Sex and the City (2008)

“I am not the person to review this movie,” said Roger Ebert at the start of his review for this celluloid continuation of the popular HBO series. I feel the exact same way. I all but hate the Sex and the City TV show. I despise the characters and all the stereotypes, behaviors, philosophies and materialism they represent and broadcast to the masses. So you can understand the difficulty I’m experiencing as I sit here and try to write an objective review. I will do my best.

If you love or like the show, you will most likely feel the same about the movie. If you are just a casual fan of the show, you will probably find the movie somewhat or mostly enjoyable. If you have little or no interest in the show, you will not enjoy the movie. Women who have never seen the show before may find themselves able to relate to the female leads and some of the circumstances they are faced with, but it is unlikely that anyone but regular viewers of the show will fall in love with this film. Sex and the City was not made to draw new blood into the fan club. This one is for the girls (and guys, if any) who know and love these characters already.

For the uninitiated and those who have not had episodes in constant rotation on their DVR’s and DVD players, Sex and the City opens with a quick prologue that catches everyone up to speed. The back stories and current whereabouts of Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha are rattled off and we are clued in on the 10 years running on-again/off-again relationship between Carrie and her beau known as “Mr. Big.”

When career-focused Miranda manages to trigger a series of events that sinks her marriage, she takes it out on the bond between Carrie and Big. His head now filled with doubt, Big has second thoughts and initially skips out on their wedding. He comes to his senses and tries to get back to the church but the damage has already been done. Carrie fails to realize he is coming back to her after a moment of weakness and verbally rips him apart in the streets of New York. She writes him off and claims she should have known better all along.

Thus begins a story of redemption that spans nearly a year in the events of the characters and two and a half hours of screen time. That puts Sex and the City the movie at roughly five times the length of one of the TV episodes. While it almost makes sense for a film based on a TV show that holds excess as one of its virtues, the overlong run time is inexcusable. Fans of the show will eat it all up as one gigantic love fest, but for the uninitiated, Sex and the City is a sprawling and, at times, tiring melodrama to sit through. Several times I found myself sitting through minutes on end of empty dialogue and tangential antics that made me want to stand up and yell at the screen to advance the plot for crying out loud.

There were several parts of the film that even I, a detractor, found humor in. Some of the raunchy sex talk and jokes that aren’t suitable for network television were partnered up with sight gags and amusingly awkward scenarios. I also learned from this film that women, though they may fiercely deny it, can appreciate and find humor in poop and fart jokes. The crucial scene that pulls Carrie out of her post-wedding-day-meltdown funk involves her friend Charlotte accidentally drinking some tap water while the girls are in Mexico. Her bowels react in very unpleasant ways and she noisily soils herself in front of the girls before she can make it to the restroom. Needless to say, I will no longer accept any criticism of such humor from my wife, as she laughed her head off over Charlotte’s ordeal.

While the TV show was aired on the premium cable channel HBO, Sex and the City was considered edgy and groundbreaking. The women cursed, drank and slept around casually, challenging the conventional view of the “modern” woman. In the five years between the end of the series and the film, America seems to have embraced much of the materialism and loose sexuality thanks to shows like The Hills and countless indulgent reality programs, making the Sex and the City movie almost tame by comparison. Any edgy magic seems either lost or nonexistent, which added to the extended periods of boredom that affronted me.

All the men, including Mr. Big, are relegated to supporting characters who come across as either dull, dim-witted or boring. The only exception is Miranda’s husband, who does his darnedest to make up for his affair and fix their marriage. Even Mr. Big is a flat character. All he does is do wonderful things with his vast wealth and say the right thing at the right time to reassure Carrie when she’s acting neurotic. We never see the four gals spending time together with their respective men in tow. It’s almost always exclusively girl time or a girls' night out. It makes me wonder what kind of women these are who talk about their husbands and lovers with each other but never seem to actually interact with them en masse.

The only other thing about Sex and the City that irked me was the way Charlotte is portrayed. Here is a woman who has actually found love and maintains a happy, healthy and stable relationship with her husband, yet she is played up as a nitwit. She seems like the most logical character to offer relationship advice to her friends, yet they treat her as if she were some kind of an anomaly. For me, this sends the wrong message to women- “only stupid women believe they’ve found true love and happiness.” I’m sorry, but that agitates me.

Sex and the City is a very polarizing movie. You will either like it or you won’t. It’s clear that the filmmakers were not trying for broad appeal, which is good but bad. It’s good in that the movie probably maintains the integrity of the series for its fans, giving them plenty of what they want. It’s bad though because focusing on a niche market doesn’t lend itself to the kind of broad appeal that makes a film a lasting success. Sure, Sex and the City made $150 million in the US, but how much of that was repeat business by those who had never seen an episode before? It’s a bold move to sacrifice potential popularity in favor of product integrity, but then again it’s only Sex and the City that we’re talking about here.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

The Blob (1988)

It’s almost universally accepted that remakes are not as good as the original. This remake of The Blob received generally better reviews upon its release than the 1958 flick and many still maintain that, despite the cult status of the original, this version is better. I, on the other hand, found this remake inferior. While some elements have been improved due to better technology, The Blob is still incredibly lacking in originality and features some of the worst clichés that films of the 1980s gave us.

The story is very much the same- a meteorite falls to earth, containing a small gelatinous creature that devours whatever living thing it comes in contact with and increases in size the more it eats. The creature finds its way into a small town and terrorizes the residents. It still has the same color and appearance and still has the same vulnerabilities (cold). Two teenagers (one a troublemaker, the other a good girl) alert their friends and neighbors to the presence of the creature and help stop it.

This new version of The Blob improves some of the weaker aspects from the original. For instance, instead of just looking like a glob of jelly on the ground, this Blob has a little more texture and color variation to it. It also moves more satisfyingly than in the original. This Blob doesn’t just roll or slide around; it twitches, writhes and crawls its way to its next victim. It still behaves a little too intelligently for something that doesn’t appear to have a brain and the speed at which it moves changes, creating some continuity issues, but the Blob itself is an improvement.

The visual effects are also improved to a degree. The original film was made for cheap and many effects were poorly done. Obviously the effects would be better, given technological improvements, but not 100% better. The film still shows its age through some lousy blue screen work. The improved effects serve to make the Blob a bit more fearsome, but there are plenty of faults that tear this movie apart.

The first pitfall of this new incarnation of The Blob is that it gives in to the bloodlust that scary movies of the 80s demanded. Given the success of the Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street franchises, anyone suggesting that a remake of The Blob didn’t need to be gory was probably laughed at. I think less blood and gore would have helped the film, but any kids trying sneaking into a theater to see it would complain to their friends later that it was simply too tame. Seeing flesh dissolve off of a victims face is one thing, but I found myself drawing a line when the Blob attacks and successfully devours a child.

During an escape scene in the sewer, the female lead is trying to get her little brother and his friend to safety. Initially, I was surprised to see the Blob pull the boy’s friend under the water. I was almost impressed at the chance they took by having a child get killed by the monster. When the child came back up to the surface screaming and half-dissolved for added shock, however, I found myself appalled. In horror films, less is always more.

Ironically, The Blob is pulled in another direction at the same time. While bowing to campy teen bloodlust, the film also takes itself far too seriously (something that plagued many 80s flicks in general). The sternness exuded by Kevin Dillon’s bad boy character is laughable. The original film was meant to be a popcorn monster flick and nothing more. There’s really no weight or gravitas that can be injected into a film about a glob of interstellar goop binging on anything it can grip, so I don’t know why they tried.

The stay with Dillon for a moment, I’d like to point out how ludicrous the whole bad-boy-turned-hero arc that infected far too many 80s films looks now in retrospect. The glorification of rebel teens is one thing, but it was far too much for the filmmakers to try and idolize a supposed thug who appears to use more hair care products that my mother and sister combined.

The final insult came with probably the biggest deviation from the original film- the Blob, as it turns out, is not just a random creature that fell to earth on a meteorite. It’s actually the result of a government biological weapons experiment gone wrong! Cue they eye roll right now. It just seems lazy to me to have the Blob be the construct of a sinister government experiment. Leaving it as a random creature from outer space is actually scarier, because the audience is left to wonder how many more of these things could possibly fall to earth. We don’t really need an explanation about the monster’s origins. To make matters worse, the government agents that take over the town are bent on killing anyone who knows about and preserving the monstrosity rather than showing concern for the citizens under attack.

This remake is capped off with a potshot at religious fanaticism. A loopy preacher happens to save a piece of the Blob and travels the countryside preaching threats of an impending doomsday that he will unleash when God gives him a sign.

You get what you pay for in this remake of a cheesy 50s monster movie. I recommend you save your money, and if you can track down a copy for free, save yourself the time. The Blob becomes a monster in and of itself, as the filmmakers try to stuff far too much into a plot that was always thin to begin with.

RATING: 1.75 out of 5

The Blob (1958)

This slick and mostly harmless monster movie from the 1950s is one of those cult classics that live on in infamy (for good or bad). Despite falling victim to oversimplification, some corny dialogue, and effects that look horribly dated, The Blob ages surprisingly well.

Right off the bat, you should know that cinematic greatness should not be expected from this film. Designed for little more than cheap thrills and laughs, The Blob is a popcorn flick in the truest sense of the word. Yes, it has its fair share of shortcomings, but if you focus on them too much, you will miss out on half the fun. Leave your inhibitions at the door and just take The Blob at face value. It won’t be your greatest movie going experience ever, but it will be far from your worst.

Everyone knows the story of The Blob- a mysterious glob of goop falls to earth and begins oozing over and eating everything in its path, growing larger with each victim. The inhabitants of a small town struggle to find a way to stop it and, in the end, discover a simple yet effective way to dispatch the gelatinous foe. It’s pretty cut and dry and straight to the point. It’s an easy plot to follow and one that has been mimicked and replicated countless times over the years (instead of The Blob, insert any unexpected terrifying foe and add an equally simple solution to the problem and you have an instant popcorn monster flick with moderate success). Everything else that comes with The Blob is purely frosting on the cake, but it’s good frosting for sure.

For a movie made in 1958, I was impressed by some of the special effects. Some of the initial scenes with the Blob attaching itself to an old man’s hand and moving itself across the floor were actually pretty good. It’s hard to make a hunk of what looks like strawberry jelly look very menacing, but the Blob’s bland appearance actually does serve to spook you a few times quite well. Perhaps it’s the faceless killer aspect of the Blob’s nature, or perhaps it is because you never know how quickly the thing will strike and what its strike range truly is.

Truth be told, I always thought the Blob was green. Needless to say, I was quite surprised to learn that it is in fact red. I don’t know if they intentionally did this to mask any potential gore inside the Blob (as its red appearance would block out or blend in with any blood swirling inside from its last victim) or not, but it was a good choice. The red really helps the Blob stand out. The smaller the Blob is, the better it looks. Later on I the film we see rear projected, miniature scale or animated versions of the Blob. None of these look all that fantastic and show how some movie effects just haven’t aged well.

But for a 50 year old movie, The Blob gets the job done pretty well. Film fans will get a kick out of Steve McQueen unrealistically playing a teenager. His character has gotten himself in enough trouble in town that nobody believes him when he starts warning people about some kind of monster that’s going around eating people. Naturally, this rough around the edges guy pairs up with a sweet innocent girl, who is forced to go behind her parents’ back in order to help McQueen out.

The ending of the film is somewhat amusing as well. The words “The End” morph into a large question mark, implying that the Blob could very well return to ravage society. It’s a very 50s kind of thing to do- it was the era of growing fear as the Cold War between the US and the USSR began intensifying and the question mark serves to set the film up for a sequel if it did well enough.

While The Blob isn’t anything too remarkable, it is a fun and easy movie to watch. There’s a lot of history surrounding this movie (it did help re-popularize monster movies) so it’s more interesting to watch from a historical perspective than anything else. The Blob is a pretty good display of how movies changed at the time and serves to remind us how much they have changed since then.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

About Schmidt (2002)

This is a very bizarre film. In fact, it’s more of a character study on film than an actual film itself. Jack Nicholson delivers a solidly subdued performance as a newly retired man struggling to find purpose in his life. Nicholson’s performance, while excellent, isn’t enough to make up for a film that seems to lack a point until the final reel.

Jack Nicholson plays the titular character, a curmudgeonly sort who was good at what he did for a living (an actuary for an insurance company) but probably never got much true satisfaction from it or anything else in his life. He seems to have either gone through the motions of a “normal” life of getting married and having a child or his actuarial skills silently alienated him from his family and vice versa. Either way, retirement brings Schmidt face to face with his utterly boring existence and he can’t stand it.

While channel surfing, Schmidt happens upon one of those commercials asking you to adopt a child in a foreign country by donating only a few dollars each month. Schmidt calls the number and signs up for the program. The unsettling thing in this is that he seems to do so out of sheer boredom or curiosity rather than compassion.

Several times throughout the movie, Schmidt writes to his adopted African child, a boy named Ndugu. This results in lengthy voice-over monologues, in which Schmidt cynically relays his displeasure with whatever the current state of his life happens to be. It’s all sure to go straight over Ndugu’s head and I seriously have my doubts that any decent-minded person would read such tirades to a young child.

In the end though, I think I would have preferred to have been in Ndugu’s shoes. Seeing what Schmidt goes through and becomes during the course of this movie is both frustrating and discomforting. Yes, there may be an endearing moment now and then, but Schmidt only appears to change at the end of the film. Even then, we don’t really see how he’s changed or how much he continues to change his life after that moment. It’s an incomplete picture and the part which we can see is only beginning to look appealing.

The fact that this film runs just over two hours long makes it an exercise in endurance. Just how much of this guy can you tolerate? For those who enjoy or can handle dark humor and cynical wit, About Schmidt may only get a little bumpy. Anyone else may find this film to be exhausting and boring.

It’s not a train wreck though. Nicholson’s performance is very strong and he handles all the situations that get thrown his way with deft skill and precision. He never seems to break character and with a film like this, that’s an accomplishment. Nicholson never seems bored with the role. Rather, he immerses himself in it and pulls out all the stops you could imagine for a boring, Midwest member of the AARP generation. Nicholson gives Schmidt life, which makes the film’s climax all the more moving.

From suffering through his wife’s untimely death to traveling across the country, to try and prevent his daughter from marrying a dim-witted waterbed salesman, to receiving a letter that opens his eyes and changes his life, Nicholson makes Schmidt real. It’s a very boring and depressing kind of real, but for an actor not known to use a lot of restraint to create such a restrained and timid character is really impressive.

Nicholson’s performance saves the film. Had anyone but him been cast as Schmidt, this film would have been an utter failure. The supporting cast does a good job presenting dysfunctional and very real characters, but Nicholson is the rock of this film. Though About Schmidt makes for an interesting character study, there needs to be more than just one fantastic performance to make a movie something special.

RATING: 3 out of 5

RoboCop 3 (1993)

What a mess. As much as the RoboCop series descended into silliness from the first installment to the second, nothing could have prepared me for RoboCop 3. After neglecting to properly deal with RoboCop’s need to come to terms with his partial humanity for two films, we get a more family-friendly about face and watch as RoboCop joins a group of revolutionaries and fights back against “the Man.”

Okay, maybe that’s a bit harsh. Allow me to set the scene for you- Omni Consumer Products is practically bankrupt but their goal of leveling Detroit and erecting their utopia, Delta City, in its place lives on through an equally sinister-minded Japanese corporation. OCP has begun the first phase of destroying the city by using military-style squadrons to forcibly evict entire city blocks at a time and leveling what once stood there. These efforts are met with hostility from the poor working class citizens getting forced out of their homes by the greedy corporation and a resistance movement springs up. Resorting to guerrilla tactics, these revolutionaries steal supplies, blow up the demolition equipment and kill enforcement squads wherever possible before slipping off into the shadows.

RoboCop and his partner witness the brutality of these enforcement squads while on duty. When the resistance group strikes, the enforcement squad opens up on anyone around. His directives telling him to protect the innocent, RoboCop attacks the enforcement squad. His partner is killed in the battle and RoboCop is badly damaged. RoboCop is taken in by the resistance group, fixed up and told about all the awful things OCP stands for.

To say that this film gives RoboCop heart is wrong. Yes, the titular character does the “right” thing and stands up for the oppressed citizens of Detroit, but he also doesn’t encourage the revolutionaries to give up their stealing and murderous ways like you would expect a justice-minded cyborg cop to. It slips into a kind of moral relativism that supports the revolutionaries' use of violence, but no one else’s.

On top of that, there still is nothing new introduced to the RoboCop series. Yes, there is the continuing saga of OCP’s quest for domination of Detroit, but that has always been a subplot in these films. RoboCop gave up on his family without much of a struggle, which killed his humanity for me. In RoboCop 3 our hero is nothing more than a walking, catch-phrase spouting demolition machine. Maybe it’s the effect of Franchise Syndrome, where the content, meaning and purpose of a film gets diluted for each sequel made, but part of me thinks that RoboCop was never meant to be a film franchise. It’s quite ironic that the original film was anti-capitalist and anti-establishment, yet the studio and filmmakers gave in to the sin of greed and took their cultural criticism and turned it into a cash cow.

The effects continue to be below par. You would think that a film that has so much advanced technology would have used state-of-the-art technologies to bring the special effects to life. The scenes with the Japanese company’s ninja robots were a silly excuse to incorporate martial arts action into an otherwise standard shoot-’em-up affair. The big finale is poorly executed and it’s a false climax at that. Despite the fact that the bad guys (evil corporations) lose in the end, to the victor go the spoils- a half demolished city with little to offer anybody in the way of safety, security or much of a future. That’s how I felt about the movie once all was said and done.

Truth be told, this movie is one big mess. Actor Peter Weller refused to reprise his role as RoboCop because of scheduling conflicts, the uncomfortable RoboCop suit and general malaise about the quality of the second film. Co-star Nancy Allen only agreed to return as RoboCop’s partner if her character could die in the first half of the film. With this little faith in the film from the cast, it’s no wonder that RoboCop 3 fell victim to camp and seemed to just be going through the motions.

RATING: 1.5 out of 5

Varsity Blues (1999)

The three most cliché ridden subgenres of film are chick flicks, sports films, and teen movies. Varsity Blues manages to combine the latter two quite well, providing us with much of the unsurprising twists and turns that come with teen athletes. But, instead of leaving me groaning over the obvious, this film actually hits its stride and packs enough genuine humor and light drama in all the right places.

I’ll get the negatives out of the way- This film is populated by your typical cast of (mostly) gorgeous young 20-somethings, none of whom look or sound like teenagers. All of the key good and bad points in the film come very predictably and don’t surprise you one lick. The film relies on some very tacky stuff, like high-schoolers partying and messing around like frat boys and lots of toilet humor. The film contradicts itself by glorifying rebellious attitudes while at the same time championing teamwork.

The thing is though that Varsity Blues isn’t taking itself seriously enough to be derailed by these time-(dis)honored clichés. It’s meant to be a fun and funny movie that tells a small story. And that’s exactly what it is.

James Van Der Beek is Jon Moxon, second string quarterback for a powerhouse high school team in a small Texas town. His dad was a football legend and Jon is pretty good at throwing the pigskin, but he has no desire to play football beyond high school. He’s smart, athletic and popular- he’s the perfect teen sports movie protagonist. He’s got big plans to go to Brown University, but life throws him a curveball. Starting QB Lance Harbor seriously injures his knee, forcing Moxon into the spotlight.

Varsity Blues is the story of one young man’s escape. Moxon seeks to escape football, despite his abilities. He seeks to escape the dead end, football-obsessed podunk Texas town that he lives in. He seeks to escape the pattern of young people getting trapped in this town, unable to make something of themselves. It’s not that he hates football, his family or his town; he just feels stifled and repressed by it all. This motif is hardly groundbreaking, but it is something that a lot of teens can relate to, which makes it work. It also helps that football, his family and his team are portrayed in such a way that audiences can’t help but cheer him on in making his escape.

Moxon isn’t the only person seeking escape though. The head cheerleader, played by Ali Larter, is desperate to break away from small town life. She had been dating Lance Harbor, hoping his success would take them away from Texas. When Lance gets hurt, she tries to attach herself to Moxon, even going so far as to strip nude and don a whipped cream bikini to seduce him. Another player on the team is equally desperate to get anywhere but Texas. Desperate to get recruited to a decent school, he contemplates taking cortisone shots to ease the pain of an injury so he can stay on the field and make the big plays that scouts will notice.

All of this is nothing new. Coming of age films have been around nearly as long as they have been making movies and yearning for something larger than what you know is a classic cinema staple. No one can make a film that says anything different about the longing to break free and the desire to make something of yourself. It’s all in the presentation and the obstacles presented (in this case, it's a tyrannical football coach).

Varsity Blues knows its target audience and injects all the high school sensibilities and 90s wit needed to please younger audiences. It’s got beautiful people, sex, drugs (in the form of alcohol and cortisone shots), and a rock and roll soundtrack to boot. It taps into the angst that teenagers are all too accustomed to and tells a story that is like a lighter version of the book Friday Night Lights and the movie and TV series that followed it.

Sure, it’s predictable (to a point) and it’s got plenty of clichés and stereotypes of the rebellious teen/sports genres, but that’s half the fun of Varsity Blues. Younger viewers don’t care and eat this stuff up like a loving spoonful of teen entertainment. Through all the ups and downs, pros and cons, Varsity Blues is a harmless bit of fun that I’m still young enough to appreciate. Plus, I finally got to watch the film that gave us the whipped cream bikini scene, which has been referenced, spoofed and mocked ever since.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

RoboCop 2 (1990)

Combining fewer strong elements and even more flaws, RoboCop 2 detaches its hero even further from his partial humanity while providing mediocre thrills, a story that runs too long, and including some downright laughable elements.

The original RoboCop was a criticism of the Reaganomics-driven, capitalist-leaning society of the 1980s. It portrayed the very worst depths that a capitalist society could fall to with an utter lack of regulation and common sense. It was sensationalist propaganda to a point, which makes the main theme of RoboCop 2 all the more amusing. This time around, the titular character is waging a war on drugs, something advocated by Ronald Reagan. This powerful new drug called Nuke is being created and distributed by a man named Cain, who has a messiah complex from too many hits of his own creation. He’s rich, powerful and very well armed.

Behind the scenes, the Omni Consumer Products corporation is still trying to realize their vision of destroying Detroit and building a new Utopian metropolis in its place. Their latest move is to try and push the city to defaulting on its debt, which would allow OCP to foreclose and effectively take full control of the city. It’s an interesting concept, but one that requires some serious suspension of disbelief to make work. To help further the conflict, OCP creates a police strike by canceling the police department’s pension program, another jab at capitalism and one of the few elements in the film that actually still resonates today.

With only RoboCop to walk the streets in the name of justice, OCP moves ahead with their RoboCop 2 program. Instead of using the brain of an officer with strong convictions and willingness to uphold the law, they seek to use the vilest brains imaginable, bent on destruction and power. The RoboCop 2 program is to be used to eradicate civilians still living in Detroit once OCP forces the city into default.

I don’t know if it was done intentionally as a part of the cultural criticism or not, but the inclusion of a foul-mouthed 10-year-old boy who helps sell and eventually lead the drug operation is both laughable and repugnant at the same time. I have a hard time imagining any society that falls apart to the point where an elementary school kid could run a multi-million dollar drug empire. For me, it killed any remaining chance of me taking this film seriously. Though after the first film, how could anyone take RoboCop 2 seriously? What’s worse is that we’re supposed to feel sorry for this little brat when he lies dying in RoboCop’s arms later on.

RoboCop 2 runs longer than its predecessor, which is a major problem because RoboCop 2 has nothing new to add to the series and world of RoboCop. It gives us a few new, hopelessly evil villains and a new plot by OCP to pursue their ends by any means necessary. The flaws in OCP’s plans are quite obvious but the evil rich men are somehow oblivious to it. How can they honestly expect to build a Utopian city and prevent poor districts from springing up and crime from finding a home in an already corrupt idea? These are the sort of things that proof-reading and rewrites help to work out, neither of which must have happened here.

The visual effects are lackluster, even by 1990 standards. When RoboCop inevitably faces off against the RoboCop 2 model, there’s a whole lot of blue screen work and some atrocious stop motion photography. It’s almost amenable because the RoboCop 2 unit wasn’t exactly something that a person could have dressed up in and made a good fight scene with, but they way they tried to make these scenes work didn’t attempt anything cutting edge or groundbreaking. They fell back on tried and true techniques that were already becoming dated.

The biggest affront in my mind came at the beginning of the film. RoboCop was still trying to come to terms with his human past. He was essentially stalking his former wife and family by driving past their house. When confronted by the police department and his former wife, RoboCop abandoned his quest for grasping his partial humanity outright. Some might argue that he was being noble and did it so his wife had closure, but it strips the character of all humanity and allows the film to differ from any weighty character development in favor of violence, explosions and vulgarity.

RoboCop 2 isn’t so bad that it’s not worth watching. It’s just an underwhelming action flick for anyone hoping for more than what was given in the original. Sure, the sarcastic commercials still break up the story line from time to time and RoboCop peddles cheesy lines just like before while dishing out his own brand of police brutality, but there’s little that makes RoboCop 2 feel like its own film. It’s little more than a continuation of all the worst parts of the original. For some, that will be enough, but not for me.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Warning: Spoilers Ahead!

After the significant letdown that was The Matrix Reloaded, the Wachowski brothers returned with their band of misfit rebels less than a year later with this film. Serving as both a companion piece to Reloaded and as the conclusion to the series, The Matrix Revolutions is a slight improvement upon its immediate predecessor but contains many of the same flaws, keeping it well below the achievement of the original.

Picking up right where The Matrix Reloaded left off, Revolutions starts with Neo waking up in a weird sort of limbo program within the Matrix, though he is not plugged in. There he discovers that programs created by the Matrix have developed a sense of self worth and fear of being deactivated. The notion that artificial intelligence could develop ego is interesting (though not expressly unique to this story) but also kind of confusing at the same time.

When the Trainman refuses to grant passage to Neo, he is left stuck in limbo. Morpheus and Trinity enter the Matrix in order to rescue their friend so they can head back to Zion and join in the final battle. They once again must confront the Merovingian, who once again espouses acid-tongued philosophy that, while pertinent to the events of the film and really smart concepts, viewers will probably want to ignore. I finally realized that the Merovingian, for all the good he is for presenting hard-hitting philosophy is his own (and the Wachowski’s) undoing. Where the Oracle speaks in vague terms, the Merovingian speaks in terms of absolutes and finite concepts. The difference is in their personality. The Oracle is frustrating but she’s so nice you can’t help but trust her. The Merovingian is pretty much right, but he’s easily dismissed because he is an egomaniacal jerk.

This highlights an interesting turn of events in the Matrix series. Where the first film makes you think, question everything and look for truth, Revolutions seems to stand that on its head, favoring faith over knowledge instead. It’s a 180 that is hard to reckon with, because most of what people have had faith in during the series (prophecy and ideas) turns out to be a bunch of hooey in the end. Where the first film spent the entire time highlighting Neo’s uniqueness, Reloaded tore him back down with the revelation that there have been multiple Ones and they are in fact a component of the Architect’s original design. The end of Reloaded and parts of Revolutions seem to try and build Neo’s hero mythology back up, but there’s just as much pulling him back down in our minds at the same time. It’s unclear if the filmmakers are intentionally trying to create this ambiguous buffer for themselves or the varying tastes of viewers, which leaves the overall resolution of faith vs. reason frustratingly unclear.

Neo is freed and visits the Oracle one last time. Her appearance has changed because the actress that had played the Oracle in the first two films died suddenly before filming began on the third. The Wachowski’s tried write in some kind of philosophical causality reason behind the change of her appearance in Revolutions, but it just seems like a silly excuse to try and make us think that every flaw in the films can be rationalized. The Oracle’s last message to Neo is that he must go to the Machine City. When Neo leaves the Matrix, our heroes go their separate ways. Morpheus heads back to defend Zion while Neo and Trinity. Unbeknownst to Neo, however, is that Bane- the Smith-infused human- snuck aboard the ship Neo and Trinity are taking to the Machine City.

Here the movie delves into two and a half high tension action sequences. Morpheus franticly attempts to get back to Zion with the help of another ship (and his former lover) by navigating the labyrinthine service tunnels that seem to be everywhere and were never really explained at all during any of the films. Meanwhile, the Machines break through Zion’s security and unleash a spectacular assault on the last homestead of free humanity. Both of these scenes rely on extensive amounts of CGI. Some of it is good, while a fair amount of it is not. The chase through the service tunnels looks better because everything is moving faster and it’s very dark.

The battle at Zion isn’t as impressive as it should be because the thousands of robotic sentinels look good as one massive group soaring down upon their prey, but when viewed individually, they lack that realistic look the filmmakers were going for. They just move too fast and intricately to believe. Plus, it’s very easy to spot a scene composed entirely of CGI. The humans fighting the machines have their moments of ridiculousness as well. Ironically, they use mechanized war suits to fire thousands of rounds of heavy ammunition at the sentinels, but when these war suits are seen from a distance as CGI creations, I got the feeling that I was watching an incredibly violent video game instead of a movie. Equally ironic is the fact that the freedom that Zion fights for is in fact just a ploy by the Machines to make it seem like humanity still has a chance. Why the Machines haven’t eliminated Zion completely during the last five iterations of the Matrix is beyond me and the filmmakers didn’t feel the need to explain it either.

Neo does his fair share of fighting as well. Attacked and blinded by Bane aboard the ship, Neo uses his powers that now exist outside the Matrix as well to dispatch this Smith incarnate. As he and Trinity near the Machine City, the Machines do their darndest to destroy them. Neo blocks the bombs and rockets as much as he can but tells Trinity to fly up as high as the ship can take them. They break through the clouds and Trinity sees the light of the Sun for the first time. Ironically, Neo is unable to see this light. They plunge back into the clouds and down into the city itself. Interestingly, Trinity, who can see the light is crashing to her doom. Neo, on the other hand, could not see the light and is crashing towards his fate as well. The light he sees is the Machine City, which he enters, heading towards his doom.

The grand finale of The Matrix Revolutions is a winner-take-all duel between Neo and Smith, who has seemingly replicated himself into all the humans attached to the Matrix. The battle of Zion pauses while Neo fights. Morpheus, in a rare moment of naïveté, assumes Neo is fighting for humanity. In fact, Neo fights for the people of Zion and for the Machines, as Smith now poses a threat to the Matrix and the Machine City itself. It’s amusing that as advanced the Machines are, they managed to be no better than humans by creating something that is capable of destroying themselves. The battle itself is bloated and drags on far too long and Smith rants insanely about destiny and why Neo feels the need to continue. There is some bad CGI on display as well, particularly when the two take their battle to the sky. Seriously? A flying fight? It was silly and served no purpose other than to show of special effects that were anything but. In the end, just as Neo defeated Smith in the real world, Smith gets to defeat Neo in the computer world. Neo allows himself to be assimilated, which somehow allows the Matrix to destroy Smith. I understand the whole balancing of the equation bit, but I never really grasped the mechanics of how or why the Machines could only destroy Smith through Neo.

Despite all the flaws, I liked the resolution The Matrix Revolutions gives us. The war ends and an era of peace and understanding is ushered in. Of course, all of this is underscored by a large question mark. How long will the peace last? At what point will the people of Zion rise up against the Machines and receive the next One? Many were frustrated by this seemingly neat and tidy yet ambiguous ending, but I was satisfied with it. Story lines were finished, though some not as well as others, and the central conflict was resolved. It’s still a little absurd to imagine that all of this took place in 3 days time, but it works. It also shows, as all the philosophical espousing implied, that the end of this conflict is not the end of the story. The lives of these characters go on, but we’re not to be privy to what comes next. People complained of losing two of the series main characters, but with all the comparisons and allusions to Neo as a Jesus figure, how could you not see it coming? The Matrix Revolutions brings the saga to a close with a whimper instead of a bang. It may not be the most pleasing way to end it all, but it’s exactly what the series needed.

RATING: 3 out of 5

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Warning: Spoilers Ahead!

After 1999’s enormously successful The Matrix captivated audiences, reinvigorated deep-thinking science fiction, and introduced the world to new levels of computer and special effects and filmmaking techniques, talk of a sequel was inevitable. Many wondered if or how the Wachowski brothers could pull off such a feat. Four years and hundreds of millions of dollars later, we got a chance to find out.

Instead of just one sequel, the Wachowski brothers promised us two sequels- to be filmed at the same time- creating a Matrix trilogy. The Matrix Reloaded was released in May of 2003 and was followed by the third and final installment that November. This, the first of the sequels turned out to be an interesting mix of too little and too much too late.

The overarching story of The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions is that the Machines have formed a vast army and are drilling their way deep into the earth to launch an attack on Zion, the last free human settlement on earth. After Morpheus and the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar meet up with the captains and crews of other ships in Zion’s fleet, they learn that, at the rate the machines are digging, Zion will be reached in no more than 72 hours.

The crews all return to Zion, where Morpheus discusses strategy with Zion’s security minister and a council of elders. The council allows Morpheus to take his ship outside the safety of Zion so Neo may contact the Oracle. Before they depart, the people of Zion decide to have one final party before the machines bear down upon them. It’s a very awkward scene with a lot of slow motion and a lot of sweaty bodies heaving back and forth. All the while, Neo and Trinity make love, which is equally awkward because their bodies are covered with the plugs and sockets that once connected them to the Matrix.

Neo and company head out and he meets with the Oracle. They have a deep discussion that delves into some weighty philosophical matters and it is learned that instead of a renegade person hooked up to the Matrix, the Oracle is in fact a program created by the Matrix. It sort of helps to explain why the Matrix doesn’t just kill her off, but it also complicates things and is a splash of foreshadowing. The Oracle tells Neo that he must return to The Source by finding the Keymaker and she leaves him.

At this point, The Matrix Reloaded becomes little more than a chase caper. Neo and his friends find themselves in the middle of action sequence after action sequence designed to show off the camera tricks, special effects and wire work that wowed us all in the original film. There’s Neo fighting about 100 Smith’s; Neo, Morpheus and Trinity taking on the Merovingian and his lackeys in an ornate palace, which leads into an insufferably long highway chase; and finally an assault upon a power plant and Neo’s attempt to break into The Source with the Keymaker.

These scenes include all sorts of high-flying action, guns blazing, stuff blowing up and people getting shot up, impaled or blown to bits that the fanboy and young male audiences were craving. The problem is that there isn’t a lot to these action sequences that are new. There’s no new technology or innovative camera techniques being deployed. All we end up with is even more of the same super slow-mo “bullet time” that the original introduced us to. Another chief problem is that these sequences really on a tremendous amount of computer generated effects, many of which simply look fake. In the years between production of the first Matrix film and its sequels, CGI improved a lot, but not nearly enough to the point that this film needed it to.

Interspersed between, throughout, and bookending these high octane sequences are the Wachowski brothers attempts to inject a little substance into their chase caper. Unfortunately, these attempts surface as short bursts of heavy duty philosophical banter that is likely to either go way over the viewer’s head, frustrating them by making them feel dumb, or bore them to death before the next action scene. Sometimes both. These exchanges are often times amusing and frustrating at the same time because they come either before or during exchanges of violence, making the whole fight seem absurd. Why delay kicking the crap out each other to talk Jung and Freud? It’s illogical, but the actions and exchanges go by so fast that most people probably won’t notice. If you can wrap your head around the weighty material though, it’s good stuff, but a few blasts of intellectualism can’t make up for a bloated half-film that’s candy-coated in excess.

There were several things I liked about The Matrix Reloaded. Obviously, the fight scenes and martial arts displays were well choreographed and incredibly intricate. The philosophical content was appreciable, but as I said before, it actually comes off as a bit insulting that the filmmakers thought what little substance and advancement of story there was would be enough. I was amused by Neo’s confrontation with the Architect at The Source. The Architect claims to have built the Matrix and monitors it from a massive bank of TV screens. It was actually a unique 21st Century and beyond depiction of God- the omniscient, bearded, white-haired old man who is the creator of all reality. It was also interesting how Neo defies him much in the same way that Man defies God in real life. Too bad the Architect came across as a pretentious intellectual blowhard. Finally, The Matrix Reloaded never stopped projecting a message of hope. Even in the darkest of times, people still had hope that the evils confronting them could be overcome. Sometimes it was a false sense of hope, but when your protagonists are trying to prevent their annihilation, can you really complain about false hope?

I think the biggest fault of the film, however, is the ending. Created as the first half of a two-part follow-up, The Matrix Reloaded does very little to make itself stand alone as a film. It leaves too much dangling and dependent upon the third film to create a whopping resolution. The Nebuchadnezzar is attacked by the Machines but Neo miraculously defends himself and his friends from the assault in the real world. Neo is left in a coma, Smith has managed to transfer himself into the real world by assimilating himself into the body of another crew member, and the Machines are swiftly approaching Zion. While I understand the concept of contiguous sequels, you still need make each one its own living and breathing entity. The Matrix Reloaded left me feeling like I had just watched one half of a very unbalanced equation.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964)

This made for TV movie is a perfect showcase of what not to do. Featuring horrendous writing, worse acting and even worse set designs, it’s no wonder that it was selected for lampooning by Mystery Science Theater 3000, to which it probably owes its notoriety.

The adults on Mars are growing worried about their children. All their knowledge is transmitted into their brains by machines and the highly structured Martian civilization has left them with little time for freedom or fun. While monitoring their children watching an Earth television broadcast, the adult Martians notice a glimmer of joy in their children at the mention of Santa Claus. Thinking that their children’s well-being is of the utmost importance, the adult Martians set out to kidnap Santa Claus and bring him to Mars to bring joy to all the little green children.

Some of the crankier Martians don’t like the idea of Santa Claus bringing joy to the children and set out to sabotage the whole thing. Complications are compounded when two earth children witness Santa’s capture and are taken hostage as well. In the end though, Santa uses toys and humor to win the Martians over and finds them a Martian simple and joyful enough to replicate his annual duties. Santa and the kids are taken back to earth and all is well.

I have to say right off the bat that the theme song for the film, “Hooray for Santy Claus” is actually really good. It’s probably the best part of the whole picture. It’s a fun, rocking 60s Christmas song and sings the praises of Santa Claus’ valor in the face of adversity.

Otherwise this film is terrible. The sets are epic failures. Computer equipment aboard the Martian spaceships is connected by hinges and are clearly constructed with plywood. It’s really quite laughable when you can see the set move when someone bumps the wall or door too hard.

Also worth mentioning is how hopelessly bad the script is. Between the cheesy and the mundane, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians hits just about everything in the gamut of lousy script writing. At least half of the lines are groan worthy and meant to be cute. Trust me, they’re anything but.

The acting is consistently wretched as well. It can’t just be due to the time period, because there were darn fine actors long before this film saw the light of day. Made for TV movies have had lousy acting as long as I can remember, so I guess this means it’s a long-standing tradition to hire people who provide wooden deliveries and show sub-standard emotion.

And finally, Santa Claus is downright creepy in this movie! Every now and then he just starts laughing a jolly but maniacal sounding laugh and everyone stops what they’re doing and joins in. It never makes any sense whatsoever and creeped me out every time. And technically, he doesn't really conquer the Martians.

There’s a good reason why you’ve probably never heard of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. It stinks. It’s inclusion on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and the fact that a future Golden Globe winning actress plays one of the Martian children are the only reasons this film will ever be remembered.

The story idea of stealing Santa Claus is actually neat though. That could have made for a good story, but this certainly wasn’t it.

RATING: 1 out of 5

The Dark Knight (2008)

After the amazing success of 2005’s Batman Begins, expectations were set very high for the inevitable sequel. At the end of the first film, Batman was being informed of a deranged maniac on the loose who leaves a Joker playing card at the scene of his crimes. This led Batman fans squealing with joy to learn that Batman would be locking horns with his arch nemesis in the next picture.

Wisely sidestepping any kind of origin story for the Joker, The Dark Knight begins with the Clown Prince of Crime hot on the scene. Pulling off an intricate bank heist, the Joker makes a loud and clear statement that he is out to turn Gotham City on its head.

With the madness and criminal uprising from Batman Begins still carrying on, Batman and the Gotham City police have their hands full. What’s worse is that a number of copycat mercenaries are dressing up (albeit crudely) like Batman and attempting to deliver their own brand of vigilante justice. As their obvious inspiration, Batman comes to grow on the nerves of Gotham’s mayor and police chief.

The Joker offers his services to the criminal underground of Gotham, vowing to kill Batman in exchange for half of their combined money. Scoffing, the mobsters send the Joker away but then get outwitted as Batman, Lieutenant Gordon and District Attorney Harvey Dent kidnap the mobs’ accountant. Out of fear that their accountant could sell them all out, they hire the Joker to get rid of Batman.

Harvey Dent rises to the forefront and becomes what citizens call a white knight. Bruce Wayne watches the man’s popularity and realizes that Dent is more needed than Batman. Dent is unafraid to go after the big dogs and does so in the light of day, boldly making himself a target.

The Joker begins his quest to expunge Batman from Gotham and decides to have a grand old time in doing so. Every time Batman or the cops stop or interfere with the Joker’s plans, he comes back with something bigger, each time putting more and more people at risk.

Escalation is a key theme to the film and a key factor in the Joker’s psyche. He seems to have an almost childish “anything you can do I can do better” attitude in devising his plans and the most unnerving part of it all is that the Joker doesn’t care about money. Yes, he robs banks and is hired by the mob, but that’s not his motivation. At heart, the Joker is an anarchist, pure and simple. He seeks to destabilize everyone’s quaint existence and revels in pushing everyone to their breaking point.

Calling Batman to task, the Joker demands he stop hiding his identity and show his real self. He makes some good points about Batman choosing to hide in the shadows and there is a unique interplay between them. The Joker prefers a “fair” fight- he wants to take Batman on in the open with everything laid out on the table. Batman is challenged by the Joker because he uses the shadows to his advantage, like he was trained. He knows he can’t expose himself because there are too many people he could put in harm’s way. In an odd way, the Joker points out that by hiding in the shadows, Batman actually makes himself more vulnerable to freaks like him.

Things get worse from here. The Joker continues his escalation, killing the girl Bruce Wayne loves and creating a monster out of Gotham’s white knight in the process. Battle after battle and the Joker and Batman remain at odds. Batman sticks to his principles and won’t kill the Joker despite many ample opportunities, but that doesn’t stop the Joker from testing Batman’s mettle. At one point, the Joker almost breaks Batman, but now-Commissioner Gordon intervenes.

Essentially, The Dark Knight is little more than one big cat and mouse game. Some people might be turned off by this seemingly simplistic concept, especially given how deep and involved Batman Begins was. But it’s not the cat and mouse game that’s important here. It’s the relationship and interactions between characters that is important here. Where the old Batman films were all about the action, director Christopher Nolan takes the action and uses it as a driving force in defining and growing the characters.

Batman Begins gave us the first Batman we could believe in, but he does one better here and gives us a Batman we can doubt on an emotional level. The film left me with many questions, particularly why Batman continues to take the most difficult path before him. Here is a Batman that is fallible. We see his breaking point. I actually cheered when he was beating the Joker to a pulp. I wanted Batman to kill him. But then we learn that that’s what the Joker wants as well. To kill the Joker, Batman must compromise his principles, which is exactly what the Joker wants. Powerful stuff.

The writing, acting and directing are superb in The Dark Knight. Christopher Nolan creates a worthy sequel that is only a sequel because Batman Begins came before it. It has its own story to tell and tells it in a very different way from how Batman Begins came together. Very little hinges upon the events of the first film, though everything builds off of what took place and what was learned before. The Dark Knight is its own film. It leaves things in a very bleak situation for the inevitable third installment, which is really going to have its work cut out for it. After two phenomenal films, can the new Batman franchise retain this level of quality?

Christian Bale is solid once again as Bruce Wayne and Batman. He shows a range of emotions and understanding that really build the character well. He is a very human hero, which makes Batman all the more impressive yet worrisome at the same time.

Aaron Eckhart was a competent choice for Harvey Dent. He has a similar build and look as Christian Bale, so Dent and Bruce really can be compared. Dent is decidedly more troubled, showing an angry streak that consumes him as Two-Face. He’s given a much more tragic and sympathetic treatment in the film than Dent ever got in the comics and prior films. Here is the fallen protector of the city, driven mad by revenge. Dent was a very honorable man before his turn, creating not so much a villain as an antihero, as Batman and Two-Face both stand for justice, but deliver it by different means.

Maggie Gyllenhaal does well as Rachel Dawes. Katie Holmes played the role originally in Batman Begins, but Gyllenhaal brings the toughness that the character requires in The Dark Knight. While it irked me a bit continuity-wise, I have to admit that I would have had a harder time believing Katie Holmes playing a hard-nosed assistant DA.

The supporting cast of Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are superb as always. They add just the right touches in just the right places.

This brings me to the Joker. When Heath Ledger was cast in this role I was a part of the collective “Huh?” that rose out among the fans. Known for his role as a teen heartthrob and for his work in Brokeback Mountain, many people thought that he lacked the acting chops to take on the role. In retrospect though, probably anyone would have been second guessed if cast for the part.

Ledger pulls it off though in a very astounding and, in my opinion, career-defining way. There was never a time during this film where I thought to myself, that’s Heath Ledger pretending to be the Joker. There was no Heath Ledger in this film. It was just the Joker. Ledger created a full-fledged persona, not just a character. Granted, it helps that the Joker’s makeup conceals the fact that it is Heath Ledger, but the performance sucks you in and grips you like few villains ever have.

I was particularly fond of the fact that Ledger’s Joker kept changing the story of how he got his scars and became the demented freak he is. It’s a powerful but subtle way of saying his origins and past don’t matter- all that matters is that he’s here and there’s nothing you can do about it. All too often today, films and books and TV try to rationalize criminal behavior in one way or another because a bad guy who’s “just bad” isn’t complex enough. It also tends to soften their edge a bit. Nothing is scarier than a homicidal maniac killing people just because he can. The Dark Knight brings back the “just bad” bad guy and it is one of the film’s true triumphs.

As to the question of whether or not The Dark Knight is better than its predecessor, my answer is ‘not really.’ Batman Begins and The Dark Knight tell two very different kinds of stories and it’s difficult to compare them at all because the characters, attitudes and behaviors in each film are so widely different. All in all, The Dark Knight is firmly Batman Begins' equal.

The acting and directing is better this time around, but The Dark Knight is held back by a few nit-picky things that I noticed. I couldn’t help but wonder how Bruce Wayne managed to build that huge underground command center beneath the docks without anyone noticing. Sure, Wayne Manor is still being rebuilt, but it seemed a tad far-fetched that something so vast could be lying under everyone’s noses.

Also, a few of the graphics looked a little off to me. One scene in particular was when Batman was riding around on his Batpod motorcycle contraption. When stopping, Batman drives it up the side of a wall and sort of flips it back down to the street. This sequence looked very fake to me because it happened unnaturally fast and smooth.

There are a few other things here and there, but as a whole film, The Dark Knight is a very worthy follow-up to a very worth reinvention of the Batman legacy.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Cars That Ate Paris (1974)

No, not Paris, France. This independent film tries to blend black comedy and horror together in a very weird way. The film opens in a very amusing sort of way- a happy young couple is going on a ride through the countryside. Corny early 70s jazzy electronic music is playing (the kind of stuff that would play on a high school informational video) and the couple look happy and in love. Then, all of a sudden, they reach Paris. Their car is run off the road by a booby trap, the couple is killed and then the townspeople move in to scavenge the parts and valuables the couple may have in tow.

I have to give the writers a lot of credit- the concept of an isolated community that kills passersby for their belongings is quite unique and chilling. The only problem is that The Cars That Ate Paris doesn’t go far enough beyond its concept to make a complete story.

A man named Arthur and his friend or brother (I don’t remember which) fall victim to the town’s nefarious plot, but Arthur survives. Instead of just killing him, the townspeople decide to try and assimilate him into their community. The more Arthur learns about the community, the less he wants to stay. The only problem is that the town goes to great lengths to prevent anyone from leaving (for very understandable reasons).

Arthur’s big problem is that he caused a fatal crash earlier in his life and has been afraid of driving ever since. The town exploits his fear and says that if he can summon the courage to get behind the wheel, they’ll let him drive away. It is only until he is pushed to the limit that he can accomplish this task and make his escape.

His escape is assisted by a vehicular rampage staged by the youth of the town. All throughout the movie we see them driving around in their wildly decorated cars, harassing and intimidating the older generation and Arthur. Very little is explained as to why they are so angry with the town elders. If it is freedom they seek, they certainly have every opportunity to drive off in their cars. They seem to be rebelling against something that is never explained, which is a major flaw for the film.

I also couldn’t really wrap my head around why they chose to spare Arthur’s life. I understand that the town will need to introduce new people from time to time or face the end of their existence, but why Arthur? After killing so many people, no reasoning is given for his attempted assimilation. It would seem that any rationally-minded person would want to leave the town as soon as they found out how the people make ends meet.

Speaking of making ends meet, it was never addressed how the town acquired enough food to get by. Do they have some kind of a bartering station or outpost closer to civilization? The film leaves you with no clear answers here.

The idea itself is really good, but The Cars That Ate Paris lacks a lot in the execution. Developing the story to occur in a dystopian post-apocalyptic setting would have made more sense. A few more rewrites would have served this picture well. As it stands, the blend of black comedy and what little horror exists left me feeling a bit bored and expecting something big to happen that would tie it all together.

No such resolution came my way, leaving me a little perturbed. The Cars That Ate Paris is a prime example of a neat idea falling apart at the hands of poor execution. I think a remake of this film could be quite good and possibly even quite popular.

RATING: 2 out of 5

Patch Adams (1998)

Robin Williams stars in a charming tale of man versus the establishment that is based on a true story. Williams plays Hunter “Patch” Adams, a determined young man who sets out to become a doctor who really helps people instead of just curing illness and injury.

Fresh off of his Oscar-winning performance in Good Will Hunting, Williams tackled a few serious and semi-serious roles. Patch Adams falls into the latter category but the film doesn’t stray too often into the kind of schmaltz that dramedies often fall victim too. There’s humanity, heart and humor in all the right places in this film and it doesn’t gloss over or condone Patch’s continual defiance too much.

After a botched suicide attempt, Patch Adams is admitted to a psych ward, where he is inspired to become a doctor. Starting medical school years after what is considered the norm, he meets animosity from some of his more pretentious peers and also from the faculty of the Medical College of Virginia faculty. Med students are told that they may have no interaction with real patients until their third year.

Adams, knowing the value of doctor-patient interaction, challenges his superiors’ rules and standards. Numerous times, he sneaks into the campus hospital and works at cheering up patients who are down in the dumps. He is also caught in the act of doing so multiple times and disciplined. He even nearly gets himself kicked out of the school.

Adams has a vision of operating a free clinic that is open to treating people without medical insurance and any way to pay for their care. He seeks to put the compassion back in the medical field and wins over a number of the people he meets along his time at med school.

Williams’ performance is touching and just the right blend of humor and seriousness. The story is written well, though there are a few liberties taken and a few facts fudged from the real life story the film is based on. In the end, it’s a feel –good movie that isn’t a guilty pleasure.

Now and again the pacing got a little too slow for my liking, but the near two hour run time is worth it. We see Patch and his peers grow and feel a range of emotions. There’s a little romance and a little tragedy, but Williams will win you over by the end.

It was frustrating at times to see how brash his defiance against the faculty was and his behavior nearly took me to the point where I felt almost no pity for him when he got in trouble. I was also a little disappointed that the movie ended with Adam’s graduation from medical school. Sure, there was a brief text overlay describing what he accomplished afterwards, which is special, but we never really saw him reconcile with those he stepped on along the way.

Maybe I’m wrong to ask for so much resolution in a film, but that’s the way I look at it. This wasn’t a major sticking point for me though and it didn’t take away from the impact and heart of the film. All in all, this is an inspiring film that will bring a smile to just about anyone’s face.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Robocop (1987)

For the foul-mouthed, immature man-child, the obscenity and violence in RoboCop make it a masterpiece. For the rest of us, this dystopian future flick comes up a few rewrites short of a well-oiled machine.

In the not-too-distant future, the city of Detroit is a mess. Things are so bad and the city is so far in debt that it has sold its police forces to a private company, Omni Consumer Products. The firm, however, has plans to ransack and raze Detroit and replace it with a new utopian city. With the crime rate high, OCP develops a robotic law enforcer. The first demonstration fails miserably and a volunteer ends up brutally slain by the machine due to a malfunction. An ambitious developer in the firm uses the incident to greenlight his alternative project line, the RoboCop.

The RoboCop enforcer requires a human touch. In order for the RoboCop to function properly, a human brain is needed for some reason to maintain some kind of system balance. With cops getting killed all over Detroit, OCP has plenty of candidates to choose from.

Enter officer Alex Murphy, a determined cop who values justice and service to the city. While making a surprise raid on a dangerous gang, Murphy is captured and tortuously executed by the thugs and their boss Boddicker (Kurtwood Smith- aka Topher Grace’s dad on That 70’s Show). When brought to the hospital morgue though, Murphy is used as the first active host for RoboCop.

With a simple set of directives in his memory banks, RoboCop does a smash-up job fighting crime in the city. He’s virtually bulletproof, a wicked shot and has amazing strength. Then his human brain begins injecting memories from Murphy’s life into his mind. RoboCop struggles with seeing images and nearly remembering the wife and family he used to have and also has flashes of the goons who killed him.

At this point, the film heads in the wrong direction. Instead of RoboCop seeking an identity for himself aside from the steel and wires of his makeup, he instead makes it his personal mission to hunt down and eliminate Boddicker and his minions. RoboCop hits a few snags along the way as Boddicker is secretly working for OCP by raising crime rates to drive people out of Detroit, thereby bringing OCP’s dream of rebuilding the city all the more closer to fruition. But of course, RoboCop rises above the corporate corruption and upholds the law, seemingly bringing an end to all the bad guys.

After looking into the history of the conception and development of RoboCop, I understand that the filmmakers were looking to include heavy doses of dark cultural satire, but the problem with making fun of the culture of your time is that it rarely ever translates well for future generations. Twenty-one years after its release, RoboCop fails to resonate on a cultural level.

In the past, many books and movies had been made about dystopian societies growing out of extreme liberal social policies so I guess RoboCop is the other end of the spectrum. The 1980’s saw the rise of powerful corporations and there were plenty of people in Hollywood that hated it. Ultra-liberal leaning writers and producers were looking for a way to make a statement against what they saw was a conglomorative threat to their liberal ideals. They found it (or they thought they had) in RoboCop. It’s a violent movie that will appeal to young males and supply a subtle dose of anti-corporate subtext.

The filmmakers also include bizarre and random segments of news shows for that dystopian future. These segments fill in gaps while RoboCop is being programmed and between a few major plot segments. They were designed to show even further evidence of the dangers that selfish capitalistic policies pose to civilization if let run rampant, but it all comes across as dated and hokey. There was simply too much time and effort put into refining these anti-corporate extras and not enough time developing a compelling story.

This brings us to the film’s substance. At one point, RoboCop’s memories of Murphy’s family become so frequent it seems as if he’ll try to find them and reconcile with his loved ones and himself about the machine he has become. But, instead of taking an introspective angle, the film becomes a revenge piece. RoboCop goes after the bad guy, which almost makes him a tool really. Sure, in the end his sense of honor and duty help him put a stop to his developers' nefarious plans, but is that really enough of a message?

I don’t think so. Sure, it shows that duty and honor can overcome the most intimate of villains, even those posing as your friends, but that message has been delivered so many times in movies that it’s a cliché. Besides, there was no real conflict for RoboCop to bring down his creators. His programming tried to stop him, but there was no ethical or moral dilemma present.

That’s the big problem- as hard as they may have tried, RoboCop is too far removed from his humanity to even affect us as viewers. They got close, but then shied away for a path that would keep the bloodthirsty adolescents happy. And bloodthirsty it is! Even RoboCop’s methods cross the line on police brutality by today’s standards. I don’t know if this was intended as part of the anti-cultural subtleties or not, but it was jarring nonetheless.

I liked some of the gritty filmmaking techniques that gave a better sense of realism and (in some cases) a quasi-indie feel, but RoboCop is nothing more than an underdeveloped guilty pleasure.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Enchanted (2007)

After several years worth of snarky, self-aware fairy tale-skewering Hollywood hits, Disney finally caught on and took aim at its own lengthy portfolio of animated cheese. Enchanted more than hits the mark. It destroys the mark altogether. Where one would expect Disney to hold back in reverence to its most time-honored fairy tale conventions, Enchanted lays it on thick, as if it were one of the cynical hecklers that live to berate schmaltz.

The film opens as if it were an animated film. A beautiful young maiden named Giselle has secretly caught the ire of an evil queen. Giselle wakes in the morning, sings a sweet song and receives help in getting ready for the day with the help of her animal friends. These early scenes had my eyes rolling and my gut busting with laughter. Make no mistake, Disney’s pulling no punches.

The evil queen tries but fails to dispatch of the maiden before her dashing prince of a son discovers and falls madly in love with her. It’s perfectly gag-tastic. As a last ditch effort, the queen throws the girl into an enchanted well and she ends up as a flesh and blood human being in our world. Wanting to break the idealistic Giselle’s outlook, the queen sent her to New York City, where she would be surrounded by cynical, impatient and rude people around every corner.

Dressed in a huge, poofy dress, Giselle walks the streets looking for help. Jaded and bitter New Yorkers just pay her no mind and she is left nearly desperate. She finds help in Robert Phillip (Patrick Dempsey), a divorced father of one. His daughter quickly falls in love with the idea of having a real princess in their apartment but Robert just wants to put her up for a night and get the nut out of his place.

Sure enough, her prince travels to our world in search of his one true love. He is “assisted” by one of his mother’s advisors, who tries to do everything he can to prevent the prince from succeeding. More of the culture clash humor arises from his quest than from Giselle’s predicament. There are plenty of laughs from her end of the story, but there is also the serious side, which dilutes the fun ever so slightly. You know, the moral of the story.

For all the goofy fun that Enchanted brings to the table, Disney couldn’t help but fall victim to some of the same conventions they roast. The ending is fairly predictable, but it is, after all, a fairy tale. What fairy tale isn’t predictable?

Enchanted is one of the rare films that just about everyone can enjoy. The snarky jibes at fairy tale clichés will appeal to the cynics while the idealistic romanticism will appeal to the rest of the crowd. It makes a few things very clear- First, there’s a reason why fairy tales are best left animated. The costumes and songs are all immensely ridiculous when being worn and sung by flesh and blood actors. Second, cynical views of life and happiness are only okay in small doses. Enchanted really manages to kill two birds with one stone and get two messages out there. Good job.

Also, credit has to be given to the actors. Amy Adams and James Marsden really sell their vapid characters. They go all out and appear to be uninhibited by any doubts about looking or sounding as silly as they do. Dempsey gives a committed performance as an all-too-straight talking dad who doesn’t wish to be bothered by any of Giselle’s delusional yammerings.

The writing is dead on, the acting is tight and the music is light and fun. Enchanted shows that Disney has a sense of humor and can pick on themselves like nobody else. It’s a solid film overall, but it’s not worthy of multiple viewings. You’ll either grow too cynical or to idealistic if you watch it too much. Pull this one out from time to time when you need a good laugh.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Uncle Buck (1989)

The master of 1980’s and early 90’s cinema John Hughes crafts a delightful tale of familial dysfunction spawning familial togetherness in suburbia. The Russell family live in an upper-middle class bubble that is burst when Mrs. Russell’s father has a heart attack. In a frantic move to find someone to take care of their three children, Mr. Russell employs the services of his slob of a brother Buck (John Candy). Hilarity ensues (to a point).

Buck has a good heart, but little common sense when it comes to taking care of children. The youngest two Russell children, 8-year old Miles (Macaulay Culkin) and 6-year old Maizy, fall in love with their goofy uncle immediately, but Buck has to work on the antagonizing 15-year old Tia. The two butt heads over a number of issues, including Tia’s boyfriend, whom Buck doesn’t trust for a second.

The tension between Buck and Tia isn’t unlike the tension Tia manufactures with her parents. The family recently moved so Tia tries to make everyone’s lives miserable to show her displeasure. Too bad for her that Buck sees right through her act and only fights fire with fire. Tia crosses a few lines, including sabotaging Buck’s relationship with his girlfriend, but Buck never gives up on his niece.

John Candy was part of a generation of comedic greats that just exude humor in everything they do. His performance as Buck is nearly flawless and he hits all his lines with perfect timing and deft skill. Macaulay Culkin shows off his skills as well, but the rest of the supporting cast is forgettable. Still, Hughes knows how to write comedy and he knows how to bring it out of his actors.

Unfortunately, the dysfunctionality of the Russell family doesn’t remain intact for the duration of the film. The final third of the film deals with Buck leveling with angsty Tia and her eventual turnaround from her mopey, selfish antics. As Mr. and Mrs. Russell return, Buck makes a triumphant exit as a half-witted difference maker. Hughes is known for sappy endings, so I wasn’t too surprised when the comedy subsided for 10-15 minutes in place of serious family-building, but it dilutes the fun of what had been a joyous comedic romp up to that point.

I’ve never been a big fan of message films being coated with a thick comedic shell. I like my comedies funny the whole way through. Maybe I’m a bit unreasonable in that regard, but once you get through the comedy and into the message, the taste isn’t as sweet and it’s a minor letdown. Fortunately there is just enough fun in Uncle Buck to make you forget the boring parts.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5