I Am Legend (2007)

Based on a classic sci-fi novel that has been adapted to film a handful of times already, I Am Legend gives Will Smith the opportunity to be the sole attraction in a motion picture. A vaccine that, at first, cures cancer turns out to have ugly side-effects and converts human beings into pale, gollum-esque monsters. If this sounds to you like Cast Away with zombies, you’re not entirely wrong.

While the infection spreads across Manhattan, the US military takes drastic steps and isolates the urban island from the rest of the world in hopes of containing the creatures. Trapped amidst the chaos is Dr. Robert Neville (Smith), a brilliant virologist, who comes to be the last normal human in a decaying metropolis. Neville is somehow immune to the disease and has been searching for a cure for three years.

With his pet dog as his only companion (and possibly his last bastion of sanity), Neville struggles to survive with limited resources while bracing himself at night for periodic attacks with wandering packs of the nocturnal creatures. A series of slowly-unfolding but shocking events rock Neville’s world and he finds himself fighting desperately for his life.

Will Smith performs admirably as the fixture of the film but he lacks the right kind of presence it takes to lead a one-man show. I can’t explain it any better than that. Tom Hanks had it in Cast Away and Kevin Costner had it in Dances with Wolves but Will Smith just isn’t a stand-alone kind of actor. He does the best he can but I think his comedy past makes it hard to embrace him is such a grimly serious role.

The apocalyptic scenario and the eerie vision of an almost unpopulated Manhattan are chilling and good for a few thrills. The trouble lies in thinking about what you are seeing. The devil is in the details, as they say, and when you examine the details, things begin to fall apart. Some things, like Neville’s fortunate supply of non-perishable food is passable given the three year time frame. Other things, like the fact that he is still able to use gasoline that hasn’t been treated through three years of summers and winters, all but shatter your suspension of disbelief.

Had the pace of the film been quicker and more action-oriented, the filmmakers would have succeeded better in pulling the wool over our eyes. But we are treated to a number of scenes where Neville works away in his quiet isolation, giving us time to examine the details of his world. When the action does ratchet up though, Smith rises to the occasion and puts all his effort into portraying fear and desperation. This is where he succeeds most. Not as a driven scientist trying to find a cure; not as a man hopeful for companionship; but as a man scared witless about the terror that surrounds him.

Portions of this film are too reliant on special effects, mostly the scenes involving the man-monsters that have taken over. Apocalyptic disaster films don’t always need cunning digital trickery to succeed (case in point- 28 Days Later) but, after so many films of this nature over the years, I Am Legend was wise to try to differentiate itself somehow. It just surprises me that a film with a $150 million budget could have some abysmal effects like the zombie-dog attack scene.

The creatures themselves are not very satisfying and troubled me all film. How exactly did this virus cause them all to become pale, hairless creatures that barely look human at all? Despite all the science thrown at us when Neville is looking for a cure, there is no suitable answer for why the masses of infected have devolved so much. Partway through the film we are led to believe that there is more to these hive-minded simpletons than meets the eye but nothing ever comes from this kernel of promise.

The ending of the film is interesting and creates a different spin on the title than the source material. However, this ending is wildly different from how the book ends and is not nearly as satisfying. It just goes to show you that some things should not be tampered with. Evidently, an alternate ending was shot that was somewhat more in line with the book. Having read the details of this alternate ending, I can tell you that I would have preferred it to what the filmmakers give us.

On the whole, I Am Legend is a pretty decent watch. It will give you goose bumps and entertain you for sure. If you think about the film too much afterward though, some of the magic wears off. With the state of Hollywood productions these days, this is almost to be expected but that really isn’t a valid excuse.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Three Caballeros (1944)

Not having gotten enough Latin American flavor from Saludos Amigos, Walt Disney keeps his next animated anthology film South of the border. Donald Duck receives a box full of surprises from his friends in Central and South America. These gifts entertain both Donald and the audience for 70 minutes of good fun and a little dash of impressive animation.

First, Donald opens a film projector and watched a guide to some of the regions unique birds. This includes the tale of Pablo the Penguin, who ditches Antarctica in search of the Galapagos, and the zany Aracuan. The film then segues into the charming tale of a Uruguayan boy’s discovery of a flying donkey. It’s all cute and fun and provides Disney’s animators with ample opportunities to blend their work with the orchestration.

Donald’s next present is a book about Brazil. The book opens to feature José Carioca, the fanciful parrot introduced in Saludos Amgios. Donald is magically transported inside the book to Bahia, Brazil. There, the two friends take in the local culture, colors and music. This portion of the film also includes some clever fusions of our animated characters interacting with flesh-and-blood people dancing through the streets.

After exiting the book, Donald and José open the final present, a crate from Mexico. After a fanciful music number, we are introduced to Panchito Pistoles, a gun-slinging rooster who whisks his friends off for even more Latin flavor on a magic serape ride. There’s a little more culture and a lot more music and blending of live action and animation. In Acapulco, Donald becomes smitten with beach-going gals and the nightlife of Mexico City.

The film closes with a very surreal mishmash of animated weirdness brought on by the kiss of a lovely lady. Some of it makes no sense and just seems like the animators and musicians teaming up to have a little bit of random fun. Some of it is amusing but other parts are just weird.

On the whole, The Three Caballeros doesn’t compare to Fantasia in terms of audacity and ingenuity but it does have its merits. Instead of turning out like a revamped Saludos Amigos, Caballeros does bring some new tricks along with it. The live action-animation fusion gives the film some purpose but the culture and traditions on display hardly hold up now. Maybe when Mexico and South America were less known and more exotic to Americans this film was something to talk about. That really isn’t the case anymore, so this film isn’t as likely to thrill modern audiences.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Ten Commandments* (1956)

This is one of those classic films that speak for itself. Cecil B. DeMille’s sprawling epic is a masterpiece and its reputation continues to assert that fact. The Ten Commandments is the be-all and end-all of Bible epics and will almost certainly remain a permanent fixture of Easter season television programming in America.

As evidenced in DeMille’s 1923 incarnation of the Exodus story, the man knows how to bring the Bible to life. This film was made at a great time for the Hollywood studio system. Using large studio settings and some outdoor location shoots (though very little was actually shot in Egypt), audiences are treated to a seemingly real and habitable ancient Egypt. Couple this with a supporting cast of over 10,000 people and even more animals and you get a lush kaleidoscope of colors and bodies that simply can’t be beat.

Acting titans Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner square off as Moses and the Pharaoh of Egypt. While several major creative liberties were taken in crafting the script for this film, it wouldn’t have been the same without these alterations. Both men are adept at striking just the right pose to fuel their commanding presences. Several of the film’s actresses showcase their abilities in portraying strong women in what is largely a male-dominated story about a very patriarchal era. Anne Baxter is seductive and alluring as Nefertiri, making her an equally dangerous force for Moses to reckon with.

While more than a few of the special effects look hokey and horribly dated by today’s standards, one has to remember that these were pretty dazzling for 1956. Many admirers of the film have grown accustomed to shrugging off these visual shortcomings with a smile while others embrace them as part of the original magnificence of the piece.

The legacy that The Ten Commandments carries with it is simply impressive. While other Bible epics were produced in the 50s and 60s, only Ben Hur has stood the test of time alongside this film, though The Ten Commandments is, without question, more popular. It contains some indefinable element that never fails to grab audiences with every viewing, despite running over three and a half hours in length.

At this point I have literally run out of things to say for this film. It is a film that you must experience for yourself. Once you do, you’ll get it. Yes, it looks cheesy now and makes religious scholars and historians cringe but this is one inspiring and jaw-dropping epic that continues to win over the masses.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Ten Commandments (1923)

No, this is not the Charlton Heston epic you are thinking of. In fact, unless you are a film nut, you are probably among the majority of people who don’t even know this film exists. Instead of Cecil B. DeMille’s three-and-a-half hour Technicolor masterpiece, this is Cecil B. DeMille’s two-and-a-half hour black and white silent film masterpiece.

Unlike the eventual remake, this version of The Ten Commandments is not just about the life of Moses. Not quite split into equal parts, the first portion of the film covers Moses’ deliverance of the Hebrew people from Egypt. This part is full of lush visuals, including the use of California’s Nipomo Dunes to recreate Egyptian wastelands. While rudimentary by today’s standards, DeMille’s use of molded Jell-O to create the parting of the Red Sea must have been fantastic at the time. I was even impressed with some of the layering, blending and editing techniques employed to pull off this ambitious picture.

The second, longer portion of the film is a modern day morality tale (well, modern for the 1920s). Two brothers grow up in a strictly moral home, with their mother ingraining the importance of following the Ten Commandments. As the boys grow up, only one sticks to the Commandments, leading to a modest living as a carpenter. The other boy rejects the Commandments and becomes very rich and powerful but morally bankrupt. The brothers keep in touch over the years and their philosophies continue to be at odds until the film’s tragic final minutes.

The first half of the film is much more impressive in terms of scope, design and technique. This will likely cause viewers to be bored by the second half’s emphasis on story over style but there are points of interest in DeMille’s morality tale. While the mother clings to the angry God of the Old Testament, her Bible-abiding son chooses to emphasize the New Testament teachings of a loving and forgiving God. This difference in biblical interpretation between the generations intrigues me because it shows that those varying views of God were both running as strong in the early 20th Century as they are today. It’s interesting to realize that neither side has won out in the last 100 years.

Part of the fun of watching DeMille’s first go at The Ten Commandments is seeing which elements of the Egypt story he retained and expanded upon in his 1956 remake. While technological advancements would help DeMille fully realize his vision years later (and make a ton of money at the same time), there is no denying that the craftsmanship on display in this film is brilliant.

Nowadays, silent films aren’t exciting for moviegoers and the morals of the 1920s will seem dated, if not humorous, but The Ten Commandments was an early indicator of what the new medium of film could become.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Eragon (2006)

Written during the early days of Potter-mania, Eragon snatched up an audience among tween and teen readers. It follows the same basic outline of Harry Potter (young boy longing for a better life discovers that he is something special and surrounded by fantastical people) but replaces the England with a totally made up land and trades cutesy witchcraft for cutesy fantasy magic. Too bad it’s all smoke and mirrors.

To say that Eragon is a rip-off of much of the Lord of the Rings mythology would be dishonest. This film is actually a lazy rip-off of the fantasy genre as a whole. I haven’t read the book but if the movie is any indication, teenage author Christopher Paolini managed pull a fast one on a lot of gullible people caught up in a frenzy to find the heir apparent to Mr. Potter.

Outside of the Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings, fantasy novels have a hard time getting any respect and credibility. Maybe that’s because most sword-and-dragon tales are predictable and can’t help but borrow popular elements from the original titans of the genre. Maybe tweens and teens were suckered in because they liked reading about young people and hadn’t given up their fantasy training wheels yet.

Ed Speelers (I’ve never heard of him either) stars as Eragon, a young country boy who finds a blue stone in the forest. Only, it’s not a stone- it’s a dragon egg! Sure enough, prophecy foretells of a young boy who will usher in a new era of dragon riders and restore peace to the kingdom of Alagaesia. This is all bad news for the woefully-named King Galbatorix, who ended the line of riders in his quest for ultimate power.

Eragon learns the art of dragon riding and teams up with a rag-tag band of rebels looking to end the oppressive rule of Galbatorix. It all sounds and feels formulaic and predictable enough but Eragon has some potential in its story to be a real crowd pleaser. All of this potential is held back, however, by Paolini’s youth and still-developing writing skills. I shouldn’t knock the kid too much because an adult was tasked with adapting the novel for the screen. Believe me, Peter Buchman is every bit as culpable for this mess.

Blame must also be assigned to first-time director Stefen Fangmeier (sounds like the perfect name for a fantasy flick director no?). Fangmeier has worked as special effects supervisor for some of Hollywood’s biggest effects spectacles. If anyone can throw together an effects-driven fantasy epic, this guy can! Well, not so fast there professor. The visuals in Eragon are decidedly second rate. Between the laughably silly shadowy confines of Galbatorix’s castle to woefully generated CGI, Fangmeier misses the mark.

The cast of Eragon is rather inspired but it ends up as little more than an inspired mess. The film incorporates the talents of three eccentric and eclectic actors- Jeremy Irons, Robert Carlyle and John Malkovich. It seems like each one is playing their role up for all its worth, which results in either cheesy clichéd characters or something completely over the top and unsuitable for the film. Alongside these men are a collection of unknowns. Had a little more care gone into the casting, some of the more outlandish parts could have been reigned in and actually work they way they were intended.

There is a potentially good story to be had in Eragon. Not great and memorable but certainly good. What would it take to draw this out? A few more rewrites, a couple of original ideas, a complete recasting, a better visual effects department and a director who knows what he’s doing.

RATING: 2 out of 5

Yes Man (2008)

In 1994, Jim Carrey took Hollywood by storm with Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. For the next four years he could do no wrong and could make any comedy a hit at the box office. Carrey dabbled in non-screwball territory long enough to hurt his stock. Since then he has been reduced to trying to recapture that old shtick and magic of yesteryear. Carrey nearly pulls it off again in Yes Man.

The nature of Carrey’s comedic prowess is in itself a hindrance. He is one of the finest character actors of the last 20 years and completely loses himself in his role. His most memorable roles are those for which he engaged in high amounts of physical comedy. The truth is that audiences became accustomed to caring only for Carrey’s antics and not the substance of his characters. As his career as continued, Carrey has shown more interest in characters that have something to say but audiences only care how he says it.

Yes Man initially fits the Jim Carrey mold- a guy finds himself in an inescapable situation that is prone to all sorts of humorous situations (think The Mask, Liar, Liar and Bruce Almighty). After reluctantly attending a self-development conference, Carl Allen (Carrey) finds himself unwilling to say no to any offer or situation that comes his way. He’s trying all kinds of new things and meeting new people, including the lovely Allison (played by Zooey Deschanel with her usual, awkwardly vacant approach).

This time around, there isn’t anything supernatural or beyond his control keeping Carrey’s predicament going. It’s all just a misinterpretation of a self-help guru’s pitch. Along the way the filmmakers get off track by trying to throw a few lessons at us. In case you hadn’t noticed, filmmakers, Jim Carrey’s last few comedies-that-care weren’t received well by audiences. What makes you think it will work this time?

Carrey seems to be going through the same mid-life dilemma that hit Robin Williams. As an artist, he wants to do more than just comedy but the masses don’t really care. In the meantime, a new generation of yuck-men has stolen Carrey’s limelight, making him less and less of a box office draw each year. Thus we get films like Yes Man, which try to bring us in by assuring us that it’s the tried and true Carrey formula. The problem is that formulas get boring and predictable and Yes Man doesn’t even allow Carrey to hit full stride. The funniest moments come either as quickly edited clips or they get hijacked by the film’s mediocre romance element.

While the concept of a man who can’t say ‘no’ has plenty of comedic potential, the filmmakers seem content to let the film ride it out in second gear. Carrey also seems willing to let this happen. Maybe he’s realized that he doesn’t have the clout to demand changes to a script anymore. More likely, he realizes that he has to make a film like this every couple years to stay relevant and is just rolling with it. Either way, it’s kind of sad to see.

Yes Man will make you laugh but it won’t make an impression. It seems that the Jim Carrey formula is finally faltering. Some will be surprised that this is possible. Others will be surprised that it took this long. Whichever camp you fall into, there is enough good-natured and zany humor in Yes Man for us all to sit back, relax and watch what might be one of Jim Carrey’s last legitimately funny movies, however uninspired it may feel.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Ausreisser (2004)

This is a very eerie and moody short film coming out of Germany. The title translates to “The Runaway,” which is appropriate to a point. An unemployed architect in Hanover, Germany is getting ready for an interview when a young boy appears on his doorstep. They boy asks the man for a ride to school. The man begrudgingly complies but he ends up missing the interview and losing out on a job prospect. He returns home and so does the boy.

The boy claims to be his son, so the man tries calling an old girlfriend or two in an attempt to get to the bottom of it all. There are some humorous moments as the bachelor adjusts to having a child around but things eventually get very odd. The man’s attempts to track down the boy’s mother leads him on a very mind-bender of a trek that left me a tad confused when all is said and done.

This short film drips with European filmmaking styles. The muted (some would say bleak) color palette, the expressiveness behind the settings and characters- it’s all very classic European stuff. As far as meaning goes, that might be where Ausreisser lost me. I’m not sure if there is any kind of psychological or introspective point to what the man goes through. It makes for an interesting, albeit confusing, little mystery.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Haute Tension (2005)

The horror genre is full of good ideas brought down by poor execution. This sad but true generalization fits French splatter flick Haute Tension all too well. The initial concept is interesting but it is executed in such a way that makes the film not only illogical but impossible as well.

Alex is bringing her college friend Marie home with her for a weekend. Marie meets Alex’s parents and kid brother and everyone is getting along great. Then, in the middle of the night, a large, shadowy man in bloodstained coveralls enters the house and begins murdering the family one by one. The man previously appeared at the beginning of the film in a notably evil way, by pleasuring himself in the seat of his evil-looking truck with a severed head. There’s no question about his evilness and in a matter of minutes, no question about his brutality as well.

The systematic execution of Marie’s family gets points for being some of the most realistic gore I have ever seen in a movie. Haute Tension loses points, however, for going overboard on the gratuitous depiction of frighteningly chunky gore. Gore for the sake of gore is never a good idea in a horror film. Director Alexandre Aja gives in to the ‘torture porn’ method of shocking audiences by testing their ability to watch what is on the screen.

On the other hand, some of the violence, gore and situations in this film are patently absurd. A man decapitated by a bookcase? Hardly. Furthermore, why? When the killer has an array of sharp objects capable of doing the deed, why choose something so messy and inventive? The only answer is because it is supposedly creative and plays into the cravings of torture porn junkies.

Haute Tension also does two things that few horror films are willing to do- kill animals and children. A dog is killed when the madman first enters the house. Then he follows Alex’s little brother out into a field and shoots him as he tries to escape. This is shocking, which is good for a horror film. The problem is that we then see the little boy slumped in the field later on. It’s one thing to know that a child has been killed but to see it happen or to see the remains of the child crosses a line of decency.

After Alex’s mom, dad and brother are dispatched, the killer abducts her, leaving Marie on her own. Rather than do the smart thing and get help, Marie climbs into the killer’s truck in a foolish attempt to free her friend, who she also happens to have a crush on. That’s right, Marie is a lesbian. There is nothing wrong with this fact but this does raise certain questions once the film reaches its conclusion. Marie escapes the truck as the killer stops for gas at a local mini-market. She tells Alex that she will save her but the killer offs the mini-market employees and drives off into the night. Marie continues to make one bad decision after another and chases off after the man in the shopkeeper’s car. She does at least call the police.

The third and final act culminates in a showdown between Maria and the killer that doesn’t make any sense once you get to the big reveal that Marie has actually been the killer/abductor all along. This of course makes little sense based on all of the simultaneous action we saw during the first two thirds of the film involving Marie and the killer in separate locations, let alone different vehicles. Perhaps this was a last-ditch effort to make the film unique. The endgame mindbender of false perception backfires in this case though.

Haute Tension’s twist really only forces you to watch the film a second time in order to make sense of it all. If you can even stomach it, a second viewing only exposes the plot holes even further though. Most of the acting is pretty good. Everyone involved depicts sheer terror quite well. The characters and their logic processes, however, leave something to be desired. Marie’s homicidal tendencies, for instance, are never explained. What exactly is her motivation for killing the loved ones of a girl she is in love with? Are we to assume that her unrealizable sexual yearnings for Alex create a passive-aggressive psychosis that puts her over the edge? If so, that is just silly.

Another surprising fact about Haute Tension is how scary it isn’t. The pace of the film is fast but it still finds ways to drag things out. The killing of three people and a dog takes almost 20 minutes to play out. Most of that time is spent knee-deep in blood and guts. Standard musical crescendos all but give away most of the scares and there are several horror clichés located throughout the 89-minute runtime. You’ve got knives that make noise as they are pulled out of slots and draws, ominously swaying empty swings, bad judgment, cat-and-mouse games, and plenty of moody lighting. All of these things have become the laughable qualities of horror films, yet Haute Tension (and countless other slasher flicks) embraces them.

I still like the general premise of Haute Tension. The psychological twist could be improved with a few more rewrites and trimming out some of the clichés and excesses would help tighten up this troubled film. Until then, the flaws overwhelm this export that will only be remembered for its gore, if even that.

RATING: 2 out of 5

Leatherheads (2008)

Striving to replicate the mad-cap goofiness of old Hollywood comedy, George Clooney’s third time behind the camera comes up short in a number of areas. Despite a talented cast (including himself), witty dialogue and period-appropriate set pieces, Leatherheads isn’t likely to usher in a new era of old time fun at the cinema.

Maybe it’s the time period the film is set in. Very few people are still around to remember the 1920s. On the other hand, maybe it’s the old-school comedy style. Very few people (and almost no one in the current generation) care for the comedic stylings of the 1930s anymore. Then again, maybe it’s the attempt to bring together the genres of comedy, sports and romance (a tricky trifecta to perfect). Whatever it is, something went wrong with the execution of this film.

George Clooney stars as Jimmy ‘Dodge’ Connelly, a business-minded professional football player whose team is going South. Very few people care about so-called ‘professional’ football because it’s little more than a bunch of men clinging to their college game glory days (if they ever had any, that is). Rather than give up on his dreams of glory and fame, Dodge draws up a scheme to lure college star and World War I hero Carter Rutherford, animatedly played by John Krasinski, to his team.

Rutherford balks at the notion because there is no money in professional football and he’s getting dozens of job offers a day as his college career winds down. Dodge sweet-talks him into joining by promising that people will care when they find out he’s playing and the stands will be filled on a weekly basis. Tension mounts on the field as Dodge attempts to bend the kid to his will when it comes to plays but Rutherford takes advantage of his star situation to take the reigns on play-calling. Tension also mounts off the field as a hot-to-trot reporter (Renée Zellweger) looking to deconstruct the myth that is Carter Rutherford gives the footballers something else to fight over.

There are a lot of interesting things going on in Leatherheads, so it’s a shame that the dots never get fully connected. First, there’s a cynical look at the way the media all but creates heroes for the sake of propaganda and morale-boosting. There could also be analysis of the intersection of greed, obsession and pride. Thirdly, there’s a generation gap tale to be told. Lastly, we’ve got a semi-historical glimpse at the early days of professional American football.

So what goes wrong with this film? While there is some genuinely funny writing, all too often the pacing is wrong. Sometimes there is just too much time between lines while other times the back-and-forth is too quick to believe or even digest. This may be a side-effect of most of the characters being relatively paper thin. Motives are made known early on and no extra depth is needed or given. This fact stands out because there are plenty of times where members of the cast don’t seem comfortable in their roles.

While there no question that chemistry exists between the actors, the disconnect between the players and their roles hampers the effectiveness of the characters and is probably the main reason for all the faltering humor. When the actors aren’t even sure if their characters think a line is funny, how can they possibly convey that to the audience? Clooney knows what he’s doing and gives a deft performance but, just like Dodge, he can be a little overbearing and the laugh lines he delivers feel forced.

John Krasinski has a bright career ahead of him but he would probably be wise to stop his agent from landing him the role of the young cute guy. While he was still in his late 20s at the time of filming, he doesn’t look like a young man anymore. Zellweger does her best with the material but it’s far from one of her more memorable roles.

In fact, this film, despite having a lot of positive things going for it, isn’t as memorable as it could have and should have been. Maybe Clooney needs another go at the madcap comedy genre to get it right. Maybe he should avoid the genre altogether. Whatever the case may be, Leatherheads, while appreciable at best, is not the romantic sports comedy anyone thought it would be.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Cashback (2004)

This short film is a product of England. It focuses on the late night shift employees in a supermarket and how they kill the time they are exchanging for a paycheck. This setup works very well to a point. Halfway through Cashback, the story is thrust out of its initial comedy vein and onto a more “artistic” path that is hit or miss with audiences.

The first half of the film is witty and amusing. Ben, a London art student, narrates us through a cast of colorful characters and the various ways that they kill eight hours a night while virtually no one is in the store. We have the slimy shift manager who is constantly trying to impress the cute checkout cashier. The checkout cashier plays a game of avoiding looking at the clock for as long as her mind will let her. The immature stock boys find ways to goof off and destroy things in the back of the store.

All of these characters have their charms and the narration is snappy and clever. Halfway through the film though, we discover how Ben bides his time. At this point, the amusement dies down and you will either enjoy the rest of the short or you won’t. Ben likes to pretend that he can stop time. At first, this is very interesting because everyone in the store freezes in place. Some of their positions are awkward and amusing. Others are simply very normal. Ben the art student likes to look at people, women specifically. While pretending that he can stop time, he likes to imagine the attractive women in the store in various stages of being dressed. Some women are nude already, while Ben assists others in undressing further to his likeness.

Ben states that he has been intrigued by the nude female form since he was a young boy, possibly indicating why he became an art student. He claims to be observing and appreciating the female form and uses these mental images to create sketches for his art. Some viewers will be able to pass off Ben’s actions as perfectly acceptable as it pertains to art. Others will view Ben as a fetishist and will take issue with his passion for mentally undressing women. I find myself caught somewhere in the middle. I find it hard to excuse his creepy behavior in the name of art. I respect art, despite not having a great knowledge of it, but there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere between curious artist and pervert. Ben is flirting dangerously with that line.

The resolution to Cashback is unsatisfying because the pace and tone of the film changes so drastically in the middle. If you found the switch to Ben’s preferred time-killing technique jarring and uncomfortable, it will be difficult to snap out of that mindset when everything is wrapped up at the end. Some of Ben’s dialogue does become selfishly indulgent and almost self-righteous as he explains away his mental misadventures. The clever writing and camera trickery makes up for much of the potential perceived negatives but they can only do so much.

RATING: 3 out of 5

The Abyss: Special Edition (1989)

James Cameron has never been one to shy away from ground-breaking visual effects. In fact, he’s made a career out of pushing the envelope. Coupled with the cutting edge visuals is an original story that encompasses science fiction, romance, comedy and drama. This rare blend of everything we love about the movies makes The Abyss stand out among its sci-fi peers.

When a US submarine mysteriously crashes and sinks in the Atlantic Ocean with nuclear warheads on board, the crew of a nearby underwater drilling platform is enlisted in tracking down the sub and recover the nukes. Tensions rise and tempers flare as the personalities of the drilling team and the military grunts leading the mission clash.

The mission is interrupted by a hurricane on the surface, which cuts off communication with the ships above. During this time, the crew encounters mysterious phenomena that turns out to be alien life forms living in the depths of the oceans. As the humans struggle to understand the motives of these odd creatures, the stakes are changed as one of the military personnel suffers a nervous breakdown that endangers the lives of everyone.

From a technical standpoint, this is a fully-realized production. The submersibles were all built for the production and the massive underwater drilling station was built in full in the belly of an enormous water tank. The claustrophobia presented on screen is genuine because the cast and crew are really stuck inside an area as small as it appears. This helps add to some of the tensest moments, when chaos erupts aboard the vessel.

The subplot featuring the ex-wife of the drill team leader (she also designed the station) coming aboard helps keep the film grounded. Very few people can connect with oil drillers, aliens and loose cannon military men, so the romance and drama coming from Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio gives us something to hold onto. In fact, this love story is what holds the film together. As their marital troubles are revealed, we warm up to the characters. As their affections for each other reappear, we grow firmly attached. When their love and happiness is threatened, we as viewers grow concerned. It’s a proven formula that can work wonders or it can blow up in a director’s face. Later in his career, Cameron’s use of this subtle trick to grab and manipulate an audience would snatch him an Oscar.

The love story doesn’t dominate the film though. It is merely used as an emotional anchor. Cameron is still able to flood The Abyss with stunning visuals and intense action. While not all of the writing is as crisp as it should be, Cameron keeps the pace thrumming along fast enough that you never pay much attention to any shortcomings. There are also enough things that Cameron does right to cover up any bad spots.

The twist Cameron puts on sci-fi is brilliant. Aside from the aliens at the bottom of the ocean, much of what takes place in The Abyss is possible, if not plausible. It is remarkably easy to suspend disbelief when you are presented with a world containing so much realism. The placement of something so foreign in a place quite commonplace to many is clever. Instead of people surrounded by fantastical elements, we are given the fantastic surrounded by the normal. If there is a message in this, it’s not such a bad thing.

Speaking of messages, it doesn’t take much to conclude where Cameron stands on several issues based on what he puts into this film. Unstable, trigger-happy marines? Sounds anti-military industrial complex to me. The Special Edition version of the film also exudes anti-war and pro-environmentalist stances as well. While these sorts of veiled messages may annoy people who disagree with such views, it will only become a problem if you think about it too much. Everyone else will be treated to a one-of-a-kind movie capable of bringing sci-fi geeks and average movie fans together.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Our Time is Up (2004)

I have not yet seen very many short films but I have already taken a liking to the ones that try to be funny and entertaining. Drama takes a long time to build effectively but humor can be achieved in only a few words. Our Time is Up is both meaningful and funny at the same time. It is a unique balance that makes this one of the best short films I have ever seen.

Kevin Pollack is Dr. Stern, a stuffy psychologist who strings along his patients without really breaking any ground on their problems, asking them generic psychological questions. One day his world is shaken when he gets some tragic news from his physician. This leads to some hilariously blunt encounters with his patients but also serves as therapeutic for both sides.

The set dressings are muted but not so bland as to go unnoticed. Still, the main focus here is the writing, which is top notch. A lot of care and attention was paid to the script, which has me wondering if anyone involved with the production either were psychologists or saw one at any point in their lives. The delivery by the actors is also spot on. Good actors working with a good script is surprisingly difficult to come by these days, so it’s a wonder that the stars aligned for this enjoyable short. If you like quirky, sharp writing, check this one out on YouTube.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

The Last Farm (2004)

An export from Iceland, The Last Farm is both jarring and touching. Set among the windswept farmlands of northwest Iceland, you can almost feel the cold temperatures moving in on our main character, an elderly farmer. Our protagonist is dreading his upcoming move to a retirement community, a matter that seems to be more the decision of his children than his own.

There are a lot of ways that this short film could be taken the wrong way. Some might view it as an over-dramatization of how senior citizens feel about trading in their independent lifestyles for a retirement community. Others might see it as an overly critical examination of the generation gap present in today’s culture. The best thing to do is take it at face value and simply ask yourself whatever questions this excellent short puts into your mind.

Whichever way you interpret The Last Farm, there is no denying that it is a powerful statement film. The cinematography is gorgeous and subtly deft in its execution. The sights and sounds of Iceland come alive, making this production beautiful and bleak at the same time. I’m not typically big on European “message” films but this one hits the spot.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Mama Mia! (2008)

Oh, the modern movie-musical. It seems that this genre has been hit or miss for quite some time. This is easy to understand because it is very easy go wrong with adapting a popular Broadway hit. You can make the film too much like the stage production and appear stagey and gimmicky or you can take too many artistic liberties and risks, drawing the ire of loyalists and getting “too weird” for general audiences. Somewhere in the middle lies the elusive perfect combination of the two. Mama Mia! does not fall into any of these categories.

The subject matter of Mama Mia! is tame stuff when compared to some of the more dramatic productions Broadway has churned out in the past. Young Sophie Sheridan (Amanda Seyfried) is getting married and she wants her father to walk her down the aisle. There is just one small problem with this- she doesn’t know who her father is. After snooping through her mother’s old diary, she narrows her search down to three possible candidates and invites all of them to her wedding in the hopes of sorting it out before the ceremony without her mother finding out. The men arrive earlier than expected and are surprised to learn that they are all possibly the bride’s father. Sophie’s mother (Meryl Streep) is equally surprised when she is confronted with her three former lovers.

All of this is set to the disco-tastic music of ABBA. Some songs work better than others but, on the whole, it’s rather evident that the songs were inserted around the story or the story written specifically with a song in mind. Some of the musical numbers feel more forced than others and the musical as a whole feels more manufactured than organic. Such seems to be the case with so-called ‘jukebox musicals.’ Interestingly enough, two former members of ABBA wrote the stage musical. This solidifies my belief that musicians should stick to what they’re best at.

To be fair, Mama Mia! isn’t a bad musical. In fact, it’s good to the point of entertaining you with jokes and songs aplenty. The downside is that this is a very safe production. It rarely makes you think and doesn’t make much of a statement about anything. Movie-musicals don’t necessarily have to do any of these things but I enjoy it when they do. Mama Mia! is pure sugar frosting. Nothing dynamic; nothing powerful. Just a cute, harmless puff piece that occupies less than two hours of your time.

Seyfried is charming as Sophie and really portrays the innocence of the character well. Pierce Brosnan, Stellan Skarsgård and Colin Firth provide plenty of give and take humor as Sophie’s three befuddled potential fathers. As long as one of these three is on screen, Mama Mia! is at its funniest. Meryl Streep works as Sophie’s quasi-scatter brained mother but her two friends (Julie Walters and Christine Baranski) have a tendency to go over the top. Maybe I feel this way because I am a man and don’t appreciate catty, corny female humor as much as others, but the women of Mama Mia! had me rolling my eyes more than rolling on the floor.

Simply put, you could do a lot worse than Mama Mia! It gets the job done in that it entertains you and doesn’t drag on in too many places. This easy, breezy aspect comes at a price though- the film never really leaves its mark on you. Fun and forgettable is fine because it is fun. But it is still forgettable.

RATING: 3 out of 5