This movie is being marketed as a romantic comedy. I'm not sure that's very accurate. True, there are a number of very funny moments but, even so, I'm not sure I'd call it a comedy. Have you ever been present when one of your friends was fighting with his or her spouse? Then you'll recognize the feeling of discomfort I had through much of the first half of this film. More than that, though, it made me sad. It was just a little too close to home for me to find it funny. Now, before you go sending me recommendations for a marriage counselor, let me just say that Juliette and I are in no danger of breaking up. Like every couple, though, we do occasionally have fights. Of course, we communicate well and share responsibility pretty equally, so our fights are less consequential than the ones in this movie and get resolved relatively quickly, but the themes in the arguments between Gary (Vince Vaughn) and Brooke (Jennifer Aniston) were very familiar. I think they'd be familiar to a lot of people--in fact, I think that's something that the filmmakers were counting on. All this, combined with the palpable chemistry between Aniston and Vaughn, made it just too real for me. So, yeah, I can't really call it a comedy. I will say, though, that this movie featured probably the best acting I've seen out of either of the leads. And, as I mentioned before, there are comedic scenes. I thought Jon Favreau was hilarious and Juliette liked Jason Bateman. Anyway, I thought this film was good, but if you're looking for a nice, light movie to bring a date to, you might want to consider seeing something else.

Viewed: 6/2/2006 | Released: 6/1/2006 | Score: B

IMDb Page

This movie is definitely an example of an adaptation where familiarity with the source material can diminish your enjoyment. The previous two films made some significant changes to the Marvel canon--most notably the characters' ages and relationships. With that sort of setup, this one could hardly be different--in fact, the changes in this film are arguably even bigger. What was surprising was that although the film's overall storyline departs so radically from Marvel's chronology, some of the details were extremely accurate. For example, the scene at the lake with Cyclops and Jean Grey was directly lifted from the Dark Phoenix saga. In any case, some people will hate the changes and some will love them. As for me, I loved the comics but I also recognize that one of the truly great things about comic book universes is that they allow for real freedom to explore themes. In that respect, I think that even though the issues underlying this film--mutation as a metaphor for race or, perhaps, sexuality--are dealt with in a relatively crude manner, it's possible that films like X3 will be a stepping stone in the growth of speculative films. After all, the X-Men comic itself was also pretty heavy-handed and clumsy in its execution, but it was part of the movement that led to some of the more nuanced graphic novels we have today. As this review is getting rather lengthy, I'll go ahead and rush through the rest: the acting was mostly adequate with a few good moments and a few particularly bad ones, the effects and action were quite good, the dialogue was unsurprisingly mediocre, and the film was, overall, pretty good.

Viewed: 5/26/2006 | Released: 5/25/2006 | Score: B

IMDb Page

As I'm sure you know, Dan Brown's book was a huge bestseller, and more than a little controversial. I'm sure that the same will be true of the movie. The film has already made 77.1 million dollars, and I'm sure that the books popularity will carry it through at least three more weeks of huge box office sales. And it's already generating plenty of controversy buzz--on my way into the theater I was stopped by a guy who tried to give me a pamphlet about the inaccuracies in the film. Personally, I don't think it's all that great a story. I'm just not that into the whole conspiracy theory thing. I will say, though, that it works better in film than it does in print. You see, the main problem with the book was that the writing was mediocre at best. Movies get to avoid awkward prose by just showing you everything that's happening. And much of the acting was also quite good. Paul Bettany, Ian McKellen, and Jean Reno were all very good, which comes as no surprise. Audrey Tautou was OK, although I don't think that her part gave her much to work with. As for Tom Hanks, well, he did a fine job with his performance, but I think he was miscast. The thing is, I'm not sure who would have been better. Nic Cage and Tom Cruise have both done plenty of thrillers, but Cage isn't brainy enough and I haven't liked Cruise in a long time. Dennis Quaid might be another choice, but I don't know if he has the chops to do better than Hanks. George Clooney is too cocky, and Ewan MacGregor is too young (plus I would probably get hung up on his accent). But anyway, I'd say the movie was generally executed pretty well, and if you liked the book you'll like the movie.

Viewed: 5/19/2005 | Released: 4/18/2006 | Score: B

IMDb Page

I walked out of this movie feeling like I didn't really get it. Maybe I'm just a little too stuck in the traditions of American film. You see, normally when you go see a movie like this one, you expect that there will be some sort of crisis for one or more of the characters, things are or will become complicated, and somewhere in the course of the movie the character(s) will grow or change or have some sort of revelatory moment, after which the crisis is resolved. This movie really didn't follow that pattern. It certainly sets things up that way--three of the four "main" characters are at some sort of turning point in their lives--but nobody really changes in any meaningful way. That is, while all of them change their circumstances, there's no real personal discovery for any of them, no admittance of any fault or change in character. What resolution there is seems unsatisfying--to me, at least--because it's either accompanied by a revelation that seems insincere or because it's only accomplished by sheer dumb luck. My guess is that this was intentional on the part of writer-director Nicole Holofcener, that it's a sort of postmodern challenge to traditional film notions, an attempt to make art imitate life a bit more accurately. And in that respect I guess it succeeds--Juliette, especially, found it to be a very truthful story. It was pretty good in the execution as well--the acting and dialogue were very natural, and the pacing, if a bit plodding at times, seemed to fit the rhythms of real life pretty well. I'd say I liked the movie, but I didn't connect with it well enough to give it a fourth star. I had a similar reaction to Holofcener's previous film, Lovely & Amazing, but, despite that, I find her work intriguing enough that I'm curious to see what she's going to do next.

Viewed: 4/28/2006 | Released: 1/28/2006 | Score: 3

IMDb Page

A friend of mine with whom I went to see American Dreamz made a comment as we were leaving the theater that I think sums it up pretty well: "That was not a good movie, but there were moments of [sheer] brilliance." I don't see many satires, so it's unusual that I would see two in two weeks. This one certainly suffers in the comparison. It was just too absurd and too heavy-handed to be an effective commentary, and lacking that it can hardly be an effective satire. On the other hand, a lot of the jokes were very funny. The details, especially, were often hilarious. A song lyric here, a TV caption there--in those instances the ridiculousness worked. As a complete film, though, it was just over the top. Writer-director Paul Weitz has done some decent films in the past, but this is definitely not his best work.

Viewed: 4/27/2006 | Released: 3/3/2006 | Score: C

IMDb Page

The second feature we saw at the film festival also turned out to be an ensemble piece. This one was quite different from Jam, though. For one thing, the storylines were only very loosely connected--I believe the only intersection is one very brief scene where several of the characters happen to be in an elevator at the same time. And where Jam was kind of lighthearted and sweet, The Great New Wonderful was more profound. The performances, too, were much more profound and moving. They were all really outstanding. Of course, I've come to expect good acting from people like Maggie Gyllenhaal, Edie Falco, and Olympia Dukakis. (Gyllenhaal had, arguably, the emotional climax of this film.) Judy Greer has been steadily rising in my estimation, and this performance certainly follows that trend. And Tony Shalhoub was, as usual, delightfully quirky. The two surprises for me were Jim Gaffigan and Steven Colbert, both of whom I've appreciated for their comedy work in the past. As it turns out, they also both have a talent for dramatic acting. Given the recent success of smaller films and ensemble casts, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this movie garner some nominations when the awards seasons comes around. In my opinion, The Great New Wonderful is the best drama so far for 2006.

Viewed: 4/21/2006 | Released: 4/21/2006 | Score: A

IMDb Page

This was the first of the two features we saw at this year's Newport Beach Film Festival. We had just sat through two sets of really bad student shorts, so I was feeling a little discouraged. Jam really turned the day around, though. The film follows the interactions of a bunch of very different people who get stuck out on a country road for an afternoon due to a car crash. There's a cellist on her way to a concert, a father and son out on a road trip, a yuppie couple, a single dad with his kids, a pregnant lesbian couple, a bride on her way to her wedding with her two bridesmaids, a retired couple, and two bumbling criminals (who turn out to be the major comic relief). I think this movie really exemplified what I like about ensemble movies. None of the performances were truly outstanding but they combined (like Voltron) to produce something that surpassed its constituent parts. I think it's unlikely that Jam will make it to theaters, but if you happen upon it at the video store I'd say it's definitely worth renting.

Viewed: 4/21/2006 | Released: 3/31/2006 | Score: B

IMDb Page

Thank You For Smoking is probably the smartest comedy I've seen in the past year. It's also one of the funniest. Aaron Eckhart gave a brilliantly slick performance as Nick Naylor, a tobacco lobbyist. Here's a character who is utterly sleazy and yet you still find yourself rooting for him. The supporting cast was also quite good. David Koechner and J.K. Simmons both made me laugh out loud, as did Rob Lowe. William H. Macy and Robert Duvall were also quite capable in their roles. The low points were probably Adam Brody, who seemed a little forced, and Maria Bello, who was kind of boring. Neither of them was actually bad, though, just not as good as some of the others. It's rare that you find an effective satire these days--too often they're too heavy-handed and not funny enough. This one, though, is well worth seeing.

Viewed: 4/20/2006 | Released: 1/19/2006 | Score: A

IMDb Page

I've never really considered myself a fan of Neil Young, although I do like several of his songs. I think, perhaps, that this movie may lead me to investigate his music a bit more. The movie is pretty much just a concert, but with a bit of backstory added on the front. Just a few months before the show, Young had had a couple of unfortunate events: the death of his father and the diagnosis of a brain aneurism. It seems that those events did something to make him more conscious of things like the passing of time and his own mortality; the whole concert has this very personal, introspective, sentimental feeling. On top of that, the music was great, very heartfelt and passionate. He also introduces many of the songs with a story about its creation, which I understand is quite unusual for him. Sadly, I think that this movie is out of most theaters--the big screen adds a lot to the experience. It's still worth seeing as a rental, but if you get the chance to see it on the big screen it will add a lot to the experience.

Viewed: 4/12/2006 | Released: 2/9/2006 | Score: A

IMDb Page

This has got to be the most consistently good series I've ever read. Ten books in and I've enjoyed every one. I'm even a little sad that there's only one left. Anyway, I'd mostly add all of the same praise to this book as I did with the rest. The one thing that sticks out in my mind about Lord Hornblower is that the tragic moments moved me quite a bit more than the previous books. Whether that's because the writing was more effective or just because I've had more time to become invested in the characters, I'm not sure.

Started: 4/7/2006 | Finished: 4/11/2006

Purchase from Amazon