think)

---

Spiderman 3

Category: Action/Adventure, Science Fiction/Fantasy, Adaptation and Sequel Rating: PG-13 for sequences of intense action violence. Run Time: 2 hr. 20  min.

Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace, James Franco

Directed by Sam Raimi

Produced by Stan Lee, Joseph M. Caracciolo Jr, Kevin Feige

Written by: Sam Raimi (Screenplay), Ivan Raimi (Screenplay), Alvin Sargent (Screenplay), Stan Lee (Source Material: from the Marvel comic book "Spider-Man"), Steve Ditko (Source Material: from the Marvel comic book "Spider-Man")

Distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing

Release Date: May 4th, 2007

Synopsis: Peter Parker has finally managed to strike a balance between his devotion to M.J. and his duties as a superhero. But there is a storm brewing on the horizon. When his suit suddenly changes, turning jet-black and enhancing his powers, it transforms Peter as well, bringing out the dark, vengeful side of his personality that he is struggling to control. Under the influence of the suit, Peter becomes overconfident and starts to neglect the people who care for him most. Forced to choose between the seductive power of the new suit and the compassionate hero he used to be, Peter must overcome his personal demons as two of the most-feared villains yet, Sandman and Venom, gather unparalleled power and a thirst for retribution to threaten Peter and everyone he loves

Eyecalone Says: Overall: B-

Well the latest installment of Spiderman hit theatres this weekend and you know what that means, time to re-write the box office record books. I have no idea how much money this movie will have made when the weekend is over but I can assure you, that with all the anticipation and hype, it will be a mind-boggling figure. It can almost be assured that any movie with so much pre-movie hype would fail to live up to it and Spiderman 3 is no different. From a pure action, special effects, and fantasy value standpoint Spiderman 3 clicks on almost all cylinders. The special effects are great (though I had a poor seat in a packed movie theater and couldn't fully appreciate them) as is the action, and it's made even better by the list of super-powered characters introduced in this movie, including Venom, Sandman, and the second coming of the Green Goblin. It's great watching all those characters rumble on screen true to their comic book form.

Director/writer Sam Raimi does a good job of keeping in line with comic book story lines and developing Peter Parker as a character when he's not wearing red and blue spandex.  The period where Peter Parker  begins to give in to some of his more base impulses courtesy of an alien symbiotic organism that turns into an all black Spiderman suit, and later turns one of his rivals into his arch nemesis, Venom, also works as a period of comic relief though the sequence may be a bit over done. Overall Spiderman 3 is a fun ride, the action is great, and it's appropriate for almost all audiences. It's biggest failing is that it arguably tries too hard to be appropriate for all audiences as their are some periods near the end of the film that are a bit campy, excessively sappy, and a bit unbelievable if such a description can even be used to in a comic based movie.

---

Keith Johnson a.k.a Tsar Benard Says: Overall: B+

Marvel Comics gained its fame by crafting heroes with the powers of gods, but the everyday problems of regular people. Sam Raimi gets this. His Spider-Man films are first and foremost about Peter Parker, the superhero who has trouble paying rent or keeping a girlfriend. Parker has the powers of our dreams, but the life problems of our nightmares.

This time, for once, the problem isn’t Spider-Man being hated and feared by the people. In fact, the opposite is true. As Spider-Man 3 opens, we see that the Web Slinger (Tobey McGuire) has achieved immense popularity. Spidey’s cheered by the masses, has his image on t-shirts, TV reporters clamoring for interviews. On top of this, Peter plans to marry Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). Life--for a change--couldn’t be better for our Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man.

But this is Marvel, and soon, the wheels start coming off:

Mary Jane is struggling to make it as an actress, and feels that Peter is becoming selfish and arrogant, putting Spider-Man before her...

There’s a new photographer at the Bugle bucking to displace Peter…

Petty crook Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) is mutated while on the run (in an impressive but unbelievably convenient accident) and menaces New York as the super powered Sandman. Worse, the police implicate Marko in the death of Pete’s Uncle Ben...

Peter’s former best friend Harry Osborn (James Franco) is busy shining his Goblin Glider and stocking up on Pumpkin bombs as he plots to take Peter down for the imagined murder of his father…

There’s a certain black evil symbiote creature crawling around looking for someone to bond with (literally). Whew! With super villains and girlfriend problems galore, Spidey’s got his hands full!

Spider-Man 3 moves along at a good pace. Raimi takes his time setting up the battles, providing at least the minimal origin stories justifying his characters’ behavior. He doesn’t rush to fights, but doesn’t make you wait too long before the action starts either. Balancing dialogue and action in a superhero film is a tricky thing, and Raimi does it pretty well, giving us enough setup before the punches fly, then getting back to the emotional meat of the movie once the fight’s over.

The battles themselves are for the most part good. One of my major complaints with previous Spider-Man pictures has been the poor CGI used to animate Spidey and his opponents. It looked like a badly done video game. This time I hardly noticed any obvious FX in many of the scenes. I will say though, that many of the aerial fights are too fast-paced, making it hard to tell what was going on. And the battles themselves are often too abbreviated, ending just as I was really getting into the action.

People rarely care about acting in a superhero movie, unless it’s too terrible to be ignored. Suffice it to say that everyone does an adequate job with his or her role. McGuire is fun to watch during his brief transformations from nerd to aggressive super stud. Haden Church plays Sandman as surprisingly sympathetic, but given the lack of real screen time for the character, that potential wasn’t explored. Too bad…

A problem is that the large ensemble cast has to share screen time. After an impressive introduction, the Sandman appears in snippets. He shows up to cause mayhem, then disappears. Looking at Church’s massively muscled body, I kept thinking “man, he sure went through a lot of training not to get much screen time”.

The same goes for “Venom”. Like Sandman, we get background story on the villain, but his subsequent appearances are short in duration.

The Goblin fares slightly better. He’s the major bad guy in the flick, due to his overall influence on Spidey, and the screen time afforded Franco.

Bryce Dallas Howard’s Gwen Stacy is underused. Those who know how incredibly important Gwen is in Spider-Man lore might be disappointed at how inconsequential—and changed—her storyline is. Unless there’s a Spider-Man 4 and she comes back, one of the great tragic love stories in comic history will apparently never be told.

Surprising is the relatively little time given over to Peter’s domination by the black suit. The trailers indicate that the entire movie would focus on Peter dealing with the effects of the suit amplifying his powers and confidence—as well as his aggression. And true, there are some great moments when the suit causes Spider-Man to act with uncharacteristic brutality. There are some funny moments as Peter goes from milksop to confident man about town. But like the treatment of the super-villains, I came away wanting a little more.

Most disappointing is the climactic Big Fight. It’s a mass of special effects, as webs, bombs, and sandstorms all but demolish the landscape. The problem is that this fight is where the CGI is at its worst. Perhaps it was the number of elements being juggled, the length of the battle, or the changing scenes, but I was extremely under whelmed with the FX here. That, coupled with the fact that the battle went on way too long, made it actually rather boring despite all the action.

But these are all minor quibbles. In the end, Raimi delivers a film in the Mighty Marvel Manner of angst mixed with glory, tragedy blended with success. Despite some clipped battles, too many plotlines, and a bad final battle, it was a very enjoyable film. Not the best superhero film ever, but definitely worth seeing.

---

Stomp The Yard

Category: Drama, Musical/Performing Arts and Teen Rating: PG-13 for a scene of violence, some sexual material and language. Run Time: 1 hr. 54  min.

Starring: Columbus Short, Brian J. White, Ne-Yo , Meagan Good, Darrin DeWitt Henson

Directed by Sylvain White

Produced by Rob Hardy, William Packer

Written by: Robert Adetuyi, Gregory Ramon Anderson

Distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing

Release Date: January 12th, 2007

Synopsis: DJ, a troubled youth from Los Angeles attending the historically black Truth University in Atlanta, Georgia. When adapting to his new environment proves difficult, DJ finds solace in joining a struggling fraternity where he begins implementing his street-style dance moves in an attempt to help the step team win the coveted National Step Show Championship. Before long DJ becomes the competing fraternity's main rival, while trying to pursue his new love interest, deal with his own troubled past and learn the true meanings of brotherhood and Fraternity along the way.

Eyecalone Says: Overall: B

I would be lying if I told you I went to see this movie under the impression that it would be good. Truthfully the films advertising campaign was a bit corny. Particularly the part in advertisement where the film's main character ask a fellow student what a group of students in a fraternity are doing, to which the student replies, "they're stomping the yard, where you from!?". I don't know who wrote that line but I don't think anyone on any college campus Black, White, or otherwise talks this way. Then there was of course the cheap sell to teenage girls by putting adolescent girl heartthrobs and R&B sensations Chris Brown and Neyo as prominent characters in the movie, and all the dance sequences which had "You Got Served" written all over it. Despite my "cheesy" suspicions, the film clearly had something to do with Black youth and college life and for that alone I wanted to be supportive. Well after opening impressively and winning it's opening week's box office, probably due to the appeal to adolescent girls, Stomp The Yard showed me something and I was presently surprised. Behind the fluff and immense potential to be "corny" there is actually a solid movie here. It's also empowering, uplifting, full of positive academic messages that the film's target audience really needs to see. It even temporarily lessened my often cynical feelings about the activities and purpose of today's Black fraternities and sororities. Sure the young girls will probably love it because there are a lot of cute guys, dancing, and occasionally they take their shirts off but there is actually a lot more going on here. The film is a must see for any Black parent with a child or children of Junior High-School to college age, and coming not too far on the heals of a movie like Akeelah and The Bee, it's not just an entertaining film but another contribution to changing mindsets and encouraging academic achievement in Black youth.

---

Stranger Than Fiction

Category: Comedy, Drama, Romance and Science Fiction/Fantasy Rating: PG-13 for some disturbing images, sexuality, brief language and nudity. Run Time: 1 hr. 53 min.

Starring: Will Ferrell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Queen Latifah, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman

Directed by Marc Forster

Produced by Zach Helm

Written by: Vondie Curtis Hall (screenplay), Michael Mahern (story), Darin Scott (story)

Distributed by Columbia Pictures

Release Date: November 10th, 2006

Synopsis: One morning, a seemingly average and generally solitary IRS agent named Harold Crick begins to hear a female voice narrating his every action, thought and feeling in alarmingly precise detail. Harold's carefully controlled life is turned upside down by this narration only he can hear, and when the voice declares that Harold Crick is facing imminent death, he realizes he must find out who is writing his story and persuade her to change the ending. The voice in Harold's head turns out to be the once celebrated, but now nearly forgotten, novelist Karen "Kay" Eiffel, who is struggling to find an ending for what might be her best book. Her only remaining challenge is to figure out a way to kill her main character, but little does she know that Harold Crick is alive and well and inexplicably aware of her words and her plans for him. To make matters worse, Kay's publisher has dispatched a hard-nosed "assistant," Penny Escher, to force Kay to finish her novel and finish off Harold Crick. Desperate to take control of his destiny and avoid an untimely demise, Harold seeks help from a literary theorist named Jules Hilbert, who suggests that Harold might be able to change his fate by turning his story from a tragedy into a comedy. Professor Hilbert suggests that Harold try to follow one of comedy's most elemental formulas: a love story between two people who hate each other. His suggestion leads Harold to initiate an unlikely romance with a free-spirited baker named Ana Pascal. As Harold experiences true love and true life for the first time, he becomes convinced that he has escaped his fate, as his story seems to be taking on all the trappings of a comedy in which he will not, and cannot, die. But Harold is unaware that in a Karen Eiffel tragedy, the lead characters always die at exactly the moment when they have the most to live for.

TsarBernard Says Overall: B-

The 411: I’m starting to think movies need two ratings: one for Effort, another for Execution. Many films have great ideas, but don’?t quite fulfill their promise on screen. And so it is with this flick. Decent concept, good actors. A good Effort. A little lacking in Execution.

First, the good stuff. Ferrell is great. His performance is very subtle, with almost no slapstick. Ferrell does a great job of conveying emotions with minimal expression. There’s loneliness in his eyes, the look of a child who wants someone to play with him. As he starts learning to live, a slight smile, a low humm of eating a cookie, convey a newfound sense of discovery, drawing the audience in as well. Crick’s a nice but clueless guy you can’t help but like.

Maggie Gyllenhaal is good as Ana, the initially hostile tax-dodger who comes to love her auditor. Gyllenhaal has a pixyish smile and twinkling eyes which take the sting out of even her meanest put-downs. As she warms to Harold, they develop a relationship that can only be termed sweet. Good stuff that makes you feel good.

Now to the problems.

Itâ€?s confusing to figure out when Harold is being controlled. Eiffel can kill him, but then why can he change some things in his life? Yeah I know: don’t look closely at sci-fi themed stuff. But you have to ask why Harold can alter or ignore some of the author’s work, but can’t avoid his death, which is, after all, the point.

Haroldâ€?s transformation feels shortened. There’s life with Ana, and a fun moment of fulfilling a lifelong yearning of owning a guitar. But there’s so much focus on the setup and finale, they slighted the middle where he changes, which is where Ferrell really shines. The movie could have been about fifteen minutes longer.

In a hard to swallow plot point, Eiffel debates killing Haroldss character even after meeting him. Say what?? It just made no sense that she’d even consider killing a man just to make her book perfect.

Hoffman, Thompson, and Latifah are wasted. Hoffman could play his role as Harold’s advisor in his sleep. Thompson has a little more meat as the frustrated, desperate writer, but we don’t really get to know or understand her. Why the writer’s block, why is she so scattered, why even think of killing a man for her art? Queen Latifah’s small part as Thompson’s assistant, sent to help her make deadline, doesnâ€?t play to her warm nature. Her character is rather stiff, and ultimately unnecessary. None of these great actors’ full abilities are used to good effect.

If all this sounds as if I hated the movie, that’s not the case. Too many actors play it safe in predictable films. Ferrell takes a chance leaving behind his goofy image for something more subtle. The result is a film that’s smaller than his fans may expect, and not nearly as slapstick as the commercials imply, but which has an irresistable charm nonetheless. You like Harold Crick. You root for him to live and learn, and you enjoy sharing his journey of discovery.

I’d give it an C for effort, a C+ for execution, and a B- overall.

---

Superman Returns

Category: Action/Adventure, Science Fiction/Fantasy and Adaptation Rating: PG-13 for some intense action violence. Run Time: 2 hr. 34  min.

Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, James Marsden, Kevin Spacey, Parker Posey

Directed by Bryan Singer

Produced by Chris Lee, Thomas Tull, Scott Mednick (II)

Written by: Michael Dougherty (screenplay), Dan Harris (screenplay), Michael Dougherty (Story By), Dan Harris (Story By), Bryan Singer (Story By), Jerry Siegel (Source Material from characters), Joe Shuster ( Source Material from characters)

Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures International, Warner Bros. Pictures Distribution

Release Date: June 28th, 2006 (Wide).

Synopsis: Superman--born on a planet which has long since died--has been raised by adoptive parents on the Kent farm in Kansas. The young boy Kal-El is renamed Clark Kent, and though he has grown up among humans, he is not one of them. Under Earth's yellow sun, he can do two things humans can only dream of, but to co-exist with them he must live a dual life as mild, unassuming Clark Kent, secretly transforming into the Man of Steel when the world cries out for him. But now, the world's crises have gone unheeded for five long years since Superman's mysterious disappearance. Without him, crime has risen in the city of Metropolis and beyond; that's not even counting the future destructive acts of Lex Luthor, who has been sprung from prison with the specific intent of using Superman's technological secrets for his own personal gain and glory. Lois Lane, star reporter for the Daily Planet and the love of Superman's life, has moved on since Superman left without a word. She has even won a Pulitzer Prize for her essay, "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." Lois has other issues to contend with--she is now engaged to the editor's nephew and has a young son to look after. But for Superman, the long search for his place in the universe ends back at the Kent farm, among the only family he has ever known. His destiny lies in Metropolis, where one look in Lois's eyes tell him that this place, among the flawed but ultimately good people of Earth, is his true home. And with Lex's plan coming to fruition mere hours after his return, the world will never need Superman more than it does now.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: 

WARNING: This review contains a spoiler. Superman Returns is a decent film. Although it's not awesome enough to get shown at all of the theatres it has commanded (over 3000), expect number 1 ranking at this weekend's box office. ”Superman Returns” respects its legacy for the most part but the new changes are questionable. Superman stands for truth justice and the "American way" as the saying goes, but Hollywood removed the American way part in 2006, because this film is slated to be sold internationally and too many people hate America right now to take the chance at keeping the phrase, so now Superman just stands for truth and Justice. Most people won’t notice that slight change.

But away from the obvious politics that many want to ignore. Superman returns shows a superhero who is a stalker, he shows up and goes through Lois Lane home without her knowledge. She has a new man but he keeps coming around. The subliminal stuff can be considered eerie. If there was any doubt as to whether this Superman is really Super, compared to the other films, take into account that see that he gets away without paying child support after we find out he fathered a son with Lois Lane - in what America is this. 

There are several stunning action sequences, such as Superman’s hair-raising rescue of a plummeting, out-of-control plane (with Lois onboard). Technology has advanced so much in the past 30 years; Superman merely whooshing through the air seems almost old hat. So Singer smartly tarts it up with the couple hanging in midair, silhouetted against Metropolis’ spectacular cityscape, or zooming into the clouds at warp speed. “Superman Returns” has some things on its mind, most notably the relationship between fathers and sons. But the movie has fun, too, especially when it takes some jabs at the fluctuating fortunes of the newspaper biz. For instance, a 12-year-old kid with a cell phone camera takes a better picture of Superman’s latest daring-do than a newspaper photographer does. Though his movie is a blink-of-an-eye too long, Singer and company have given us a reason to be excited about Superman all over again. And, should you doubt for a minute that Superman Returns is a class act. Wait around for the end credits, and you'll see the movie is dedicated to Christopher and Dana Reeves, whose courage was as breathtaking as anything the Man of Steel ever did.

---

Talk To Me

Category: Comedy, Drama and Biopic Rating: R for pervasive language and some sexual content. Run Time: 1 hr. 58  min.

Starring: Don Cheadle, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Taraji Henson, Cedric The Entertainer, Mike Epps

Directed by Kasi Lemmons

Produced by Miles Dale, William Horberg, Bruce Toll

Written by Rick Famuyiwa, Michael Genet

Distributed by Focus Features

Release Date: July 13h, 2007

Synopsis: In the mid-to-late 1960s, in Washington, D.C., vibrant soul music and exploding social consciousness were combining to unique and powerful effect. It was the place and time for Ralph Waldo "Petey" Greene Jr. to fully express himself - sometimes to outrageous effect -- and "tell it like it is." With the support of his irrepressible and tempestuous girlfriend Vernell, the newly minted ex-con talks his way into an on-air radio gig. He forges a friendship and a partnership with fellow prison inmate Milo's brother Dewey Hughes. From the first wild morning on the air, Petey relies on the more straight-laced Dewey to run interference at WOL-AM, where Dewey is the program director. At the station, Petey becomes an iconic radio personality, surpassing even the established popularity of his fellow disc jockeys, Nighthawk and Sunny Jim. Combining biting humor with social commentary, Petey openly courts controversy for station owner E.G. Sonderling. Petey was determined to make not just himself but his community heard during an exciting and turbulent period in American history. As Petey's voice, humor, and spirit surge across the airwaves with the vitality of the era, listeners tune in to hear not only incredible music but also a man speaking directly to them about race and power in America like few people ever have. Through the years, Petey's "The truth just is" style -- on- and off-air -- would redefine both Petey and Dewey, and empower each to become the man he would most like to be.

Bruce Banter Says: Overall: B+

This film also has some aspects of it that make it seem like a 60’s Black exploitation film. Mainly the over usage of the N-word. I thought I was going to hear Petey Wheatstraw instead of Petey Greene a few times but even in Black exploitation films they don’t throw the N-word around that much. That is about the only flaw in the film, which is the excessive usage of the slur.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Category: Action/Adventure, Comedy and Sports Rating: PG-13 for crude and sexual humor, language, drug references and brief comic violence. Run Time: 1 hr. 50  min.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: B+

There is so much product placement in this film ,that the Guinness Book of World Records should be notified, though often times the public is too naive to consciously recognize it. For example Janet Jackson’s recent news story about water demands was news product placement which attempts to sell a product. The story that she was demanding chilled Fijian spring water before an interview. States, Janet sent assistants brandishing bottles of the water to Capital Radio’s studios an hour before the interview so they could be chilled. When Jackson arrived, the water was then checked using a thermometer before being handed to the star. A station worker tells London’s Evening Standard, “It was simply unbelievable the lengths she went to for a cold glass of water. “How anyone can tell the difference between a standard bottle of mineral water and some from a Fijian spring beggars belief.” 

2006 the deeper bond between auto racing and popular moviemaking lies in a shared passion for corporate sponsorship MORE THAN ANY OTHER SPORT. The vehicles in “Talladega Nights” — which was made with the cooperation of Nascar — are covered with logos and brand names. Nascar and Hollywood USUALLY dwell on opposite sides of the cultural divide. “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby” is hardly the first movie to challenge this simple-minded view of American popular culture. It’s all in fun of course, as a good-hearted spoof of the folkways of stock-car racing. The movie is happy to mock the sport’s eagerness to sell prime uniform and chassis space to sponsors like Perrier, Wonder Bread and Old Spice. It also is tickled at the eating habits of its fast-driving characters, who wash down Domino’s Pizza and Kentucky Fried Chicken with Coca-Cola and Budweiser and, when they want a high-end night out, head for the nearest Applebee’s. You can be sure that all these companies paid handsomely for the privilege of such lampooning, which even extends to the movie’s single funniest joke, a suppertime blessing brought to you by PowerAde. Somehow offensive pseudo rap advocate "Ali G” worked his way into the film but he didn’t bother it. There are not as many funny moments but when they come, you will laugh really hard. - Yippie Kai Yai

Thank You For Smoking

Category: Comedy, Drama and Adaptation Rating: R for language and some sexual content. Run Time: 1 hr. 32  min.

Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Robert Duvall, Katie Holmes, William H. Macy, Sam Elliott

Directed by Jason Reitman

Produced by John Schmidt, Edward R. Pressman, Alessandro Camon

Written by Jason Reitman (Screenplay adaptation, Christopher Buckley (Source material from novel: "Thank You for Smoking")

Distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures

Release Date: March 17h, 2006

Synopsis: Satirical comedy follows the machinations of Big Tobacco's chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, who spins on behalf of cigarettes while trying to remain a role model for his twelve-year-old son.

Eyecalone Says: Overall: B+

Based on Christopher Buckley's novel by the same name, Thank You For Smoking is a hedonist look at the corporate lobbying profession, particularly those lobbyist who work for companies in "not so socially" responsible industries, i.e. Cigarette sales, firearms, alcohol, etc. It's also a bit of a critique of business and political PR (public relations) campaigns in the U.S.  It's not quite as scathing a critique as the one might think and the big laughs sometimes are a little too far apart, but when those laughs come they are gut-wrenching and very sincere. 

A spokesperson for the fictitious "Academy of Tobacco Studies", which is little more than a mouthpiece for the Cigarette industry's efforts to hide the link between smoking and cancer, Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is the "Sultan of Spin". He spends many of his afternoons and evenings sitting in a restaurant with his lobbying counterparts from the alcohol (Maria Bello) and firearms (David Koechner) industries jokingly comparing morbid statistics and arguing about who is hated the most.  He's arrogant, unapologetic, debonair, and  "lies" for a living, or maybe more accurately, he makes arguments that obfuscate the truth - it's sophistry at it's finest. Rarely for better, usually for worse, Nick Naylor turns every argument he can't with with the facts into a mere shadow of itself. His idea being that even if you can't win arguments with the truth if you can sufficiently misdirect the opposition or just cause the other side to make an argument that isn't correct, then you can never be proven wrong or maybe win the argument. Naylor is guiltless about his line of work and his actions, as he describes it, "he does it for the mortgage" but it's still hard to hate him since the film is a political satire and he's a truly hilarious character. Time after time Nick Naylor is presented with opportunities to redeem himself or at least to make his son, who worships him, not want to follow in his footsteps but to no avail because Nick Naylor is who he is. "Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people", and Nick Naylor, he talks! 

300	Category: Action/Adventure, Drama, Adaptation and War Rating: R for graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity. Run Time: 1 hr. 56 min.

Starring: Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, Michael Fassbender, Vincent Regan, Dominic West

Directed by Zack Snyder

Produced by Frank Miller, Deborah Snyder, Craig J. Flores

Written by Michael Gordon (II), Zack Snyder, Kurt Johnstad, Frank Miller (source writer), Lynn Varley (source writer)

Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures Distribution

Release Date: March 9th, 2006

Synopsis: In the ancient Battle of Thermopylae, King Leonidas and 300 Spartans fought to the death against Xerxes and his massive Persian army. Facing insurmountable odds, their valor and sacrifice inspire all of Greece to unite against their Persian enemy, drawing a line in the sand for democracy.

Keith Johnson a.k.a. Tsarbernard Says: Overall: A-

If you like the CGI/live action mix of “Sin City”, aren’t turned off by blood and severed body parts, and aren’t a stickler for historical accuracy, then you’ll enjoy “300”. This is a fast-faced, visually stunning comic fable that works on its own terms.

The film starts with a glimpse into the forging of a Spartan warrior. In order to ensure that only the strong survive, Spartans kill sick or deformed babies at birth, a point punctuated by the shot of a mound of human bones at the bottom of a chasm. At age seven, young boys are taken from their mothers for training. We see such a boy in action, learning to survive by ruthlessness and ingenuity. After years of brutal training, he passes his final test: surviving alone in the wild, where he overcomes a giant wolf with glowing eyes like a creature straight out of fantasy.

We then see that boy as a man-- King Leonidas himself (Gerard Butler). Leonidas is visited by an emissary from Persia, the most powerful nation in the known world, whose conquering army has chosen the Greek city-states as its next target. All that’s needed to avoid violence, the emissary tells Leonidas reasonably, is for Sparta to yield. Angered, Leonidas slaughters the entire delegation, assuring a response from Xerxes. Complicating things is that the Spartan council refuses to support the king with the army. Leonidas comes up with a mad plan: take a small force of men to confront the Persians at the pass of Thermopylae. He feels that the narrowness of the pass will allow him to hold the Persians—for a time. Futile, he knows, but death before dishonor and all that.

What follows is a series of clashes as the Spartans, impossibly, fend off attack after attack. The Persians throw everything at them—men, arrows, giant animals, bombs—but are continually frustrated by the incredibly fast and deadly fighting methods of the Spartans.

The battle sequences in “300” are superb, in a music-video-meets-comic-book kind of way. Spartan soldiers leap and spin and slash like dancers in a Chinese opera, leaving trails of blood and body parts behind them. The director continually varies the speed of the scenes: one moment, a Spartan’s weapon cleaves flesh in slo-mo; the next, the victim goes sailing away at double-speed, rock-inspired music blasting away. It sounds gimmicky, but it works. It’s almost as if the Spartans themselves are slowing down, artists lingering over their work, inviting us to admire it--then finishing with a quick flourish.

Successive waves of increasingly bizarre creatures confront the Spartans: deformed giants, raging elephants, “Immortal” warriors. Xerxes’ army is peopled with creatures that seem to belong to a fantasy world, and as they appear, the film takes on the quality of a mythical telling.

Director Zack Snyder’s visual effects are crucial to this feeling. He paints the world with colors that infuse each scene with a sense of hyper-reality. Wheat fields glow with golden tones, murky grays and browns dominant the landscape of the battlefields, while Sparta itself is rendered in sepia and blue-gray tones. The scenes are almost monochromatic; then, suddenly something is brought into sharp detail: the dark red of blood spraying from foes’ throats, the yellow eyes of a beast otherwise cast in shadow, the vibrant crimson of the Spartan warriors’ cloaks. The effect is, not surprisingly, similar to that of the graphic novel that is the movie’s source. The heavy use of CGI creatures combines with the backgrounds to create a dreamlike world, heightening the feeling of watching a fable come to life. It fits.

The plot is minimal. There’s intrigue as the queen (Lena Heady) begs the council to muster the army. She’s thwarted in this by the smarmy Theron (Dominic West), who’s determined to block any aid to the king. Heady looks and acts every inch the steely Spartan queen. She and West have some good lines, but the dialog’s a bit thin overall. Characterization isn’t very deep. This is epitomized in Leonidas, the very essence of the Spartan ideal: proud, defiant, brutally violent. Still, Butler does bring some nuance to Leonidas. There is heartbreak in his eyes as he leaves his family, sorrow as he cries his wife’s name before the end. He shows that the Spartans have a purpose fueling their savage natures: the desire to protect their beloved country and family. Supermen they may be, but men, still.

The Persians are depicted as savage, evil, and perverted. Some questions could be asked about this portrayal, especially given the number of Africans in the army leaders in the army. Then there’s Xerxes himself, a giant, muscled being who prances about like some androgynous fop. Xerxes is equal parts masculine and feminine, seductive and dangerous, self-deluded-and self-assured. It’s a creepy performance, though its authenticity is suspect. But this isn’t a movie where historical accuracy is the point.

In the end, “300” is a visual powerhouse that packs a visceral wallop. The elegantly brutal tone ultimately draws one in, so that, as corny as it is, you find yourself growling “yeah!” to the latest bit of over-the-top heroics. This is fact become legend, and like a legend its characters are writ large, until they stop being mere flesh-and-blood men, and become symbols of an ideal that will never die. Let yourself go, ignore the liberties taken with the facts, and have a great time.

This is not, after all, history class. This-is-Sparta!

Transformers

Category: Action/Adventure, Science Fiction/Fantasy and Adaptation Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor and language. Run Time: 2 hr. 20  min.

Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Josh Duhamel, Bernie Mac, John Turturro, Tyrese Gibson

Directed by Michael Bay

Produced by Steven Spielberg, Brian Goldner, Michael Bay

Written by: Roberto Orci (Story by), Alex Kurtzman (Story by), John Rogers (Story by), Alex Kurtzman (Screenwriter), Roberto Orci (Screenwriter)

Distributed by di Bonaventura Pictures, Inc., Paramount Pictures

Release Date: July 3rd, 2007

Synopsis: The Earth is caught in the middle of an intergalactic war between two races of robots, the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons, which are able to change into a variety of objects, including cars, trucks, planes and other technological creations.

Eyecalone Says: Overall: A-

If you pay close attention I'm about to give away a little bit of my age. The original Transformers series was one of my favorite shows growing up, so I guess you can say I've been waiting for this movie for a long time. I am sure glad they waited until they had the special effects technology to do it. Maybe I shouldn't even call them special effects because quite frankly the on screen live-action renditions of the characters from the cartoon series are amazing - they look real! The team from Industrial Light and Magic deserve some kind of Oscar for their work and I wouldn't be surprised if they received one at the end of the year.

Though I go way back with the Transformers series, I'm not so much of a "fan boy" that I will complain about the minor changes that were made for the movie, most of them small enough that I won't bother going through them. Though director Michael Bay receives a lot of flack when he's bad (Pearl Harbor) or in many people's opinion over does it on action (Bad Boys II, Armageddon), his penchant for blowing things up and relentless action sequences fits in perfect with this movie. And make no mistake about the action sequences come fast and furious and could be described as seizure inducing - seriously. From the opening scene the malevolent breed of futuristic robots known as Decepticons get right to work with one of them tearing an entire US military base in Qatar to pieces. From there it's a little character development, a good mix of humor, and a whole lot of action. The only critique of the action sequences is that some of them seem to take place so fast and in close that it's hard to see what is going on fully, but they are still amazing even with that critique. In a small sign of how out of favor Bush has fallen with the country you might notice that while the fate of the world hangs in the balance the Secretary of Defense is basically running the country, the only reference to the president of the U.S. is his request for some "Ding-Dongs" from one of the staffers.

The rendering of the limited number of Autobots, who are the benevolent, human protecting group of shape changing robots, is also quite authentic even if much of it is a veiled advertisement for the American auto industry. Many of the classic voices from the cartoon have been re-enlisted to do the voices for the movie characters though unfortunately, that was not done for one of the most memorable Decepticons ("Starscream") from the cartoon series. Transformers is a fan's movie, not a critic's film at all. Though most critics reviewed the film positively they may have taken it to task for certain areas of plot development, or relying too much on action and special effects. It's a fair assessment I suppose but for regular people who don't have to watch hundreds of movies every year you are probably going to love this film. It's a rocket ship of fun and excitement that will cause you to leave the theater feeling like a kid all over again and probably a little charged up. Though most people who grew up watching the cartoon are adults now, my guess is this movie is going to win The Transformers a whole new generation of fans.  

Tsotsi

Category: Drama Rating: Not Rated Run Time: 1 hr. 34  min.

Starring: Presley Chweneyagae, Mothusi Magano, Kenneth Nkosi, Zenzo Ngqobe, Terry Pheto

Directed by Gavin Hood

Produced by Peter Fudakowski

Written by: Athol Fugard (from novel: "Tsotsi"), Gavin Hood (screenplay)

Distributed by Miramax Films

Release Date: February 24, 2006

Synopsis: Set amidst the sprawling Johannesburg township of Soweto -- where survival is the primary objective - "Tsotsi" traces six days in the life of a ruthless young gang leader who ends up caring for a baby accidentally kidnapped during a car-jacking.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: B+

When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awarded Tsotsi the Oscar for best foreign film they got at least one thing right. Based on the novel of the same title by Athol Fugard, written in 1961 though not published until 1980, Tsotsi pivots on a vicious 19-year-old thug named "Tsotsi" who leads a small group of thieves. Tsotsi survives by his wits, something he has a little more of than his hoodlum cohorts, the broken-down "Boston" (Mothusi Magano), the heartless and eager killer, "Butcher" (Zenzo Ngqobe) and the thick-skulled Aap (Kenneth Nkosi). He won't even reveal his name to them, going by the generic Tsotsi, which is not a real name, but a term that means hoodlum or "thug", and refers to rootless South African young male criminals who, having no clan connections, and take many of their cues from American gangster movies. It's a perfect description for the orphaned Tsotsi who comes up in a shantytown on the outskirts of Johannesburg, so rife with post-Apartheid poverty that it makes the worst housing project in the United States look like Beverly Hills. Here abandoned and/or orphaned children sleep in empty sewer pipes stacked on top of each other in an open field. Coming from such means you begin to understand how someone like Tsotsi could devolve into a kind of monster. The movie doesn't flinch from showing his acts of violence in gory detail either - as painful as some may be to watch. 

South African director Gavin Hood who both wrote the screenplay and directed "Tsotsi," does not sentimentalize poverty or make Tsotsi a more sympathetic character than he should be; if anything Tsotsi never really becomes "good", it's just his chance at redemption allows him to become "less bad" or doesn't allow him time to be bad at all. Ironically his chance at redemption comes through one of his most heinous crimes. After performing a car jacking in an upscale South African suburb and shooting the Black female driver during the struggle to steal her Mercedes Benz Tsotsi later realizes he has a surprise in the back seat, the driver's infant son. For all his previous cruelty and heartlessness Tsotsi just can't bring himself to leave the crying baby boy and so he takes the child with him into his literal shack of a home, in a sprawling slum. Of course Tsotsi knows nothing of caring for a child and so he incorporates his criminal know how in providing for it, going so far as to force a young mother (Terry Pheto) who resides in the same slum as him to breast feed the infant, initially at gunpoint, though she later becomes a key figure in his transformation and a counter balance to Tsotsi's silent rage. The demands of caring for the child force Tsotsi to choose between his present path or possible redemption. His transformation isn't syrupy nor is it ever really complete, which is even evident in his language as he consistently refers to the child as "it" (or at least that's how the subtitles translated), but the responsibility of caring for a child forces subtle changes on Tsotsi. For the sake of not revealing the film's end I won't say which path he chooses but it may not exactly be the one most people would presume. Tsotsi's journey, just like the one to see this limited release film, is a journey worth making.

28 Days Later

Category: Science Fiction/Fantasy, Suspense/Horror, Thriller and Sequel Rating: R for strong violence and gore, language and some sexuality/nudity. Run Time: 1 hr. 31  min.

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau Jr, Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Catherine McCormack

Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo

Produced by Alex Garland, Danny Boyle, Andrew Macdonald

Written by: Eugene Lopez-Lavigne, Jesus Olmo, Rowan Joffe, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, Alex Garland (uncredited rewrite)

Distributed by 20th Century Fox Distribution

Release Date: May 11th, 2007

Synopsis: Six months have passed since the rage virus has annihilated the British Isles. The U.S. Army declares that the war against infection has been won, and that the reconstruction of the country can begin. As the first wave of refugees return, a family is reunited--but one of them unwittingly carries a terrible secret. The virus is not yet dead, and this time--showing no outward symptoms--it is more dangerous than ever.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: B

For those not in the know of what happened in the original film. A plague unfolds in the first weeks of England's contamination by the so-called Rage virus, which turns the exposed into red-eyed, bloodthirsty, zombie-ish maniacs who run like track stars and want one thing only: to rip their teeth into the flesh of the still-healthy and make them infected.

I have not watched "28 Days Later" lately but from what I recall much of the area’s seen as virus devastated seem ok now, though I think the film makers forgot that those areas were alleged to be hit by the rage virus. "28 Weeks Later" pretty much destroys what's left of England's capital once it returns there. Bloodier and more action-filled than the original, "Weeks", it stays faithful to the bloody, grimy tone director Danny Boyle established in his 2002 film with its haunting shots of a metropolis turned into a tomb. Some parts seemed shot entirely on a camcorder and were reminiscent of the Blair Witch Project.

Flash forward: 28 weeks (or for those mathematically challenged) six months later. All the infected have died and London's Isle of Dogs is being converted into a repopulation center for survivors, run by a U.S.-led NATO force headed by Idris Elba who ironically is British born but plays an American. This time there are political overtones in the film which are obvious shots at the bogus American and British led attack on Iraq. The guide on a bus ferrying survivors into the city's "Green Zone" cheerfully assures her passengers, "The U.S. Army is responsible for your safety." And, of course, everyone thinks nothing can go wrong. This follows a scene showing armed U.S. soldiers whiling away their time with nothing to do. "Give us something to shoot," one yells. Visitors to playahata.com message board can safely say they have seen the videos posted with this same exact sort of language playing out.

Okay back to the other horror, at a barricaded farmhouse, a group of survivors, including spouses Don (Robert Carlyle) and Alice (Catherine McCormack), are preparing an early-evening meal from their stores of canned goods. Then some kid knocks on the door. ... And they let his ass in, which is the natural sequence for a horror film. We know its all down hill from then, but it won't surprise you to learn that the characters are soon running all over London (along with an Army medic and a caring soldier) trying not to get bitten or shot to death by the U.S. Army when their Code Red reaction to the outbreak is revealed to mean KILL everybody infected or not.

The movie mainly centers on Don's reunion with his children Andy and Tammy, who were out of the country when Rage first spread. How the virus returns, and other events are worth finding out on your own. But the most memorable scenes actually involve Harold Perrineau (Oz Narrator) as a helicopter pilot. He gets busy with his chopper and an army of zombies and his character is unsuspecting.

What I hated about this film is the narrowed viewpoint on saving a foolish brother and sister who venture outside of the green zone even after they have not been back for more than 1 day and I hated the overdone exposure of the father after he gets infected. It’s like he has a low jack on his kids, but I stayed focused trying to guess exactly which characters will make it out alive, and if there is a chance that we will have a version three of this film.

Underworld Evolution

Category: Suspense/Horror, Action Rating: R for pervasive strong violence and gore, some sexuality/nudity and language. Run Time: 1 hr. 45  min.

Starring: Kate Beckinsale, Scott Speedman, Bill Nighy, Derek Jacobi, Tony Curran

Directed by Len Wiseman

Produced by Gary Lucchesi, Tom Rosenberg

Written by: Danny McBride (II), Len Wiseman

Distributed by Screen Gems

Release Date: January 20th, 2006

Synopsis: Underworld: Evolution continues the saga of war between the aristocratic Death Dealers and the barbaric Lycans (werewolves). The film traces the beginnings of the ancient feud between the two tribes as Selene (Kate Beckinsale), the vampire heroine, and Michael (Scott Speedman), the Lycan hybrid, try to unlock the secrets of their bloodlines. The tale of action, intrigue and forbidden love takes them into the battle to end all wars as the immortals must finally face their retribution.

Gumby Dammitt Says: Overall: B-

Let me preface this review by stating that I, Gumby, was in no way a fan of the original Underworld flick. I felt like it was uneventful, dull and a tad revisionist in it’s portrayal of the vampire mythos. I mean, if you’re going to rewrite a classic mythos at least add something cool to it; but vampires passing out from blood loss just didn’t work for me. That being said, there were some good things in there, although few and far between. And the big fight at the end between the hybrid and the big, bad vampire lord, Victor was under-whelming and silly. Enter Underworld: Evolution, mission, to up the ante in the vampire saga and to put some meat onto the bones of it’s predecessor. With a considerably more menacing (both visually and physically) antagonist, greater effects and a well measured dose of sexuality, consider Evolution’s mission accomplished. Whereas the original Underworld seemed like nothing more than an opportunity to make jokes and point out poor scripting and storytelling, Evolution succeeds in fleshing out the story set forth in the original film and actually making things interesting and even enjoyable. The threat seemed far more palpable, the stakes more urgent. The fight scenes came across as far more realized and better choreographed and finally, at last, the protagonist, Kate Beckinsale’s Selene came across as a legitimate, kick-ass heroine. I will be needing to know how one reloads two automatic pistols without ever stopping to insert fresh clips in a matter of mere nanoseconds though. But I digress. This movie is such an overall improvement from the first that I’ll let that little bit slide. I did like Underworld: Evolution, and though I see the obvious setup for a third and possibly final installment, I wonder if a third installment can really serve any purpose outside of feeding the box office beast. I’m reminded of a pretty cool vampire saga which petered out painfully in its’ third trip to the silver screen (albeit after some questionable additions).

United 93

Category: Drama Rating: R for some intense sequences of terror and violence. Run Time: 2 hr.  01 min.

Starring: : Opal Alladin, Erich Redman, Ben Sliney, Susan Blommaert, Peter Hermann

Directed by Paul Greengrass

Produced by Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lloyd Levin

Written by Paul Greengrass

Distributed by Universal Pictures Distribution

Release Date: April 28th, 2006

Synopsis: A drama that tells the story of the passengers and crew, their families on the ground and the flight controllers who watched in dawning horror as United Airlines Flight 93 became the fourth hijacked plane on the day of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil: September 11, 2001. 'United 93' recreates the doomed trip in actual time, from takeoff to hijacking to the realization by those onboard that their plane was part of a coordinated attack unfolding on the ground beneath them. The film attempts to understand the abject fear and courageous decisions of those who--over the course of just 90 minutes--transformed from a random assembly of disconnected strangers into bonded allies who confronted an unthinkable situation.

Bruce Banter Says: Overall: B

This film will be controversial to many people for different reasons, but I will be damned if those who spoke out against it before they even saw it, were right. This film makes you re-live 9/11 as if it is 2001. Depending on your sensitivity level and what you believe, that may be a good or bad thing. The critics love this film but this is playahata.com and here the love doesn't come so fast or easy, especially with a film like this that calls for a special analysis.

Just for the record everybody should be aware that the criticism of the film is from two different camps one saying the film is coming out too soon and the other saying the film has a number of tidbits which have not been proven true at all and the reasons why they feel these things are not true. Most people don't realize the debate on what happened to flight 93 and want to obscure the latter camp because that analysis would be painful. However moving on this film will likely prove to be a movie that people grasp onto because of the emotion factor and the areas it does not go. The theatre was so quiet after it ended you could hear a pin drop and I must say I felt like one of the few cynical watchers there from what I could tell. People seemed to be eating the official government story up. It's no surprise to me, this alleged account of the terror aboard the 4th hijacked plane on Sept. 11 provokes deep emotions even from yours truly." 

We are pushed to feel anger at the four hijackers later identified by the F.B.I. as Ziad Jarrah , Saeed al-Ghamdi , Ahmed al-Haznawi and Ahmed al-Nami, but since the crash had no survivors, we should realize everything in the movie that takes place on board the flight is speculation, despite its "factual disclaimers". The FAA timeline is probably the only thing not up to debate in this film. United 93 seeks to tell us what happened inside the hijacked plane: more interesting it also shows us some of the panic and chaos that seized those tracking air traffic that morning, which had all sorts of rumors passing as news reports. The man depicted as the lead hijacker seemed to really fit into the calculated mold of a suicide terrorist described in the book "Suicide Terrorism" by Greg Pape. However we get very little info on the terrorist or the passengers and crew aboard. Most of the film is split in between the FAA panic, some NORAD/Military jitters and how unsuspecting everybody was.

The "crash" of the San Francisco-bound Flight 93, in which the passengers are depicted as rising up to fight is a feel good tale of good-versus-evil story of unarmed citizens, who, in a short time, faced their biggest nightmare but overcame their fear, got organized and fought for their one slim shot at survival.. In my humble opinion, this film perpetuates a number of government level conspiracies namely the alleged phone calls made from cell phones. Initially the film showed calls coming from plane phones only then later in the film people using cells phones where they were at altitudes so high that all research and testing shows that cell phones made from the given heights have a success rate of less than 1%. That coupled with other circumstantial evidence, such as fighter directives issued that day and protocols that are supposed to be followed and why they were not, conflicting stories and early news footage leads to credibility issues with the film and while we can debate endlessly the degree of historical accuracy of these film. I won't bother here since Hollywood has more influence and resources and there is just too much alternative information for people who truly care to check into the story. I guess what I am saying is that for all intents and purposes, the tragedy of 9/11 is about to become a cash cow using pseudo patriotism as the spring board, but that doesn't mean this film was not good entertainment. - Nuff said.

Vacancy

Category: Suspense/Horror Rating: R for brutal violence and terror, brief nudity and language. Run Time: 1 hr. 20  min.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: C

Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale play David and Amy Fox, who have the instincts but lack the wherewithal to trust them and reluctantly check into the Pinewood after their car breaks down. They are on their way home from a family celebration, which they attended together even though they are awaiting final divorce papers. That is why we should always trust our sixth sense. Luke Wilson is beefed up nowadays but his characters is a flight before fight sort of man.

V for Vendetta

Category: Action/Adventure, Drama, Science Fiction/Fantasy and Adaptation Rating: R for strong violence and some language. Run Time: 2 hr.  10 min.

Starring: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry, John Hurt

Directed by James McTeigue

Produced by Joel Silver, Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski

Written by: Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski (screenplay) Dave Gibbons (II) and Alan Moore (Source Material from graphic novel: "'V' is for Vendetta")

Distributed by Warner Bros.

Release Date: March 17th, 2006

Synopsis: Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked vigilante known only as "V." Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V urges his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V's mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself--and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plot to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.

Eyecalone Says: Overall: A-

“Why won’t you die? - Because behind this mask is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof!”

I may be paraphrasing here but this quote among others is just one of many uttered by V, the hero of V for Vendetta, one of the most provocative, incendiary, and controversial action movies to ever be released by a major studio in the U.S. Before The Matrix was setting box office records, the Wachowski brothers wrote a screenplay of V for Vendetta. Instead of directing it themselves, they tapped James McTeigue, who worked under them on the Matrix trilogy. Based on Alan Moore’s (who also wrote Watchmen and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) 1989 graphic novel, the storyline of which skewered the 1980s England of Margaret Thatcher, V is seemingly part action movie, part political statement, and part Molotov cocktail. As it turns out, Moore who took his name off the film's credits, wants no part of what the Wachowskis have wrought on the screen, and it’s probably safe to say that from this point on the Wachowskis will be personas non grata among pundits and media opinion maker on the political right (look for speculation related to the personal lives of the secretive pair who no longer speak to the media to be placed on the front-burner from now on, such as Larry, the older of the two, being a transvestite in a relationship with a dominatrix). The fact that this film was allowed to come out in its’ current format is testament to how much leeway generating close to a billion dollars with The Matrix franchise bought.

At least inspired by the general source material, the story line is set in approximately 2018 in an Orwellian and totalitarian Britain, which terrorizes its’ citizens, criminalizes descent, and routinely lies to it’s people via TV news programs. In the Wachowski update, England is an ultra-religious, Islam-Hating, fear-mongering, gay-bashing, police state ruled by Chancellor Sutler (John Hurt) who convinces the people to relinquish their personal freedoms in exchange for being protected from biological weapons of mass destruction and terrorism - any of this sound at least a little familiar? The news station has its own Bill O'Reilly/Shawn Hannity/Rush Limbaugh figure in the blowhard Prothero, and chancellor Sutler has somewhat of a Dick Cheney in the character known only as Creedy. As for the U.S., the “news” reports that the United States is “the world’s largest leper colony” as it falling apart in the midst of a 2^nd civil war; Prothero the only pundit who seems to matter, attributes Britain not (yet) having suffered the same fate to their faith in “God”. In 2018 Britain it seems you’re as likely to get assaulted by the government police, as you are to be helped by them, which is where our story’s “hero”, V (Hugo Weaving a.k.a. “Agent Smith” from Matrix fame), enters. V rescues Evey (Natalie Portman) from sexual assault (and who knows what else) by government police, then becomes linked to V’s massive acts of property destruction, and a government target herself. She eventually becomes V’s closest confidante and sidekick but not without some seemingly depraved manipulation on the part of V.

Waist Deep

Category: Action/Adventure, Drama, Thriller and Crime/Gangster Rating: R for strong violence and pervasive language. Run Time: 1 hr. 37 min.

Starring: Tyrese Gibson, Meagan Good, Larenz Tate, The Game, H. Hunter Hall

Directed by Vondie Curtis Hall

Produced by Ted Field, A Demetrius Brown, Russell Simmons

Written by: Vondie Curtis Hall (screenplay), Michael Mahern (story), Darin Scott (story)

Distributed by Rogue Pictures (Focus)

Release Date: June 23rd, 2006

Synopsis: "I'll always come back for you," single father O2 tells his young son Junior. This parental promise is put to the test when O2 is suddenly plunged into a do-or-die situation; trying to go straight for Junior's sake, this recently paroled ex-con is forced to go back outside the law after his son is kidnapped in a carjacking. The resulting chase and shootout have left Junior in the hands of Meat, the vicious leader of the Outlaw Syndicate. O2's shady cousin Lucky tries to mediate, but is caught between criminal and family loyalties. The only person who can or will help O2 get his son back is wily street-smart hustler Coco, whose path fatefully crossed O2's just moments before the kidnapping. When Lucky gets word to O2 that Meat expects $100,000 for Junior's freedom, O2 and Coco seize the opportunity to pit rival elements of the South Los Angeles underworld against each other. "It's either all or nothing," realizes O2. With the clock ticking down, the heat between O2 and Coco rises as they become a lawbreaking couple, on an action-packed tear through a range of Los Angeles neighborhoods. Can they outwit the underworld and save Junior and themselves?

Shiesty Says Overall: B-

There has yet to be a movie adaptation of the wildly successful video game series Grand Theft Auto, but once Hollywood finally gets around to that idea, they can use Waist Deep as a good guide for how to, and not to make that film. Directed by actor Vondie Curtis Hall, Waist Deep is the latest in a string of South Los Angeles (the land formerly known as South Central LA, but changed for PR and tourism reasons) based "hood movies", which happen to be my personal favorite genre. Part Baby Boy, mixed with a little Boyz In Da Hood and a sprinkle of Friday for good measure, Waist Deep turns out to be a relatively entertaining use of 90 minutes, provided you can suspend reality and put your conscience on snooze.

Following a few days in the life of reformed ex-con O2 (Tyrese Gibson, returning to the hood after a decent turn in the military drama Annapolis), Waist begins, sans opening credits, cheerfully enough. Summoned from his job as a security guard to scoop his young son Otis (H. Hunter Hall, the director's son, in a most unfortunate case of nepotism), O2 soon finds himself setup for a carjacking by a busty street hustler named CoCo (Megan Good, finally in an adult role. Well, sorta). As if losing his car isn't enough, Otis Junior is fast asleep in the back seat during the whole ordeal, leading his father, with CoCo's help, on a Bonnie and Clyde style chase all over Los Angeles County to raise the ransom given by Junior's captor, Big Meat (The Game). With less than 48 hours to go, O2 racks up felonies as he steals, kills, and randomly destroys everything in his path to coming up with the $100,000 needed to repay his ex-nemesis and get his child back. Of course, this being a 'hood movie', there's also time for plenty of cameos (including the voice of Michael Eric Dyson, and a very To Wong Foo-ish Kimora Lee Simmons), a few car chases, and of course, the requisite bonin' scene.

Tyrese, nearing 30, should probably have graduated from this sort of film by now, but it's hard to imagine anyone else more perfectly cast as O2. Good (implants notwithstanding) still looks like the gap-toothed pre-teen from Nickelodeon's Cousin Skeeter, but she too is a good fit; sexy, vulnerable, and street smart as CoCo. And while he only has about 1/2 dozen lines in the whole movie, The Game is an adequate villain as the machete wielding, one-eyed kingpin Big Meat. [spoiler alert] While he comes in the film with a bang and goes out with, well, a bang, his "where's my money?" scene near the beginning of the movie has to be about the most gangsta display of cockiness and sheer ignorance recorded on film in some time. Chopping off a man's arm is one thing. Defiling him with said arm is yet another story of it's own.

You can call Waist Deep many things: gleefully ignorant, cluelessly hypocritical, and outlandishly violent, but you sure as heck can't call it boring. With few breaks in the action, it's an end-to-end orgy of guns, explosions, drugs, and a dismemberment (courtesy of Big Meat) here and there to keep things interesting. No, this movie won't be winning any NAACP Image Awards (seriously, who cares?) this year, but it does get my ultimate stamp of approval: induction into Shiesty' Hood Movie Hall of Fame. Leave the kids at home (seriously folks, if you can't get a babysitter, wait for Netflix), turn off your brain, and enjoy the ride.

Wild Hogs

Category: Action/Adventure and Comedy Rating: PG-13 for crude and sexual content, and some violence. Run Time: 1 hr. 39 min.

Starring: John Travolta, Tim Allen, Martin Lawrence, William H. Macy, Tichina Arnold

Directed by Walt Becker

Produced by Sharla Sumpter Bridgett, Amy Sayres, Michael Tollin

Written by: Brad Copeland

Distributed by Buena Vista Pictures Distribution

Release Date: March 2nd, 2007

Synopsis: A group of middle-aged friends decide to rev up their routine suburban lives with a freewheeling motorcycle trip. Taking a long dreamed-of breather from their stressful jobs and family responsibilities, they can't wait to feel the freedom of the open road. When this mis-matched foursome - who have grown far more used to the couch than the saddle - set out for this once-in-a-lifetime experience, they encounter a world that holds far more than they ever bargained for. The trip begins to challenge their wits and their luck, especially during a chance run-in with the Del Fuegos, a real-life biker gang who are less than amused with their novice approach. As they go looking for adventure, they soon find that they've embarked on a journey they will never forget.

Ooh Papi Overall: C

This movie is about a quartet of menopausal men off on a motorcycle trip to find themselves, in a very gay way. Its like 4x Fonzie meets "Brokeback Mountain". The main thing about these guys — the main source of the movie’s fumbling attempts at humor — is that they’re not gay. Seriously. No way. They may worry about people thinking that they’re gay, and they may do a lot of “HOW YOU DOING” things that might make audiences think that they’re latent homosexuals — dance, touch one another, take off their clothes, express affection to each other — but they’re absolutely 100 percent not gay. No no no no no no that’s what makes it funny, see.

My score could be effected by the fact that I also saw the film on line, on a laptop screen (http://cinecast.us/?L=video.index&id=604 yeah I am back to streaming again but hey its not downloading, so I guess its legal). Okay so this semi-gay quartet of well known actors played by Travolta, Lawrence, Allen, and Macy are tired of revving their bikes on the not-so-mean streets of Cincinnati. We meet dentist Tim Allen, a plumber and wannabe novelist Martin Lawrence and girl-shy computer geek Macy are talked into a male-midlife-crisis road trip by John Travolta, who, unbeknown to them, has just lost both his wife and his business. So these Mild Ones set off and soon run afoul of some genuine biker outlaws led by Ray Liotta. In the process, one of them gets it on with Marisa Tomei in the most non-gay way imaginable within the limits of a PG-13 movie. The wives of the two who still have wives show up, proving, well, you know. And the fourth one? Click the link above to find out.

Wait, wait I would be re-miss if I did not mention that Tichina Arnold is playing Martins wife now, after all these years as his nemesis on the “Martin sitcom”, and Martin got fat ya'll. There are some funny moments like they go skinny-dipping and are interrupted by a wholesome family terrified by the idea of four grown men naked. My stomach hurt I laughed so much. At times "Wild Hogs" seems less of a comedy and more like what Hollywood has become after a decade of gay pride.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Category: Documentary Rating: PG for brief mild language Run Time: 1 hr.  30 min.

Starring: Martin Sheen, Dave Barthmuss, Jim Boyd (II), Alec N. Brooks, Alan Cocconi

Directed by Chris Paine

Produced by Alex Gibney, Dean Devlin, Richard D. Titus

Written by Chris Paine

Distributed by Sony Pictures Classics

Release Date: June 28th, 2006

Synopsis: The year is 1990. California is in a pollution crisis. Smog threatens public health. Desperate for a solution, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) targets the source of its problem: auto exhaust. Inspired by a recent announcement from General Motors about an electric vehicle prototype, the Zero Emissions Mandate (ZEV) is born. It required 2% of new vehicles sold in California to be emission-free by 1998, 10% by 2003. It is the most radical smog-fighting mandate since the catalytic converter. With a jump on the competition thanks to it speed-record-breaking electric concept car, GM launches its EV1 electric vehicle in 1996. It was a revolutionary modern car, requiring no gas, no oil changes, no mufflers, and rare brake maintenance (a billion-dollar industry unto itself). A typical maintenance checkup for the EV1 consisted of replenishing the windshield washer fluid and a tire rotation. But the fanfare surrounding the EV1's launch disappeared and the cars followed. Was it lack of consumer demand as carmakers claimed, or were other persuasive forces at work? Fast forward to 6 years later--the fleet is gone. EV charging stations dot the California landscape like tombstones, collecting dust and spider webs. How could this happen? Did anyone bother to examine the evidence? Yes, in fact, someone did. And it was murder.

Bruce Banter Says: Overall: A-

"Who Killed the Electric Car?" is a factual and chronological declaration of how "Big Oil (Texaco, Chevron, etc)" along with a number of other factors is destroying the planets environment and corrupting our technological future. Hopefully none of it is news to you but the sparkling celebrity laden minds like Mel Gibson and others that appear in the film may be able to draw some much needed attention to a topic that may actually be picking up some steam. We should be up in arms about how misinformed the media keeps us about electric cars and alternative energy in general. Much like An Inconvenient Truth, this film shows us many hard facts then backs away in the end with a whimpering position of  “we still have hope perspective”. Some things which we see in the film are subtle but powerful, for instance Bill Clinton tells a joke involving a child. electric cars and alternative energy at the White House; and all present are laughing except the representatives from "Big Oil" that were present. The three sat stone faced and un-amused. It spoke volumes about how "Big Oil" which sort of runs the world hates alternative energy and despite what we see on the surface will not allow anything to replace American and International dependence on fossil Fuels.

The contradictions of creating an electric car that GM was faced with are incredible. When GM realized that they would lose money with electric cars because you had less engines and parts that would need to be replaced, they came to the conclusion that despite how much money they had invested in electric cars. Those electric cars had no future with them. The contradictions and hypocrisy in the film kept on coming from car manufacturers and "Big Oil" and it was capped off by Bush’s purposely misleading speech about how much money they were investing in alternative energy and what this country is doing about it. It even gave clarity to me about the misleading information. As one film interview said “Ronald Reagan declared war on the sun.” The film ties in a lot for the informed and the laymen. It’s like thinking to yourself a Hydrogen powered hummer seems to be a waste of technology but I don’t know why, and then 90 minutes later you are given the facts why. Take for example the Hydrogen dream we've been sold, Americans can invest 1 billion in an alternative fuel source that can't really closely compete with oil and that is 20 years away from commercialization, but we allow corporations to take the electric car off the market that is actually ready now, can compete with gasoline, and will help fight against global warming. In the file the recent California clean air initiative is also exposed. The NY Times said, "in 1990 the state's smog-busting California Air Resources Board adopted the Zero-Emission Vehicle mandate in a bid to force auto companies to produce exhaust-free vehicles. The idea was simple: we were choking to death on our own waste. The goals were seemingly modest: by 1998, 2 percent of all new cars sold in the biggest vehicle market in the country would be exhaust-free, making California's bumper-to-bumper lifestyle a touch less hellish. " However California was the pioneer and they surrendered to a minority of wealthy oil corporations, and car companies, sort of the way we as citizens have surrendered how we should and could live, to the lies of well paid lobbyist.

World Trade Center

Category: Drama Rating: PG-13 for intense and emotional content, some disturbing images and language. Run Time: 2 hr.  09 min.

Starring: Nicolas Cage, Michael Pena, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Maria Bello, Stephen Dorff

Directed by Oliver Stone

Produced by Donald J. Lee Jr, Norm Golightly, Michael Shamberg

Written by Andrea Berloff

Distributed by Paramount Pictures, United International Pictures

Release Date: August 9th, 2006

Synopsis: True story of Will Jimeno and John McLoughlin, two Port Authority police officers who rushed into the burning World Trade Center on 9/11 to help rescue people, but became trapped themselves when the tower collapsed. A race against time ensued to free them before their air ran out.

Bruce Banter Says: Overall: C-

When you think of a movie with the World Trade Center and September 11th events, and Oliver Stone you think cutting edge, provocative and thought provoking. This film is not any of those things. It’s a made for TV film and they don’t even have any extra crash footage, that people on the internet have. Stone backs away from all of the obvious controversies and conspiracies and opts for the human endearment movie that is inherently touching (but I could probably do that). Understand IMHO there’s no such thing as a boring Sept. 11 story. Ask anyone, especially those of us in NYC that day, what we did or how we felt that morning, and the story you’ll hear will be dramatic and interesting (probably even exaggerated).

Stone and crew missed a lot in this film. Like the fact that two of the central characters in this film, (both marines Bruce Reynolds and Jason L.Thomas) were African-American, not white like in the film (as reported in previous Headlines on www.playahata.com). Yet Stone claims “World Trade Center” is devoid of political content - yeah right. The film studios can’t get away from the racist White hero and savior format. This becomes obvious with unnecessary images of a White Christ figure intermittently coming through the rubble to offer a hand. It’s subtle but a form of cultural and socio-political propaganda. Many might disagree but that is there business. The fact the poster says “A true story” of courage and survival and you have two peoples likeness convened as something other than what they are suggest there are likely more inaccuracies in this film and I saw at least 2. One was the suggestion that the third building fell to flames when owner Larry Silverstein has already admitted on TV they “pulled it”. Then again the purpose of this film was to relay events as people believed them at that precise moment in history, which would make that authentic. However nothing was more authentic than the diss by cops of Hip-hop station Hot97 which happened in the first 15 minutes of the film. Where one Latino officer's wife relayed some information about a 2nd plane hitting the Twin Towers and basically the other cops suggested that you can’t take anything coming from the Hot97 Morning Show serious, as they preceded into ground zero not knowing the second plane had actually hit. That was poignant but 99% of the audience will miss that blurb.

However as I heard one critic suggest on TV.” The movie captures some things very well. As brave Port Authority officers McLaughlin and Jimeno fend off fear, despair and panic in the rubble, the audience gets a good long look at what such literally crushing circumstances might have been like. Some physical details linger in the memory, such as Jimeno spitting out gravel and rocks in the hospital, or McLaughlin being carried out by his rescuers (all White I recall ). Stone realizes the impact inherent in such moments, the images trade both in realism and a more operatic sensibility.” Thus far this is the second major Hollywood studio film to weigh in on the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and each time they tell it, they opt to do whatever they want. That should be no surprise since the United 93 film was based on what we know to be a lie, in that the September 11th fact finding commission say there is NO EVIDENCE that suggest passengers stormed the cockpit to bring that plane down. Hey truth doesn’t really matter anymore anyway but I still have to speak truth to power.-Nuff Said

X-Men: The Last Stand

Category: Action/Adventure, Science Fiction/Fantasy and Sequel Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of action violence, some sexual content and language. Run Time: 1 hr.  43 min.

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry

Directed by Brett Ratner

Produced by Kevin Feige, John Palermo, Stan Lee

Written by: Simon Kinberg Screenplay Zak Penn

Distributed by 20th Century Fox

Release Date: March 26th, 2006

Synopsis: A "cure" for mutancy threatens to alter the course of history. For the first time, mutants have a choice: retain their uniqueness, though it isolates and alienates them, or give up their powers and become human. The opposing viewpoints of mutant leaders Charles Xavier, who preaches tolerance, and Magneto, who believes in the survival of the fittest, are put to the ultimate test--triggering the war to end all wars

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: B

This time around its action packed. The action and visuals: STUNNING. The Beast's rage unleashed. The Angel, in all his magnificence. Magneto, his magnetic power in all its glory. Arclight! Juggernaut! Multiple Man! Yes, they're in this movie. Visually, this film is awesome. I was on the edge of my seat for the last 50 minutes of the movie. You will feel the sheer energy of this film. It’s not perfect and it’s not as good as X-Men 2 but it should shatter some existing box office record. The first movie, back in 2000, was a gaudy spectacle with -- for many -- a simple-minded, sometimes roaring vacuous script. The second installment, "X2: X-Men United," with the same characters and plot devices, was a majestic improvement, emotional and epic this time Brett Ratner gets action but not that much emotion but still scores a victory. 

Die Hard Comic fans might be disappointed in some of the liberties that Hollywood often takes with adapting comic series to scripts, so don’t scream when you see Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones) is supposed to be a mutant now. True comic fans know he never was before. They do try to add a lot of our favorites in "Last Stand" using some - ignored characters from the comics -- notably Juggernaut and the blue-furred, crusty, lovable Beast, a.k.a. Hank McCoy, played by Kelsey Grammer, who manages to smirk through the latex (Beast is the U.S. secretary of mutant affairs). The scene where Juggernaut steals a page from David Chapelles skit, I AM Rick James Bitch shows the careful interwoven style that pop culture fiend Brett Ratner has brought that might be unheard of if directed by previous director X-Men, Singer. 

Although the X men series was created on the premise of the contrasting ideologies of Malcolm X and Dr.Martin Luther King the constant uttering of the now cliché phrase Of Malcolm X ’s "By any means necessary" was over kill this time around. However the other analogies being used such as Rogue telling police officials "Don't call me that, that is my slave name and I don’t answer to my slave name", actually reminds fans of how palatable this film is (especially for African Americans) minus the super powers of the characters. 

I like the plot, which has the Government developing a cure for mutants which seems to be needed because of human discrimination. However, why would anyone who can fly over San Francisco Bay, or, like Storm, bring on cloudbursts and dance with the whirlwinds, want to be human or in this sense normal? On the other hand you can feel the pain of Anna Paquin's Rogue, whose power-draining gift messes up her love life so much. You can almost dig Magneto's arguments about the "cure" getting tossed -- if not approve of his methods, which amount to mass carnage. I still don’t see Magneto as a bad guy but a realist who sides on the side of history. Although in certain scenes they do try to portray him as a evil man , his rhetoric is still sound. Last but not least, please sit through the credits. There's a little bit of significant footage at the end that you have to see. Trust me. It'll make you feel a lot better and it will prove that this isn’t really the last film. Although allegedly this is the last of the "X-Men" movies, several spin-offs (including a "Wolverine" movie) are in the works.

You, Me, and Dupree

Category: Comedy Rating: PG-13 for sexual content, brief nudity, crude humor, language and a drug reference. Run Time: 1 hr. 49  min.

Starring: Owen Wilson, Kate Hudson, Matt Dillon, Michael Douglas, Amanda Detmer

Directed by Joe Russo, Anthony Russo

Produced by Aaron Kaplan, Sean Perrone

Written by: Michael LeSieur

Distributed by Universal Pictures

Release Date: July 14th, 2006

Synopsis: Carl and Molly Peterson are just starting their new life together--complete with a cute house, boring neighbors, stable jobs and the routines of newlywed existence. There's just one unfortunate hitch in their perfectly constructed new world. And his name's Dupree. Randy Dupree, Carl's oldest friend and perpetual bachelor, has found himself with nowhere to go after being fired. Carl yanks his jobless/homeless pal out of the bar he's living in and invites him to temporarily crash on the couch--that's just what friends do. At first, Carl is quite pleased to have his good buddy as a permanent couch guest, while Molly bears the brunt of Dupree's immature antics. But, as Carl becomes buried in his grown-up job, he finds it harder and harder to juggle Dupree and his responsibilities as a husband. To make matters worse, Dupree uses his ample spare time to become a great companion for Molly. Even her dad and the neighbors are falling for his carefree wisdom and charm--frustrating Carl to no end. Soon, everyone (but Carl) begins to root for Dupree to stick around. But as Dupree starts to become a fixture in the Peterson's home, three becomes not just a crowd--but a full blown, hilarious catastrophe.

Ooh Papi Says: Overall: B

This is a really "White comedy" but I enjoyed it. Owen Wilson, has the ugliest nose in the world and it is totally distracting but the film is funny. He is the ultimate slacker. In this totally likable comedy, Wilson’s Dupree is the best friend of newlywed guys’ guy Matt Dillon. Broke and homeless, Wilson crashes for a “couple of days,” and naturally, Dillon’s wife–the skinny Kate Hudson–has mixed feelings about all this. However Dillon is such a punk and coward to his father in law its cool to see bad stuff happen to him or see him become the punchline in Owens annoying antics. There’s no resisting Wilson’s ragtag appeal, and he sets in motion an unusual shift in alliances in this odd threesome that you may not expect. Wilson punches up the flick with his witty annoying humor, but Dupree is more of a sentimental expression filled antagonist than a belly-laugh factory. Not that that’s a bad thing–in a world of mediocre romantic comedies, sincerity trumps trying too hard any day.