Who wouldn't want to see a movie where Will Smith plays a drunk hobo superhero? OK, maybe someone who read the reviews would want to see THIS version of the story, but really, does a movie with this sort of promise need good reviews to get your attention? The reviews I saw complained (vaguely as to avoid spoilers) that the movie got really stupid towards the end, but stupid can mean a lot of things. It could be some stupid elements that annoy but don't distract from better qualities; it could be an enjoyable quality in and of itself if it's a certain kind of really stupid. So I'm disappointed to say that the end of Hancock is not just stupid; it's not even the same movie that I came for.

The movie that I came for at least had the decency to stay around for a while, and it was fun and mostly even smart. It's grungy, it's edgy, it's a fun mix of fake special effects and realistic reactions, and it's classic comedy. Will Smith may enjoy flexing his serious acting muscles every now and then, but drunk hobo superheroes and the like are roles the star was born for. Hancock's such a likable character because he's not a hero; he can kick ass but he's also a pathetic wreck in need of a dorky Jason Bateman to fix his image.

So then his image gets fixed, he steps into the role of personality-less god, and the movie's over, right? Wrong! Most critics link this film's downfall to "The Twist", and though the reveal is stupid (and in the unrated version, with its superhero sex depiction, creates a giant plothole), at least it's still having fun. Then they have the nerve to throw in a mythology and turn the final scenes into a generic summer blockbuster. Like The Pineapple Express, this action-comedy doesn't have the chops to handle the action components that take over its climax, and though it's too good to be bad it still can't really be called a good movie. C+

What makes the early gangsters so interesting and strangely appealing? I think the answer to that question is that, with their funny nicknames, lack of a formal education, and often impulsive behavior, they were essentially overgrown children with guns. Johnny Hooker, not a gangster himself but involved in their lifestyle, is such a charming character because Robert Redford plays him so youthfully. He introduces himself bragging he knows how to drink; later he practically skips away from bullets barging through a bunch of homeless people's tents. Brilliant yet immature a criminal as he is, he's not so much immoral in his conning business as he is amoral, though with an aversion to violence that makes him relatively normal.

The Sting has the same director and stars as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, so comparisons are inevitable. I'd say the two films are pretty evenly matched. Both films excel in art direction and editing, recreating scenes from history in a way that feels truthful but is reflected through the lens of genre fiction. Redford's a bit better in The Sting, Paul Newman in Butch Cassidy. Where it matters most, the scripts for the two films are excellent in different ways. Butch Cassidy, with its adventure story and heavier emphasis on comedy, I found to be overall more consistently engaging.

This is not to say, however, that the script for The Sting isn't also thoroughly satisfying. The brilliance of it is that it keeps the viewer in the dark for much of it. When it gets slow, it's only because its building up to a surprise. The film's final act was particularly great for keeping me on my toes. From the beginning it feels the con's going to succeed. The question is "How?" Yet when the ragtime music stops and the film takes a noir-ish turn, suddenly the question changes to "Will it?" A

Capitalism: A Love Story may be Michael Moore's final documentary. If so, it'd be a fitting bookend to the career that started with Roger and Me. A psuedo-sequel to that first film, it could easily have been titled "I Told You So" had Moore's ego not taken a backseat to the serious crisis at hand. The few attention-grabbing stunts he attempts aren't his best material, and at times a topic of the whole American economic system gets beyond the film's reach. I'd have wanted more of a look at Jimmy Carter's warnings about greed and less of Wallace Shawn as a talking head. Flawed as it is, this is one of the year's must-see films.

Moore makes the case that American capitalism in its current form is evil, and theatrics aside it's incredibly hard to argue against the points he makes. Among the crimes against human dignity documented are private prisons paying judges to sentence teenagers on the silliest of charges, airline pilots living on food stamps, and "Dead Peasants Insurance", which allows companies to make money off their employees' premature deaths. I've already written my Representative urging for legislation against that last policy. Though there's some comic relief involving Jesus and derivatives, the tone is much more serious than previous Moore films. The scariest thing in the movie in my opinion is the leaked CitiBank document celebrating that "our country is no longer a democracy."

Unlike in Sicko, there's no solid solution given to the problems shown. Unions and democratic workplaces are praised, but Moore doesn't fully explore what system to replace the current one with. Perhaps what's to be learned is that all systems are flawed means to pursue an ideal, and it is better to do whatever works to defend that ideal rather than to treat the system itself idolatrously. B+

What ever happened to Judd Apatow? In 2007 and 2008, his name was on everything and it generally meant success. This year, it was only on The Year One and Funny People, both of which disappointed and the former of which outright bombed. IMDB lists him as only having one film set for next year. It seems as if he's falling quickly from his 15 minutes, but why? I'm guessing part of the answer has to do with every other new comedy starting to look like a Judd Apatow movie. I Love You, Man, staring Apatow regulars Paul Rudd and Jason Segel, could easily be mistaken for an Apatow production. Such a mistaken viewer would easily put this on the mid-to-lower tier of the producer's output.

The male bonding storyline is sweet enough, maybe too sweet with its happily ever after. The dick jokes requisite of this style are abundant but awfully edgeless. Maybe I've been desensitized to this sort of humor too much, but it feels more like an unrated cut of an average primetime sitcom rather than anything really outrageous. The first half-hour of the movie is really quite disposable; Segel's occasionally wise manchild Sydney manages to make the rest of the film at least interesting but the material just doesn't have enough inspiration to it. There's plenty of amusing lines but not a single classic scene.

I wasn't even sure if I was gonna bother reviewing this; this is my least favorite sort of review to write. I can neither recommend this movie nor rip it apart. There's no surprise turn or maddening disappointments to talk about. There's just nothing to really get from this (OK, maybe the inherent comedic value of referencing Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium). C+

This year, three movies have had to face the challenge of living up to the hype created by their trailers: Watchmen, Where the Wild Things Are, and The Unborn. Watchmen and Where the Wild Things Are both had amazing music video trailers; Wild Things lived up to expectations while Watchmen came close but short. The trailer for The Unborn amazed me in a very different manner: so many horror cliches with such bad special effects wrapped around by such a nonsensical premise that if I hadn't known better I'd think it was one of the fake trailers from Tropic Thunder. Did the movie live up to my expectations?

It surpassed them. Not only is it stupid and horrible, but it managed to offend me both as a Jew and as an intelligent human being. This is the worst movie I've seen this year.

All the more unfortunate, some good people were involved in making it. I love Gary Oldman, but he's not even trying to elevate his role of an exorcist rabbi beyond what the script gives him or even to maintain a consistent accent. As for director/screenwriter David S. Goyer, his work seems be heavily dependent on who he associates with. Working alongside competent filmmakers like Alex Proyas and Christopher Nolan we get Dark City and Batman Begins. Here he's working with Michael Bay. In this case there's more obnoxious slo-mo than obnoxious ADD-filming, but the misogyny, racism, awful dialogue, and utter failure to understand suspense that have given Bay his reputation are heavily present. A summary of what's wrong with this movie can be found in the main character's black best friend: she's given such lines as "Good night, hooker!" and of course dies in an incomprehensible action scene. And then the movie has the nerve to bring up Auschwitz. F

The '60s Astro Boy TV series innovated Japanese animation. The new movie is indicative of what's wrong with the American animation industry. Yes, director David Bowers is British and it was animated in Hong Kong, but the screenplay by Timothy Harris of Space Jam infamy is a mess. Brought in midway through this movie's production to rewrite a draft by Bowers, it seems Harris' main contribution was inserting stupid jokes and bland side characters believing American families couldn't handle the rest of the film. For a story with such a clear liberal message, it's depressing the production took this annoyingly conservative move.

Is there a good reason to precede the death of a child with a Jetsons gag? Yes, they go there in this movie. It's a two minute scene that symbolizes everything wrong with this movie: it goes into heavy territory and gets scared of itself, trying to back off from the seriousness with a silliness that makes everything uncomfortable. Tezuka's manga and anime were silly, but it was the kind of silliness that flows from the characters rather than from "jokes". Like in the Pixar movies this movie wishes it were, the comic was a force in the dramatic plots rather than a distraction. In the original, guns came out of Astro's butt and it was simply a funny visual gag. In the movie, Astro has to make one-liners to himself about it.

The satirical bits that hit their mark, mainly involving Donald Sutherland's Cheneyesque President Stone and Nathan Lane's manipulative Hamegg, are weakened by the bombardment of aimless gags. The pathos of Dr. Tenma coping with accepting Astro as his son is weakened not only by the gags but also by the phoned-in pathos of Astro's phoned-in love interest. Everything good in this movie has been weakened by a fear of risk. C+

2009 may go down as the year art film was thrust upon the masses. First there was Watchmen, which was sold on a connection to 300 despite being its complete opposite in terms of plot depth. Then there was Inglourious Basterds, which tricked audiences expecting an action film to mostly-subtitled battle of words. And now there's Where the Wild Things Are, which makes those previous risk-takers seem downright conventional. This is not a film made for children. It covers the dark side of childhood as realistically as My Neighbor Totoro covered the light side. Any psychological subtext that could be found in Maurice Sendak's classic picture book has been made bold text by Spike Jonze and David Eggers. It's a miracle they got it all right.

Not everyone will love this film. Its unorthodox character-driven rather than action-driven plot has already been interpreted by some as "no plot". However, it reaches such a high level of craft that I don't know how anyone can fully disrespect it. Remember when I said The Hurt Locker was a lock for the Best Cinematography Oscar? I have my doubts now. The fantastic has never looked so natural. The Wild Things themselves are some of the greatest costume/effects creations I've ever seen, and James Gandolfini gives one of the most layered vocal performances I've ever heard. His character of Carol, a moody, needy, pathetic yet terrifying id, is just as believable as Max, the central kid played by authentic unknown Max Records.

This is not a film to be forgotten. Though its 95 minutes do feel more dragged out than, say, Inglourious Basterds' 150 (inevitable when adapting a 10-sentence book), it's just as wild an emotional experience, certainly a more realistically moving and meaningful one. No matter how audiences respond to it now, it's destined to become required viewing for young movie buffs heading towards the end of their childhood. A

Drew Barrymore's directorial debut, is about as light and peppy as you would've guessed but also better than you would have expected. There's little particularly remarkable about this coming-of-age tale except for the fact the movie, buoyed by the screenplay by novelist Shauna Cross, means every second of it. There's nothing remotely cynical about it. As a viewer, enjoying even a fraction of the fun the people involved must have had making Whip It! is a treat.

My crush on her may be blocking my rational thinking here, but I think it may be safe to say that Ellen Page may be the best actress of her generation. She certainly has the range; Bliss Cavendar in Whip It! is almost the exact opposite of Juno McGruff, quiet and secretive rather than outgoing and wisecracking (I can't wait to see what Page is going to do in Inception). Bliss's discovery of what moves her and who means what to her is the backbone of the movie. An excellent all-around supporting cast, with Kristen Wiig doing break-out work as derby girl Maggie Mayhem, Marcia Gay Harden just annoying enough as the mom, and Daniel Stern as the likably lowbrow dad, successfully fleshes out the rest of the material.

There are a few things that are weird about Whip It! One, the title. What does it have to do with anything? Two, it's awfully retro for something taking place in the present day, though the Texas setting makes it pretty believable. Beyond that, it's a pretty normal movie. I don't mean that as an insult. It's predictable, yes, and I don't know how well I'll remember it in a few months, but this is all excusable in exchange for how entertainingly real it all feels. B

The first hour of Titus director Julie Taymor thinks is great drama; the last hour and forty minutes is. The great words of Shakespeare mixed with the great pictures of Taymor seems like a surefire bet for a great time but it takes a while for the parts to add up right. The issue is that Titus starts with a lot of exposition. Exposition isn't naturally that interesting, but Taymor lavishes equal love on all parts of this production despite some parts being deserving of less love. To make matters worse, in an attempt to distract from the exposition, a bunch of wordless montages showing off the funny anachronistic sets are used as a diversion. The diversions hurt the pacing; mix the pretty pictures with the dialog and get it moving!

Then, around the point when Lavinia's tongue and hands are cut off and Titus Andronicus himself gets more screentime, the movie becomes awesome. The diversions pretty much cease; there's still flashy montages, but they start to serve psychological purposes. Anthony Hopkins is an amazing orator and his deliveries of Andronicus's lines are often chilling. I like how Andronicus parallels his tormentor Aaron; both men act like scum, yet they're still men and they're caring fathers. This may be Shakespeare's darkest play which explains why it's a more controversial one, but it gets across its dark message awfully well.

This is a weird adaptation in that not only is it anachronistic Shakespeare, but an anachronistic history. It's a story of ancient Rome but the only things Roman about the setting are some armor and the presence of an emperor holding big pansexual orgies. I liked the anything-goes visual style, less-so the tonally inconsistent musical score. As far as revisions go, it's way above Luhrman's Romeo/Juliet and it contains some truly classic performances. B+

Is it a mortal sin to find a potential child molester likable? And I don't mean in a Hans Landa enjoyably despicable way. Father Flynn as played by Philip Seymour Hoffman is not just charismatic but also sympathetic. If it weren't for a few awkward pauses, the blond kid who constantly glowers at him, and the whole history of the Catholic Church (Doubt is set in the same year the documents for the abuse cover-ups were released to the public), it wouldn't be too hard to believe him innocent. Even with the evidence against him, it's still really difficult to pin him down. Is his nice guy affect an act? Is he a case of mental illness or power hunger? Would he be better if he never joined the priesthood? I have doubt.

If it wasn't hard enough to decide how to feel, the purveyor of justice in the movie, Sister Aloysius played by Meryl Streep, is as scary as any witch-hunter, albeit one who actually finds an evil witch. The enjoyability of the movie comes from the two gigantic characters constantly trying to one-up each other in cleverly written arguments, the grandiosity enhanced by some very unsubtle directing. How do the side performers fare? Amy Adams' naivete I didn't find totally believable, but Viola Davis really does knock her one scene out of the park.

Doubt the movie has apparently stayed quite faithful to the original play, and it does feel like a play with its wordiness and confined sets. However, it would seem the play was more ambiguous; half the people who say it say Flynn was guilty, half say he was innocent. The movie adaptation is probably less of a good debate piece, but it still raises important issues in a theatrically entertaining manner. B+

The Fountain may be this decade's most polarizing movie. It stands at exactly 51% on both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. It's fans are likely to point out that Blade Runner received a mixed reception before entering the official sci-fi canon. To them I'd like to point out when people say they love Blade Runner today, they're generally referring to one of the director's cuts. The Fountain could use a director's cut, though perhaps one which actually cuts a bit out rather than adds additional material in. I can't tell whether its current form is too much movie or not enough.

The Fountain is actually quite effective for about three-quarters of its running time. The modern day storyline fits right in line with Darren Aronofsky's oeuvre of longing tragedies. It contains big ideas about death and creation weaved through the lenses of Mayan myth and veterinary science, but all in the service of complimenting the characters rather than overpowering them. Hugh Jackman plays the doctor Tommy with highly sympathetic rage and desperation; Rachel Weisz as his sick girlfriend Izzy gives off frail beauty. The power of their performances, Aronofsky's strong eye, and the amazing score by Clint Mansell work together to create some shockingly intense scenes. Weaving in and out effortlessly are scenes from Izzy's manuscript about a conquistador in search of the Tree of Life.

Much more awkward are the abstract scenes of where some future astronaut version of Tommy floats towards an exploding nebula in a bubble containing the Tree of Life. The sights and sounds are still wonderful, but beyond that these simply fail at justifying themselves. Either cut them from the movie or make some sense of how they connect to everything else. Dispersed throughout, they're pretentious excess in an otherwise fine movie, but when the movie ends as ridiculously as it does, a sour aftertaste taints everything else. B-

First off, a rebuttal to what seems is the main criticism of Shane Acker's debut feature 9: 9 is not every apocalypse movie ever made and it doesn't bash you in the head with a "man good, machine bad" message. In fact, that's not even the film's message, despite the typical robots turn on humanity set-up of the apocalypse displayed. Rather, the film is a celebration of invention. Good machine versus bad machine plots aren't anything new, but the method of battle is. The big bad may lack a soul, but the animators put a lot of soul into the creatively horrific minions it keeps manufacturing. The heroic "stitchpunks" fight back with their own creativity; they've been creating a new mini-society where ours fell. From sewing needle arrows to bird bone armor, the keys to their success are their own wonderful inventions.

That's the main success of the film, but 9 still has its problems. In the process of expanding an 11-minute silent short into a 79-minute feature with dialog (that often felt either unneeded or just poorly written), the ideas became too big to fit into the final product. Intriguing characters? Great, but I want to know them better! Surprise plot twists? Awesome, but it'd be nice to give them a bit more time to develop more clarity! 9 left me wanting more, and not in the fun "I can't wait for a sequel!" way but in the bothered "Is there a director's cut of this?" way.

As such 9 is a minor disappointment, but the art design and action scenes are fantastic and it brings interesting ideas to the table. It's a movie for a limited audience, but that audience is going to dig it. God bless Focus Features for getting into the realm of dark teen/adult animation; even an imperfect experiment such as this is a breath of fresh air. B

Adaptation is a rip-roaring success... A life-affirming humanistic triumph of the human spirit!

Clearly I was being ironic. That sort of cliched critique is laughable. And there's even a dual layer to that irony, because silly delivery aside I actually sort of mean it. Such is the nature of Charlie Kaufman's screenplay and Spike Jonze's direction. Everything works on multiple levels of satire, metafiction, and honest drama. A montage zipping through the entire history of planet Earth at first seems like a pretentious attempt at metaphor, far too epic in scope for what appears to be a small self-centered character study. As soon as the film cuts to an effortlessly funny and self-deprecating dinner conversation between Charlie and a studio exec, the montage before it suddenly makes sense as the product of Charlie's head. This is confirmed by the middle of the movie when we see him writing out the beginning of the movie and harshly criticizing said script. And miraculously, several Hollywood tropes and two major character revelations away, that seemingly empty metaphor of a montage actually turns out have actual meaning.

If it sounds like heavy material, it doesn't feel it. This is a comedy, albeit one that demands more brainpower than the usual. That the film works the way it does is a miracle. Everything that could go wrong doesn't. That it even got made is a testament to the cleverness of its writer/director team: it's extremely harsh on the book its supposed to be adapting but gets away with it by completely fictionalizing its author's characterization. Ending on a shot of flowers? Cheesy. Ending on high-speed photography of flowers set to "Happy Together"? Dynamite. This movie even has Nicholas Cage playing not one, but two characters and both of them are wonderfully performed and even likable! A+

The comedy-documentary Religulous is only mildly funny and comes to a severely flawed conclusion. With this in mind, it's still worth watching. It's fairly predictable if you've any of the many critiques of religion that have been published, but reading about creationist museums and religious amusement parks is a very different experience from actually seeing those places and the people there. When covering Christianity and Judaism, Bill Maher gives good interviews, saving any snider remarks he might have for subtitles and comical cutaways while keeping his defense of doubt at a respectful level of intellectual discourse. Only two Vatican priests and, oddly enough, the guy playing Jesus at The Holy Land Experience in Orlando manage to keep up with Maher; even someone as brilliant as Francis Collins, scientist behind the Human Genome Project, is inarticulate when the validity of the Bible is questioned.

His interviews regarding Islam, a subject he's less knowledgeable on, are a bit more uncomfortable. When confronting guys in a Trucker Chapel, he simply questions their beliefs while complimenting Christlike behavior. Confronting a Muslim woman on the street, he starts going on about the crimes done in the name of her religion. It's an unbalanced approach that muddles the simply silly beliefs with the genuinely dangerous ones that are both found in every religious group.

In the last ten minutes, Maher ends up making the same mistake that he claims religion makes: he comes off as too certain. Most of what he says is hard to argue with: apocalyptic beliefs are increasingly dangerous, nonbelievers need to stick up for themselves. It's his claim that people who consider themselves mildly religious without taking part in any religion-motivated crimes as "enablers". If you're directly supporting a dangerous church, then yes, you are an enabler; there's a damn good reason why Westboro Baptist and the Church of Scientology can be called cults. But are those who simply believe in anything supernatural, as it would seem even Maher has at different points in his life, worth angrily attacking? No. Belief isn't the enemy; certainty is. B-

I guess August is no longer Hollywood's dumping ground. Last month not only brought us new masterpieces from two great auteurs, Hayao Miyazaki and Quentin Tarantino, but introduced us to a brand new talent in the form of Neill Blomkamp's District 9. It may very well be that this surprisingly low-budget film was just an "audition" to get picked up for big franchise films like Halo, but I sincerely hope he continues to exert such originality that he displays here. Fusing social commentary, body horror, and awesome action, this is a fresh experience in a world I wish to explore more of.

The mockumentary device that sold the film in its mysterious trailers is useful for setting up knowledge of the movie's world but is actually only used at the beginning and the very end of the film. The transition from that approach to a more regular narrative style is rough at first but ultimately worth it. Once the POV shifts from an anonymous documentarian to the mutated weapons company employee Wilkus Van De Merwe, the film maintains its visceral energy while gaining an emotional centerpoint, albeit one who starts out thoroughly unlikable.

In its gritty look at poverty, District 9 resembles last year's hit Slumdog Millionaire. Even moreso than that film, this is not a film for the fainthearted; the mutation scenes are graphically uncomfortable, the subplot about the Nigerian crimelords disturbing, and the revelation of what the weapons company MNU is doing in their hospital heartbreaking. It doesn't share Slumdog's fairytale ending, but it does share its optimism in the face of tragedy. A pawn of a bigoted regime is able to learn tolerance. The aliens, already weakened on their voyage and further broken down by segregation, are able to outsmart the humans that underestimated them and fight back. In its climax, with a frenzy of alien weaponry kicking ass, the film truly does kick ass. A-

Update the social concerns of the original Gojira, mix with a bit of the silliness of practically every other Godzilla movie, throw in some human characters more interesting than any I know of in any of the various Godzillas, and you get the Korean crowdpleaser The Host. The DVD box art makes it out to be a horror film, but it's hardly scary; the monster is actually somewhat cute in a weird way. It's a comedy with an earnest message and a surprisingly bittersweet ending. Some questionable editing choices are the film's only major weakness.

The most questionable of these choices occurs at the beginning. Right after showing two scientists dumping the formaldehyde that creates the monster into the river, we cut to four years later where a man is jumping off a bridge. Is he one of the scientists? It's not made clear. We don't see either scientist for the rest of the film. It also makes it come off as a more serious movie than most of what proceeds. The other issue is that throughout the film, the passage of time isn't quite clear. Anyway, once we get past the title card, we get to the good stuff. Kang-ho Song, in a role very distant from Father Sang-hyun, plays the comically stupid protagonist Gang-Du. His daughter Hyun-seo is taken away by the monster and presumed dead, while he and the rest of his family are put in quarantine due to having potentially been infected by the monster. Then he gets a phone call from his daughter, and an adventure begins...

More characters from different walks of life get involved in the action and the film takes on a broader reach. I won't spoil the film's funniest scene for you but it contains a twist that will be appreciated by anyone who's raised an eyebrow over swine flu. In the final and emotionally-charged action scene, the government is shown to be way more dangerous and scary than the monster. B+

Thirst, the new film from Park Chan-wook, isn't a great movie, but it does feature a great character. Sang-hyun (name chosen for the French meaning?) is a priest working at a hospital. Surrounded by the dying, he's developed a martyr complex and becomes a test subject for a vaccine. Approaching death, he's given a blood transfusion from one of the undead and is quickly healed. His resurrection gains him public recognition as a saint, but his condition drives him towards sin. Actor Song Kang-ho gives one of the most layered and likable portrayals of a clergyman on film.

As is typical with vampire stories, there's a heavy sexual element. Sang-hyun's partner Tae-joo isn't as likable. It's interesting that she's drawn to someone who is her opposite in so many ways. She obviously wouldn't be drawn to a normal priest, yet when she finds out that the object of her lust is a vampire she gets scared of what's attracting her to him. Her ideal of vampirism ends up one much scarier than the giver of mercy Sang-hyun trues to live as. Then there's the issue of her husband, Kang-wuu. His fate is dealt with confusingly, and serves as a turning point towards a messier third act.

If Park loses his grip on the story towards the end, he still carries the proceedings along with a dark sense of humor and a gritty atmosphere punctuated by moments of unnerving sterility. The final scene leaves some story threads untied but manages to finish off Sang-hyun's character arc in an appropriate manner. A more philosophically focused character study would have made for an overall more enjoyable movie, but even at its weak spots, Thirst did keep me guessing and I was never bored by its insanity. That's more than I can say for that other vampire movie (I know, cheap shot, but after thirty or so Entertainment Weekly cover stories...). B

Inglourious Basterds is the quintessential Tarantino movie. It's not quite his best (Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are still very hard to top), but more than any of his other works, this film represents what he is about: tough men, strong women, clever dialogue, novel-like structure, tight suspense, inappropriate humor, bursts of violence, creative music selections, and above all else a pure love of the cinema. Those who have boarded the Tarantino backlash train have already found loads to complain about. For his fans, this is a deliciously cold dish of vengeance; they'll be smiling at the retro title cards before shivering in the intensity of the movie's opening chapter.

The film's five chapters cover a wide array of characters and moods. The first, where Colonel Hans Landa, played with equal parts charm and menace by soon-to-be-Oscar-nominee Christoph Waltz, interrogates a farmer hiding Jews in his house, is a perfect thriller, every bit of banter just pulling further on elastic doomed to break. The second, where the Basterds come in, is more of the violent comedy you'd expect from the trailers. The third chapter returns to Shoshanna, the single survivor of Landa's attack in chapter one, who is now running a movie theater, trying to hide her identity, and plotting her revenge. Chapter four starts out very comical, even containing a Mike Myers cameo, but the spy games go beyond humor back into sheer dramatic intensity. Finally, everything comes together and the Third Reich finally gets what's coming to them in the most appropriate location possible: Shoshanna's theater.

World War II is a touchy subject to tackle; most filmmakers dealing with it go for the opposite extremes of either faithfulness or farce. Basterds can't be classified as either; by setting itself as a fantasy defined by film history rather than world history, it's able to play with conventions while still maintaining dramatic integrity. Both Brad Pitt's over-the-top Aldo Raine and Melanie Laurent's more realistic Shoshanna can coexist in this universe and both be very entertaining. A+

Recently I've reviewed two very different anime movies: the wonderful Ponyo and the redundant Evangelion 1.0. The Sky Crawlers fits somewhere inbetween these two extremes. Among other issues, it attacks the brainless repetition in the entertainment industry which results in such films as EVA 1.0. On the other hand, while comparing Ponyo to Sky Crawlers is comparing apples to oranges, Miyazaki makes a far superior apple while Mamoru Oshii's oranges aren't as tasty as they should be.

It seems to me that in order for a movie to be great, it has to excel in at least two of three areas: ideas, visuals, and pacing. The Sky Crawlers excels in one. The concept, immortal fighter pilot children engaging in an international corporate-funded deathsport, is brilliant. It's based on a book, which gives Oshii some needed grounding after his mess of an original screenplay for Ghost in the Shell 2. While GitS2 had a lot of chatter and little meaning, The Sky Crawlers' script is tightly focused on subjects ranging from the nature of war to the global economy to apathetic youth to a junk entertainment industry that encompasses the news media, reality TV, and a good number of anime.

It'd make a great Twilight Zone episode. But a two-hour movie? After being kept in the dark enjoyably for the first half-hour, the mystery aspect of the story becomes utterly predictable and drags on until the end; the one red herring that could have made affairs more interesting is underdeveloped. Shots are held for long periods of time, but disappointingly these shots aren't visually impressive enough to sustain the length. Little effort is made to blend the lovingly detailed backgrounds and realistic CGI with the flat, stiffly-moving character designs. A great movie could come of spending more time on the animation and cutting the film by at least a half hour. As is, it's merely an interesting one. B

Close Encounters of the Third Kind was one of the early innovators of the modern Hollywood blockbuster, yet it today it doesn't really play like one. There's not an instant visceral hook like in Raiders of the Lost Arc or an emotional one like in E.T. On the contrary, it feels somewhat detached. It's stuck somewhere between E.T. and 2001: A Space Odyssey as an intriguing pop-symphony that disappointingly fails to capture the best points of either movie.

2001 also had a detachedness to it, but that film rewarded the viewer's patience with a powerful array of ideas. Close Encounters is less sophisticated. Communing with aliens through music is a cool concept without a doubt, but is that one idea enough to sustain a 2-plus hour movie? In an attempt to keep the story more grounded, Spielberg uses his typical dysfunctional family framing device, but here it's a poorly constructed frame. Once the family conflict is pushed beyond simple cliches into unique entertainingly strange drama (how should Richard Dryfuss's family respond to his obsessive visions of Devil's Peak?), it's dropped and never tied up.

It's a testament to Spielberg's skills as a director that the movie is able to stay involving despite a flimsy story. Setting scenes to the tempos of children's toys and TV shows is a brilliant move. The subplot about an abducted child is highly suspenseful; more suspense scenes would have made the final encounter all the more powerful. The spaceships themselves are well-designed, with the antenna-plated mothership particularly striking. Sci-fi and movie references are scattered throughout. Ingredients of a classic are here, but there's no point in getting worked up that a thirtysomething year old film didn't work as well as it should have. Spielberg's moved on to better things and I'm sure I'll move on to reviewing better movies. B-