The Care Bears Movie (1985)

While doing a little background research for this review on The Care Bears Movie, I had a little piece of nostalgia shattered upon discovering that the Care Bears were created solely for the purpose of making money. Originally appearing on greeting cards and then turned into a plush toy line, the creators of the Care Bears crafted a loose purpose and mission for their characters in order to fool consumers into buying their products.

But does this have any bearing on what I think of the movie? No. But I must say, this little bit of information proves, once again, just how disillusioning childhood can really be.

The Care Bears Movie is a harmless piece of fluff that promotes caring and understanding of other people. What’s not to like? It gives a good message to young viewers and it's easy for adults to sit through, breezing by in a quick 76 minutes. The animation is all pretty good, though I must admit that the songs can be quite cheesy. One negative about it is that it is cut into segments, as if pre-packaged for airing with commercial breaks, even though it was released in theaters.

The story is being told as a bedtime tale by the owners of an orphanage. It concerns the Care Bears from the magical world of Care-A-Lot, somewhere high up in the clouds. The Care Bears monitor the level of caring on Earth and step in from time to time to make sure people don’t forget about the importance of caring.

The Care Bears go down to Earth to help perk up a pair of orphans who feel that no one cares about them and they no longer see the point in trying to be happy. At the same time, a young loner, a magician’s apprentice no less, becomes enamored with a magic book that promises to give him powers that will make people like him. Fooled by the promise of acceptance, the young boy eventually loses his control of himself to the evil spirit in the book.

This all sets up a showdown between good and evil. The Care Bears have to band together to thwart the evil spirit, pulling together a tremendous display of courage and caring. The film also introduces us to the Care Bear Cousins, a variety of different animals with powers similar to their bear counterparts. There’s also a bit of a twist ending, but the twist isn’t that important and it’s fairly predictable.

While you may have a hard time keeping track of all the characters (as most of the Care Bears and Cousins are interchangeable), they all play a specific part in the success in their mission. This serves as a subtle message to kids that everyone plays a part and no one is unimportant. Maybe kids won’t even pick up on this message, but it’s there.

I’d only recommend this film to people who grew up watching the Care Bears. To those who have never watched the animated series, this film may seem trite and simple, but those who have seen the series will be taken down memory lane. Speaking of memory, I had forgotten what all happened in this film and had evidently combined this film and its sequel in my mind. I suppose this makes the film not as memorable, but I also hadn’t seen it in over 15 years.

Colorful, whimsical and cheesy, The Care Bears Movie does what it sets out to do. It entertains children while giving them a basic message about being nice to people. While nothing too spectacular on a cinematic level, it’s a piece of nostalgia for my generation. It may pull a few groans out of adult viewers who have grown cynical and sick of overly happy fluff in their years, young children will be glued to it like you wouldn’t believe.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006)

I liked the original film in the Ice Age series. It surprised me with its uproarious humor and its overall lack of smarminess. It dealt subtle jabs to both the folk running around spouting off doomsday warnings of global warming (though in Ice Age it was global cooling they were worried about) and those who didn’t believe anything was happening whatsoever. Sadly, Ice Age: The Meltdown never tries to dish it out to both sides of the issue and throws its hat in with the doomsday crowd.

Our odd trio of friends from the first film (Manny the mammoth, Sid the sloth and Diego the saber-tooth tiger) are still palling around together. After what’s got to be the shortest Ice Age in the history of the universe (what, maybe two years, three tops?) global warming threatens the valley they have come to know.

A subplot involves Manny worrying that he is the last of the mammoths. He discovers that this isn’t true when the trio comes across a female mammoth (voiced by Queen Latifah) who thinks she is a weasel or ferret, or whatever it is that adopted her. She is juvenile and ditzy and makes for an annoying addition to our merry band of travelers. This subplot resolves itself conveniently and predictably by the end of the last reel.

There’s plenty of stupid humor, mostly revolving around the size of the mammoths’ rear ends, and antics that just aren’t as funny this time around. The good news is that the group dynamic is still there, though it is disrupted quite a bit by the new characters, and much of the same bickering and humorous infighting still exists, but it isn’t enough and isn’t as fresh as in the first film. But our familiarity with history’s most demented herd is enough to keep you mildly entertained.

The message of global warming gets a bit heavy-handed by the end, but oddly enough, nature takes its course and things turn out okay in the end. This conveys some unique mixed messages in a film trumping the dangers of global warming, doesn’t it?

All in all, the film lacks focus, which leads to its own meltdown. Neither the A nor B plots are fleshed out enough to satisfy and the laughs just aren’t as heartfelt as they were in Ice Age. It all leads me to wonder if they even really needed to make a sequel

The easy answer is no. But in the age of box office driven franchises, 20th Century Fox decided to capitalize on a surprise hit by milking it for all its worth. And sure enough, Ice Age: The Meltdown made enough money to justify a third installment, due out in 2009.

When the best thing about your film is the short vignettes involving a character who doesn’t even speak (Scrat, the saber-tooth squirrel and his masochistic struggle to find and hang onto an acorn), you know you have a problem.

The novelty has worn off, the humor isn’t there and quality writing seems to be extinct. In short, The Meltdown is a letdown.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Broken Arrow (1996)

After a career-revitalizing role in Pulp Fiction, John Travolta was thrust back into the limelight of Hollywood. All of a sudden he was a leading man again, and everybody was knocking on his door. Whether he was trying to cling to the aura of cool that he embodied in Pulp Fiction, or whether he was trying to play himself once more against his former squeaky clean, charming roles of old and some recent ones, Travolta takes to the silver screen as a conniving Air Force pilot bent on stealing nuclear weapons.

While Travolta’s physique is less than perfect, his co-star’s acting chops are even more suspect. While Travolta’s career was on the up-swing, Broken Arrow catches Christian Slater close to where his stardom and career sputtered out. Nevertheless, Broken Arrow spits out a fairly black and white good guy vs. bad guy action flick with predictable results and a handful of slick stunts.

Travolta and Slater play a pair of pilots running stealth bomber exercises over the Utah deserts with real nukes. Travolta has masterminded a plan to steal the nukes and ransom millions from the US government. Slater catches on to the plan, but just a tad too late, as he is jettisoned from the aircraft before he can stop his former partner. He does, however, manage to muddle up the delivery of the nukes by parachuting them off-target.

Slater teams up with a park ranger and they set off to do what the US government seems incapable of doing, despite their resources: find and stop Travolta.

There are lots of fancy stunts, fights and explosions in this hour-fifty action flick. Broken Arrow was John Woo’s second Hollywood film, and first big-budget film in the States. The martial arts influence is certainly present. The popularity of Woo and his compatriots led to a plethora of films featuring white guy action heroes saving the day via wicked kung fu moves. Unfortunately, the acting isn’t as slick as the action.

Travolta attempts to slide his character all the way to the extreme as the villain. He sneers and jeers and seems to have a genuinely good time playing a borderline psychopath. The problem is that he takes it too far. Travolta just isn’t believable as the unstable mastermind villain, which makes sense. It’s very hard to have a believable villain be both a mastermind and borderline certifiable. The combination of the two results in a jumbled mess. It looks like fun, but it doesn’t comprehend well in the mind of the viewer.

Slater, on the other hand, doesn’t come across as being smart enough to play the hero. His steady, confident delivery, piled on top of a Western-inspired hero theme tune, comes off as a goofy, modern John Wayne impression. I’m not a huge fan of the Duke, but the Duke he ain’t. Between a few lucky guesses and a few lucky breaks, Slater’s hero character ambles along the path to victory and doesn’t work out all too well either.

The plot has more than its fair share of plot holes and flaws (where was Travolta going to hide after getting away?) but enough dazzle and flair to satisfy summer audiences who check their brains at the door. It has the potential to be a fun movie, as long as you try not to think too much about it.

Given a casting change and a few more re-writes, Broken Arrow could have been better than average for an action flick. Instead, we get a guilty pleasure performance by Travolta and a taste of what the future would hold for Slater.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

License to Wed (2007)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

This movie serves as little more than a vehicle to provide Robin Williams with an age-appropriate role that provides him with the opportunity to behave in his tried and true zany manner. The problem lies in the fact that Williams’ performance comes off as a half-desperate attempt to prove he’s still full of life.

No one in their right mind could suggest that Williams has lost his knack for humor, but his over-the-top delivery seems out of place with his character. He plays a minister, Reverend Frank, who puts a young couple through hell in the form of pre-marital counseling.

The setup is pretty ridiculous and highly unrealistic. A young couple, John Krasinski and Mandy Moore, fall in love and get engaged, but due to Moore’s lifelong dream of getting married in her childhood church, the lovebirds face either a 2-year engagement or a three-week rush job.

Being a comedy, they naturally choose the latter option. Reverend Frank gives them all sorts of homework assignments that challenge the young couple including: abstaining from any more sex until the wedding night; seminars to highlight their differences and the quirks that bug each other; taking care of a creepy pair of robotic babies who do all the unpleasant things that regular children do, but to a decidedly more disturbing (though intended to be humorous) degree; and even trying to navigate each other down a busy street while blindfolded. In other words, it’s all a bit too much.

But License to Wed doesn’t stop there. Reverend Frank goes as far as to bug the couples’ apartment and has his young altar boy assistant follow them around, snooping on them and aggravating them into fights over seemingly trivial things. This all made me ask the dreaded question that can mean instant death for a movie: why? Why would a minister want to torment a couple that wants to get married to the point of unraveling their relationship? Why would a minister be so underhanded about all of his actions? Why would an altar boy take such pleasure at disrupting peoples’ lives?

None of it makes any sense and drives home the reality that this film goes too far in trying to pry a few laughs out of its audience. The situations; the approach; it’s all too much. The movie goes above and beyond what is necessary and reasonable to function as a comedy. Part of this is the fault of the writers for trying to manipulate viewer sensibilities for laughs and not respecting the limits of what can be funny and believable at the same time.

The flip-side of the coin is that audiences are getting dumber and the industry’s standards for humor have been in a downward spiral for quite some time. We really shouldn’t be surprised that toilet humor is commonplace and a means to an end in movies today because appealing to lowest-common-denominator laughs has made an obscene amount of money. Thankfully, License to Wed doesn’t sink to such Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler lows too often.

My other big complaint is with the smarmy, predictable ending. Moore decides to break it off and spends what would have been the honeymoon on vacation with her parents. Naturally, Krasinski goes after her and confesses his undying love, patching things up all squeaky clean. This sort of crap insults me. After the film was over, I leaned over to my fiancée and told her not to get any ideas.

Nearly all men, myself included, will not follow their woman of choice to a foreign country just to track her down and prove their love to them. First of all, we certainly don’t have the cash required to make such an expensive trek. Second of all, if we know you’re coming back, we’ll just wait. I really wish Hollywood would stop perpetuating this silly, idealistic fantasy version of love. It’s not real, and the fact that it keeps showing up in movies makes it all the more harder on girls when they realize that REAL love is nothing like the movies.

While this review may seem mostly negative, don’t think that I hate this film. I am merely indifferent due to its numerous shortcomings. License to Wed does connect with people who have either been in serious relationships, engaged couples, and those who have gone through pre-marital counseling. So, certain demographics can relate to the movie, which helps. Some aspects will ring all too true with some viewers, but these same people will be able to spot the ridiculous approach I have gone on about at length above.

In the end, License to Wed is your typical forgettable summer comedy that isn’t worth the price of admission.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

How Green Was My Valley** (1941)

Most people have never even heard of this film. The main reason I have wanted to see it for so long is that this is the film that Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane (almost unanimously heralded as the greatest American film ever made) lost to for Best Picture at the Oscars.

In a way, this film rivals Citizen Kane in its boldness. While Kane was an all-out assault on the lives of corrupt media barons, How Green Was My Valley threw its focus at the opposite end of the spectrum: the working class. The film takes a very strong pro-union stance, vilifying the money-hungry mine owners in search of higher profits. Perhaps it was this statement that earned the film Best Picture. Of course it also helps that Citizen Kane was nearly unanimously despised when it was released. My, how times have changed.

It must be understood that this film hardly presents a fair portrayal of capitalist economics. Obviously, not all mines, factories, etc. were engaged in the shady practices on display here. It must also be noted that the film takes place in Wales at the dawn of the 20th century. Industrialization hasn’t been perfected yet, and is not a direct depiction of the quality of current (1940s) industrial workplaces, although the writers would like you to believe it does.

So there’s a fair share of political give and take going on behind the scenes and in between the lines, but if you separate yourself from the politics of the film, How Green Was My Valley succeeds at being a genuinely good film. Human emotion and family drama convey a strong sense of what it might have been like to be a struggling rural family.

Much of the focus is on young Huw Morgan, played by a pre-teen Roddy McDowall. His innocent perspective on the world can be heartwarming, but also serves as a vehicle to make the mine owners even nastier. Nothing gets people upset like seeing a child get hurt physically and emotionally.

Huw’s family works in the nearby coal mine, which over time degrades the quality of their picturesque town and their quality of life. The mine owners attempt to cut wages to make bigger profits and are met with resistance. A new minister supports those who favor unionizing the workers in order to preserve their way of life. The minister’s support causes a good deal of ruckus, as unions were thought to be evil and were preached as such from the pulpit by many a hard line minister.

Several tragic events occur, wrenching the lives of many characters and add a well rounded dramatic scope to the film. Though How Green Was My Valley is a solid film, it is also somewhat forgettable, as evidenced by the fact that very few people outside of film buffs and film historians even know it exists.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!

After the first 10 minutes, this was my favorite film in the Harry Potter franchise. After sitting through the rest of it, however, it’s now tied for last place.

A major credit to the filmmakers is the sense of realism on display in this film. We’ve finally begun to break away from the cartoonish settings and the caricatures that the muggle and wizarding worlds had become in the first four films. We finally see some genuine overlap between the two and their co-existence has begun to become believable. Granted, this has a lot to do with the fact that Potter author J.K. Rowling crafted this overlap in the book the film is based on. But, those first 10 minutes were just marvelous and not all credit is due to Rowling.

The opening is bleak- Harry sits in an abandoned playground that is showing its signs of age. The grass is all dried up because it’s the end of summer and it’s a hot one. The digital grading was also a nice touch- heightened yellow tones and a hint of graininess to the camera made the movie feel like high-grade indie stuff. It was just about perfect.

Finally, here was a Harry Potter I could believe in- a real boy stuck balancing a life in two worlds, neither of which is considerably friendly to him at the moment. For the first time I felt that both the Harry Potter character and universe could be real.

Then it all went awry.

One of the biggest issues plaguing this film is the pacing. The fourth installment, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, took a 600+ page book and turned it into a 2 hour and 40 minute movie. It gutted some of the extra stuff and kept more or less only the meat and potatoes. It worked very well.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix tries to take a book that’s nearly 300 pages longer than its predecessor and make the movie version 30 minutes shorter. It makes the action a little too frenetic. Instead of feeling like I was walking through the story, I got the sense that I was being pulled through at a needlessly faster pace. The first two Potter films were longer, so why can’t that be the case here? We’re dealing with an ultimately more interesting and engaging story than those early films, so why the rush? This could have been a three-hour film and no one would have noticed.

Here again, however, some blame is due to be directed at author J.K. Rowling. The story is a sprawling hodge-podge of subplots that never really goes anywhere nor adds up to a satisfying A-plot. Aside from being the target of new Headmistress Delores Umbridge, Harry faces no real central conflict. In place of a titular challenge (the Order of the Phoenix is only relevant for about half of the story) we are treated with an irrationally moody Harry Potter. He is bitter at his friends for something that was completely out of their hands to begin with, and he is mad at the world which doubts him and constantly ridicules his true account that Voldemort is back.

Umbridge hides the fact that she’s out to get Harry until the very end, so she fails as a central villain. Outside of awkward teenage romance and haunting nightmares (neither of which are original to begin with) this story has little going for it. Ultimately it feels like a formulaic, paint-by-numbers Harry Potter adventure. There’s Harry dealing with issues, his friends trying to help, and Harry surviving another attack by Voldemort in the end.

Despite several shortcomings, credit must be given for the stunningly gorgeous sets used for the Ministry of Magic, however. The dark green bricks and lavish architecture was a real treat for the eyes. Sadly, this visual splendor was undone by the horrendous CGI character Grawp, a two or three story tall giant. It’s been five years since the first Lord of the Rings film came out and yet the effects in Harry Potter 5 come nowhere close to matching its quality. A shame for sure.

It is also very much evident that John Williams has backed out of doing the music for the series. While the music is said to be based off the themes he wrote for the first three films, some of the musical choices are just too noticeably not on par with either Williams’ work or the music from HP4. None of the score grabs you and holds you. In fact, some of the music in the end credits is best described as noise- jarring high-pitched electric guitars that made my ears hurt.

As far as advancing the seven-part story of Harry’s youth, the Order of the Phoenix feels a lot like filler. The fact that it is rushed filler makes it taste even less satisfying. A few things happen that certainly shake up the tale (the death of Sirius Black is sad because it means the loss of Gary Oldman and his amazing acting abilities), but little is added to the mix that takes you by surprise. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix feels like a tease of a tale, designed to kill some time before the real action begins in the final two books. From an emotional and expositional standpoint, we’re still very much at the same place we left off at the end of Goblet of Fire, except now people believe Voldemort is back.

Maybe all this is a sign that Harry Potter mania is starting to fizzle out, or maybe this just wasn’t a very well thought out production. Either way, this latest Potter flick has lost much of its magic.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Spaceballs (1987)

Mel Brooks’ spoof on all things Sci-Fi is a cult classic. While it shows its age through several of the pop-culture jokes and references, the lampooning of the numerous clichés and coincidences inherent to the science-fiction genre are spot on.

The only hindrance to this film’s success is the fact that it is being pitched to a specific audience. Films like Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein were more widely humorous because clichés are very often shared throughout the Western and Mad Scientist genres. You have to really know your sci-fi to appreciate all the jokes in Spaceballs. Otherwise, stretches of this movie will seem boring to you. I am a big science-fiction nerd, so I got nearly all of the jokes.

The fact that sci-fi flicks try hard to stand out from one another presents a problem for Brooks & company. Trying to cover all the widely different styles of sci-fi and wrap all the jokes around a cohesive story is a daunting task. Brooks does a good job, but it certainly alienates the casual viewer.

Despite the odds stacked so high against it, Spaceballs has entered the cultural lexicon (at least for the older portion of my generation and the one prior to it) with phrases like “Ludicrous Speed;” “May the Schwartz be with you;” and being able to identify Yogurt as something other than a snack food.

The best part about Spaceballs is that Brooks really goes all out. He not only pegs the goofy plots and groan-worthy dialog, but he also triumphs in the visual areas as well. The sets, props, and even the music all work in favor of Mel’s comedic purposes. He also covers more than just Star Wars and Star Trek (more spoofing of the former than the latter though)- he hits major films like Planet of the Apes and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Certainly not for everyone, but I recommend it if you have a love for sci-fi and an appreciation for satire.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

This, the tenth overall Star Trek film and fourth involving the Next Generation cast, is the worst of them all. To be sure, the Next generation films were nothing more than ploys to capitalize on a popular TV series and struggled to maintain both legitimacy and respectability amongst an aging and ailing franchise, but Star Trek: Nemesis is the straw that broke the camel’s back.

To top it all off, this Star Trek film did something that I thought would happen more frequently throughout the series- it put me to sleep. That’s right, parts of this film are so trite, tedious and boring that it may put you to sleep.

The plot doesn’t make much sense, and in the end you wonder what all the commotion was about. All this over one guy? That’s it? Sure, there were ramifications for the rest of the known galaxy had the central villain prevailed, but if you didn’t expect the good guys to come out on top in the end then you’re either cynical or stupid.

Once again, too much time is spent on trying to make Data seem as interesting as Spock was in the original series. And once again, it didn’t work. Data is corny and probably the most annoying crew member of the Next Generation series. The filmmakers did throw us a surprise by ‘killing’ Data at the end of the film, but his memories we conveniently downloaded into an identical model before he sacrificed himself for his Captain.

Lots of boringness and silliness abounds in this movie, a clear indication that the franchise had run out of steam. Fortunately, this was marketed as the last Star Trek film for the Next generation cast, essentially ending the series altogether. (Did anyone really expect them to make a Deep Space Nine movie?) It should be interesting to see what JJ Abrams has in store with his upcoming Star Trek reboot.

RATING: 1.5 out of 5

Finding Neverland* (2004)

This is an impressive movie. Not only is the acting superb, but the story itself is charming, tragic and wonderful. Johnny Depp plays J. M. Barrie, author of the children’s classic Peter Pan. In Finding Neverland, Barrie is struggling to create a successful play. He finds his inspiration at a local park, where he encounters several boys playing. Their imagination fuels his creativity and he begins to see them quite often.

In semi-biographical films such as this, I often wonder how much is actually true. Often times certain elements seem exaggerated and take me out of the film, but Finding Neverland keeps a hold of you pretty well. While I found several historical inaccuracies when looking up information on Barrie’s life, they are mostly amenable as creative and artistic liberties.

Probably the most enjoyable aspect of this film is watching all the little pieces of Peter Pan fall into place. Elements and themes that would make their way into Barrie’s play are noticeable throughout the film, be they subtle or pronounced. This accomplishes the film’s goal of showing two stories come together during the same film: the story of Barrie’s inspiration and the creation of Peter Pan.

Kate Winslet is always enjoyable and Johnny Depp’s performance seems downright normal for a change. I think it was a very wise career decision for him, as he is enabled to portray a quirky and sometimes eccentric character that is actually believable. Barrie is not a caricature or overzealous creation- he was a real man. Perhaps this causes Depp to restrain himself from anything over the top- had he gone too far, critics would have torn him apart. Maybe that pressure helped him.

Regardless, Finding Neverland is similar to Big Fish and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind- there’s really not much out there that’s quite like it. I think it was a good choice as a Best Picture nominee, being a unique film with solid performances and a healthy range of emotions. Nicely done.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

After two Next Generations movies I thought the Star Trek series would fall apart. I was actually surprised when I found myself enjoying the ninth installment of the franchise, Star Trek: Insurrection.

While nothing spectacular, the film plays out like a good episode of the Next Generation TV series. The story is focused enough that there are few plot holes, and there is a level of believability to what’s going on. Granted, the answers don’t come out until the very end of the film and some of the answers come out of left field, but just about everything is ties up at the end.

The visual effects were actually pretty good for a change. The Star Trek series has a history in underachievement in the visual effects department, but they did okay this time.

One thing that I have to comment upon though, is that the cyborg Data is annoying. The writers still seem to think he is every bit as cool as Spock from the original series, but he’s not. Far too much is done to include Data and his musings on human activity. Elimination of all future Data subplots will result in better Star Trek movies. I’m serious.

All in all, it’s pretty decent. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say I’d watch it again, but it’s fairly enjoyable and avoids many of the pitfalls of previous Star Trek films.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Children of Men (2006)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

And I thought Borat made my head spin.

At this stage in my movie-viewing life, the only comparison I have the sense of confusion, suspense and shock laid on by Children of Men is the storming of Normandy sequence in Saving Private Ryan. This movie is simply unrelenting. Just when you think things are working themselves out and order will be restored, director Alfonso Cuarón throws another monkey wrench into the works.

The film takes place 20 years in the future, where mankind has been subject to nearly two decades of infertility. No one knows how or why this came about, but it has wreaked havoc on the stability of nations and the global community itself. England has become a central destination for refugees from various nations, but is deporting as many illegal immigrants as possible in order to preserve the stability of their own faltering nation.

Clive Owen stars as Theo, who works a boring government job. He is approached by his activist ex-wife, played by Julianne Moore, who needs him to secure traveling papers for a young immigrant girl named Kee. Turns out she’s pregnant. The activist/revolutionary group Moore is involved with wants to get the girl to a group called the Human Project, who has been working to solve the infertility problem. They exist in secret and only communicate through a chain of messengers so complicated that no one is even sure if the group really exists, or where.

A few snags hit our merry band of wanderers along the way- they can’t trust the government because they’ll take Kee and use her for government propaganda purposes; the revolutionaries turn out to be just as bad, seeking to use Kee for pro-revolution propaganda; and then there’s the barrage of ambushes, murders, paranoia and fear jumping out from behind every corner and shadow.

Taking place in the future lends a slight science-fiction element to the story, but Cuarón doesn’t overdo it. All of the advanced technology is relatively believable, based on how quickly technology is changing and improving now. Apart from this, Children of Men is eerie because it feels so realistic, following its characters around with documentary style camerawork.

The visuals and sound are simply stunning. Everything is grimy and depressed where it needs to be, yet crisp and clean where appropriate. Cuarón really shows a mastery of filmmaking technique here and he is certainly one to watch out for in the future. Above all else that stands out in this film are the long, single-shot sequences. In case you’re not familiar with the term, it means an extended take where the camera does not cut away for over a minute or more. Children of Men features three distinct single-shot sequences- one is just over 3 minutes long, another lasts over 4 and the longest is nearly 8 minutes long!

Using these long takes adds to the suspense, because we don’t get to cut away and retreat to a safe-distanced long shot or jump ahead to the end of the situation. We are forced to follow Theo through the danger. We experience it with him, making us feel just as vulnerable as he does. It’s a very nerve-racking experience and helps make Children of Men a stunning piece of cinema.

I highly recommend that you see this film. It’s brutal and not for the faint of heart, but it is one I guarantee you will remember. I wanted to watch this film a second time before rating it, but I wasn’t able to. So for now, my rating is a temporary one until I can see it again, because I think that this film may deserve better.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Dreamgirls (2006)

Based loosely enough on the rise and fall of Diana Ross and the Supremes to avoid a lawsuit, this film tells the tale of a trio of young black women trying to break into the early 60s R&B music scene.

Dreamgirls was originally a Broadway musical and its film adaptation has been a long time coming. The stage show took Broadway by storm in 1981. Thanks to recent successful movie-musicals like Chicago and biopics like Ray and Walk the Line, Dreamgirls finally gets its day in the sun.

Through the first half of the film (the first Act of the show, really) we see the naïve and aspiring Dreamettes go from being not even a blip on anyone’s radar and playing local talent contests, to singing backup for a hit singer and eventually breaking through to the white radio markets on their own. During this process the writers treat us to little doses of history- payola, civil and racial unrest, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the difficulty for black artists to succeed due to poor copyright protection that allowed white artists to snag a hit from black radio and convert it for a white-friendly audience.

The sizzle and pop of the songs and the excellent set and costume designs made me wonder how on Earth the Academy failed to nominate this film for Best Picture. Then came the second Act.

Actually, the momentum died at the end of the first Act, where Jennifer Hudson’s Effie is disgruntled about no longer being lead vocalist (making Beyonce Knowels the ‘face’ of the group) and her bad attitude has finally cost her a place in the group. She discovers that she is being replaced and throws a diva fit, to which her manager and friends interject by singing their dialogue. Up to this point, all the songs had been performance numbers by the group or other artists, so when they began to unfurl their exposition and dialogue via song, my affection for the film dropped a notch. Sure, this sort of style works in movie-musicals from the 60’s and earlier, but now it just seems cheesy. The Academy fruitballs and the Broadway fruitballs can defend sing-songy exposition all they want, but it just doesn’t jive with me. At least not for contemporary films.

The second Act seems to drag, as Effie manages to drop off the face of the Earth for much of the time, and we are instead tuned into the struggle of the group and of Beyonce’s character. Updates on what Effie’s life has been like since the split are shown, but they don’t add to the roundness of the character. Another major issue with the second Act is the jump in time from the close of Act one. We go from the 60s to the 70s and very little compensation is given for the 8-year leap. Characters look no older and it seems that the filmmakers didn’t even bother trying to do so.

A lot of noise was made about Beyonce’s role in the film and many were buzzing early on about potential Golden Globe and Academy Awards nominations for her. She got nothing, which I find hysterical, because she didn’t deserve any in the first place. Beyonce does a good job playing the innocent, pretty, sweet-sounding singer, because she is one. She’s not an actress, so why did people think she was so great at a part she could play because it was barely a stretch from how she really is? Frankly, she’s forgettable, as Effie is a much more interesting character, and Hudson was rightfully recognized for her astounding performance (take that, American Idol).

Dreamgirls starts off as a tour de force, appealing to the eyes and ears alike. They aim for the fence and come out swinging for the home run, but the story progresses away from the most interesting character, only to bring her back in the final scenes to provide a standard sappy happy ending. It is still a very excellent film, but I can understand why the Academy did not nominate it for Best Picture.

Look for some head-turning performances by Hudson and Eddie Murphy, and a keen eye will spot Steve Urkel himself (Jaleel White) amongst the who’s-who ensemble black cast.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

The Queen* (2006)

If it hadn’t been for The Departed, this would be your Best Picture winner. I say that now, still not having seen either Letters From Iwo Jima or Babel, but I get the sense that this film has all the makings of an Oscar winner. It’s sharp, balancing the dry witty humor I adore the British for with the heavy subject matter of Princess Diana’s death.

The Queen is a recreation and depiction of the days immediately before and following Diana’s death from the perspective of the Royal Family. The events and dialog presented are based off of the accounts given to the filmmakers by anonymous sources. There is also extensive use of real footage from news reports covering the accident, the outpouring of grief from the people of England, and even the funeral service itself.

All this in a trim 103 minute running time.

The amount of detail and careful documentation of everything is quite unique. If the filmmakers had chosen to take too many creative liberties, one can just imagine what Queen Elizabeth’s lawyers would have had to say! I think the fact that the real Queen approved of the film says it all. While I’m sure there are some parts of the film that aren’t true to life, The Queen manages to be one of the few docudrama/biopics that really excels at achieving its goal. Instead of playing it safe, the film takes chances and presents plenty of uncomfortable scenarios, and is rewarded for doing just that.

You really get a sense for how much the Queen and her husband disliked Diana and the cult of personality following she had. Sure, the woman did many good things for the world, but her visibility flies against time-honored traditions among the Royals. This is the other excellent aspect the film manages to include- showing the Queen’s struggle with what she knows from tradition and how it collides against the rapidly changing times she is living and ruling in.

Though parts of the film may be complete fiction, I felt like I gained a better understanding of Queen Elizabeth from watching it. I understand her distaste with Diana better, though I don’t completely agree with it. But that’s the point. The Queen is equal parts compassionate and condescending toward Elizabeth. In other words, it’s very real, which always helps when you’re making a docudrama or a biopic.

The acting is all very well done. Helen Mirren does a fine job in her portrayal of Elizabeth, and Michael Sheen is spot-on as newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair. James Cromwell creates a memorable character out of Prince Phillip, the Queen’s husband- the inclusion of Phillip, who goes more or less unnoticed by the press, was a refreshing jolt of cynicism and sarcasm complimenting the film’s overall dry tone. My only complaint is that the filmmakers didn’t get someone ugly enough for Prince Charles. Actor Alex Jennings seriously looks nothing like him- he’s too handsome.

The Queen is a classy film, which some may find boring, but if you are really interested in Princess Diana and/or the Royal Family I’d definitely recommend it. Concise and complete, I recommend The Queen and would have voted for it over The Departed, were I a member of the Academy.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5