Dances with Wolves** (1990)

Filled with lush settings, costumes and cinematography, Kevin Costner’s directorial debut is an absolute eye-pleaser. Turning Western film conventions on their heads, Dances with Wolves’ subtleties and melancholy tones won over audiences and Oscar voters alike, making it one of the best and most successful anti-Westerns of all time.

I use the term anti-Western because the film defies most of the generalizations and stereotypes that had become the norm in “cowboy and Indian” flicks. Gone is the notion that the white man is good and virtuous in his move westward. Likewise, the archetypal angry Indian savage has been thrown out the window. This is not to say that the roles have been reversed, because they haven’t. Instead, Costner aims to depict both parties objectively, as genuine human beings with parallel virtues and flaws.

The South Dakota setting is the first step in the right direction. Instead of filming in the barren desolation of Monument Valley, Dances with Wolves tells its tale on the rugged prairies of the Great Plains. While you wouldn’t think that hill after hill would be much to look at, the vastness is quite gripping. For parts of the film, Costner’s only screen partners are the hills and the sky that eventually bends down to meet them. It is the essence of both wonder and vulnerability.

Costner plays Lt. John Dunbar, a man whose suicidal antics on the Civil War battlefield gets him labeled a hero and earns him a ticket to whatever outpost he likes. He chooses one of the most remote outposts on the western frontier. He finds it abandoned and in disarray. As the only tenant, he does his best to get the fort up to snuff. As he waits for the reinforcements that may never come, Dunbar has frequent visits by a curious wolf and tense encounters with the native Sioux Indian tribe.

Dunbar ultimately finds ways to ease the tension between himself and the Sioux and they form a mutual respect for each other. As his relationship with the Sioux builds, Dunbar finds himself more and more disenfranchised with the ways of the supposedly civilized white man and finds himself sympathetic to the Sioux cause. He finds friendship, dignity, love and inner peace with the natives and is forced to choose sides when US troops finally make their way to his fort, delivering harsh doses of Westward Expansion to anyone standing in their way.

The concept of “going native” was not new with this film but the process is head and shoulders above the rest because Costner allows plenty of time for Dunbar’s transformation to take place. At three hours long, Dances with Wolves is a sprawling tale. Without that kind of length, the story would have been shortchanged and Dunbar’s shift in allegiances would have seemed rushed.

While a three hour run time may have been necessary for the story to seem plausible, the film is not without its share of dull moments. The voice-overs and cinematography really help capture Dunbar’s isolation but there are times in the film when I felt more desperate for something to happen than Dunbar. It is very difficult for one person to be the focus of a film for a great length of time. Costner’s dry, matter-of-fact tone in the voice-overs doesn’t help much when you begin to feel less engaged by the film’s central character. A few years ago, Costner released a director’s cut version of the film that added an additional hour to the film’s run time. While the film is a real treat and a triumph at three hours, I fear that four hours would begin to try my patience.

This film makes sense as an Oscar winner for Best Picture. While many movie fans like to scoff and say that Goodfellas was more deserving, you have to understand how the Academy works. Dances with Wolves is sympathetic and empathetic with a downtrodden people. It helps to right some of the wrongs done to Native Americans over the years in cinema and television and challenges our notions of what is right, both historically and sociologically. Costner has crafted a thinking man’s Western that strives to be anything but a Western. That in and of itself makes Dances with Wolves a fantastic film to watch.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)

All too often, a successful film makes enough money and generates enough buzz that Hollywood can’t help but create a sequel. Not all sequels are bad but most are inevitably inferior to the original for one reason or another. The chief reason that Poltergeist II: The Other Side fails to find success is the original Poltergeist itself.

The original film was a breath of fresh air from the rising trend in splatter films and graphic horror. It used common yet creative scenarios to make the hairs on the back of our necks stand up. It was the fear of the seemingly normal that fueled the first film. Most importantly, the original was such a tight and complete film that it left no room for a sequel. The Freelings saved their daughter, found out why their house was haunted and got the heck out of Dodge.

This film does what should have been unthinkable- it undoes all the closure of the original and supplants it with reasoning that’s far harder to swallow (a tactic know as retroactive continuity or rectconning). The filmmakers are basically saying, “Remember that nice, neat ending in the original? Well there’s more!” Unfortunately, less is almost always more.

Before, the reason for the haunting had been because the Freeling homestead was built over a cemetery where only the headstones had been moved. Now the story is that a religious cult committed mass suicide in a cave under the house and their souls are still trying to cross over. The youngest Freeling, Carol Anne, is special and those lost souls need her to be led to the other side. The spirit of the cult leader, Kane, will stop at nothing to have her.

Retconning always cheapens a story because it takes what you thought you knew to be true and throws it out the window. Philosophers might not mind it but it’s quite irksome to moviegoers. It doesn’t take away the power and impact of the original Poltergeist but it certainly makes the sequel harder to accept and get into.

I think the biggest problem is that the film tries to force a potentially interesting plot onto the same family. There was such a sense of relief and triumph for the Freelings at the end of the first film that everything happening now just seems excessive and unfair. How much paranormal abuse does one family have to be subjected to? The events that unfold could have easily occurred to a new family and it could have been so much more than it turned out to be.

Other problems that plague the film are either omissions or forced inclusions. Dana Freeling, the eldest child, is absent without any explanation (though the actress who played her died shortly after the release of the first film). Carol Anne’s grandmother is introduced to reveal the young girl’s specialness and act as a sort of catalyst for things to come. There is also an awkward Native American element to the film that is never fully explained. Taylor, a shaman, has some kind of connection to Kane and can help open a portal into the first part of the other side, where Kane and his followers are stuck. Neither of these things get explained at all. Finally, when the Freelings travel into the other side to save Carol Anne the effects are anything but special, even for 1986.

Put simply, Poltergeist II: The Other Side strikes me as an interesting idea with plenty of potential. Had the story not been forced to fit around the Freeling family, that potential may have been realized. Poltergeist did not need a direct sequel and Poltergeist II did not need to be a direct sequel.

RATING: 1.5 out of 5

Across the Universe (2007)

Released amidst the recent onslaught of contemporary movie musicals, Across the Universe tells a tale of love, political unrest and war during the 1960s set to the music of The Beatles. As The Beatles’ popularity is still strong as ever and considering the success of movies such as Moulin Rouge!, that use a menagerie of contemporary tunes to fuel its story, Across the Universe undoubtedly seemed to be not only a safe bet but a good idea as well. Unfortunately, the film never manages to escape the realm of just a “good idea.”

If any group deserves to have their songs used in the form of a musical production, it’s The Beatles. Their career and discography are expansive to say the least. With all their sounds and styles, you could use their music in several different genres of musicals. It’s all a matter of how it’s executed. Writer-director Julie Taymor came up with a good idea but failed in the execution.

Song and dance numbers in musicals are meant to be fun and entertaining, which is mostly true for Across the Universe, but they are also supposed to help move the story along. That’s not the case here. Instead, the use of The Beatles’ songs is the main selling point, leaving the actual story and plot as an aside, calling upon it momentarily to help move us into the next rendition of a Beatles classic.

The plot itself is quite generic- a young man from England moves to America in the 1960s in the hopes of making something of himself. He falls in love with a girl and they get caught up in the turmoil of the times, encountering a variety of colorful characters along the way. Some call it a tried-and-true formula but it feels more tiredly formulaic than anything else. Case in point- the use of the Vietnam War as an antagonistic backdrop. Vietnam has been used so many times in so many films that it has almost lost its value as an antagonist. And the use of it as a shallow allusion to modern military struggles has only become tacky for me.

The characters are another of the film’s problems. All of them are flat, filling out one kind of gross generalization or archetype or another. Other characters are stand-ins for cultural icons like Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. Very few, if any, characters have any depth, which makes them hard to appreciate or get behind. The actors all do a very good job of singing The Beatles’ tunes but that only gets you so far.

While I appreciate the use of several songs that are not among the most oft-heard Beatles tunes on the radio, I feel slightly robbed at the same time. Tunes like “Oh! Darling,” “Blue Jay Way,” and “I’ve Just Seen a Face” are inspired choices and help satisfy people like me, who enjoy The Beatles’ entire catalogue, but with the songs being the main focus of the film, why not go for broke and include all the classics? Where’s “Love Me Do,” “Help!” and “A Hard Day’s Night”? I’m sure they could have been slipped in there somewhere.

Perhaps to make up for some of the songs left out of the production, or perhaps just to be extra cheeky, many of the characters are named after people in Beatles songs. You’ve got Sadie, Jude, Lucy, JoJo, Maxwell, Desmond, Molly, Dr. Robert, Mr. Kite and even Prudence! But nowhere to be found is Eleanor Rigby, Father McKenzie, or Sgt. Pepper. At first it’s somewhat amusing but then the references just keep coming and it gets tired in a hurry.

The other issue I had with the film was with some of the ways the song lyrics were re-interpreted to fit the story. I didn’t have a problem with a teenage lesbian singing “I Want to Hold Your Hand” while watching the head cheerleader do her thing but when Uncle Sam starts singing “I Want You” in the draft office and soldiers carrying the Statue of Liberty through Vietnamese rice patties crying out “She’s so heavy!,” I can’t help but roll my eyes. The few times Taymor tries to use the songs to help the story we get groan-worthy literal segments like this.

All in all, Across the Universe is a good idea. It really is. But to make it work, you would need to relegate the Beatles songs to the role of a supporting player, something Taymor seems unwilling to do. Instead of crafting a love story and capturing the romance and drama of the 60s, all Across the Universe manages to be is a Beatles sing-a-long that doubles as an anti-war film.

RATING: 1.75 out of 5

Dumbo (1941)

Telling the tale of a self-conscious little elephant who’s just trying to fit in, Dumbo incorporates a lot of positive messages into its lean 64-minute run time. While certainly one of the shortest of Disney’s animated motion pictures, Dumbo still packs a good punch and is enjoyable for children and adults alike. While it may not be as stylistically impressive as Snow White, Pinocchio or Fantasia, it remains a Disney classic.

Mrs. Jumbo, a circus elephant has been waiting for a baby to call her own. One night, the stork brings her a bundle of joy. Only the little guy has a huge set of ears. This causes the Mrs. Jumbo’s peers to shun little Dumbo. They tease him and so do circus goers, which drives Mrs. Jumbo into a rage. She is put in isolation and kept away from her son, who faces a life of ridicule far from the loving embrace of his mother.

Little Dumbo is the only elephant in the circus unafraid of mice. He befriends Timothy, which pays off big. Timothy sees the cruelty Dumbo faces daily and decides to help the youngster find his self worth. They set off on an adventure that wins Dumbo the respect of all and the freedom of his mother.

There’s a lot of good stuff in Dumbo. It tells a positive story of a young, insecure child overcoming adversity. Born with a perceived flaw, Dumbo learns that what others see as different is really just part of what makes him himself. He learns to shrug off detractors and mockers and finds meaning in his life through this “flaw.” While children aren’t going to be able to make a living off of big ears, the right message is being sent- “don’t let anyone tell you there is something wrong with you.” Just because he’s different doesn’t make him deficient.

Also, good morals are on display with his mother. While rampaging through the circus isn’t such a good thing to do, her love for her son is unending and she is willing to do anything to make sure he feels safe and secure.

Dumbo’s relationship with Timothy and the crows are also positive. While they acknowledge Dumbo’s unique features with some surprise, they treat him as just another person. They don’t treat him like he’s handicapped; they show him respect as an individual and encourage him to find value in himself. The crows have come to be considered racist and stereotypical characterizations of black people, which I can understand, but the fact remains that they were some of the only genuine and supportive characters in the film.

This was Disney’s fourth full-length animated film. It seems that after three lush films with impeccable detail (Snow White, Pinocchio and Fantasia), Disney was going for a more laid back approach with Dumbo. In many ways it works. Too much detail would have become very distracting during the circus bits. Seeing vague outlines of spectators was perfectly fine. There wouldn’t have been any need to put any extra detail there.

That being said, I can’t help but compare the animation of Dumbo to Disney’s previous efforts. The story structure and moralistic qualities are every bit as there as its predecessors but the difference in animation came as quite a jolt. The difference was intentional in order to maximize profits, which I can understand. It’s just a big change, especially after Fantasia’s achievements in artistic quality.

The story is great and the animation is pretty good too. The only other thing that surprised me was how short it was. Seeing as it’s been at least 20 years since I’ve seen this film, I shouldn’t be surprised. Everything was bigger and took longer when I was a kid. Dumbo deserves its reputation as an animated classic.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Wings** (1927)

Enormous in scope and of breathtaking quality, it is no wonder that Wings was the first film to claim the award of Best Picture at the first ever Academy Awards. In fact, Wings all but sums up excellence in a motion picture. The direction and cinematography are among the best I’ve ever seen. Perhaps the only thing holding this film back is the fact that it’s a silent film.

This doesn’t mean that I have anything against silent films. In fact, the epic silent film Metropolis holds my highest possible rating. I think the problem lies in the silent film acting technique. Unlike Metropolis, there is a fair amount of facial overacting in Wings. It was essential at the time to express the emotions of the characters involved but nowadays it has a tendency to come across as a little hammy.

This minor issue aside, I was completely sucked into this film. Following two young men from a small town, Wings takes you on a trip through military training and into the air amidst the dogfights of World War I. Jack and David both compete for the affection of a young girl in their town but get called off to war. Through their training, Jack and David become best friends and end up fighting aerial battles against the German air force in France. Meanwhile, Mary, a girl from their hometown who is secretly smitten with Jack, joins the Armed Forces as an ambulance driver and desperately attempts to track Jack down amidst the chaos of war.

It’s romantic, it’s violent, and it’s a story that still resonates today. Hearing about young men going off to war and watching some of them return in a casket is something we are all too familiar with. Unlike some war films, Wings doesn’t romanticize the concept of war. In fact, it demonizes war as something that destroys the bonds of friendship and tears families apart on the home front. In some ways, Wings is an anti-war film. The message is short and comes in the final reel but its presence is undeniable.

What impressed me the most with this film is the use of aerial footage. There’s no camera trickery here when the main characters are shown in the cockpits of their planes. The actors all learned how to fly in order to capture the utmost realism of the dogfight sequences. Wider shots, showing the planes as they tumble and turn to gain advantage on their adversaries are beautifully captured on film. It just boggles my mind that director William A. Wellman was able to turn these ideas into visualizations. Only Metropolis and Gone With the Wind match the epic scope of this film.

As one of the costliest films ever made at the time, Wings wowed me with its attention to detail and uncompromising vision. The technical demands of this film must have been a logistical nightmare. But it’s a living, breathing film at the same time. It wasn’t held back or made stale by all of the details. The story is both heartwarming and heartbreaking. To pull the creative, technical, emotional and artistic aspects together so well makes Wings one of those rare films that truly is complete in every way.

I wasn’t as caught up in the romantic aspects of the film as original audiences may have been but I haven’t been moved by too many love stories, period. Wings mixes cinematic marvel with technical achievement and throws a splash of high-octane drama in to boot. As one of the few World War I movies I have ever heard of, let alone seen, I think it’s a shame that this film has all but been forgotten about except when movie historians talk about the Oscars.

This film is a classic and deserves more respect and attention than it has been getting in recent years. If you can handle silent films, then I highly recommend Wings to you.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5

Poltergeist (1982)

More often than not, films billed under the horror genre leave much to be desired. Older horror films may come off as hokey with dated effects and an obviously low production budget, while modern horror films serve as little more than a test to see how much gratuitous violence and chunky gore you can handle. The sad truth of the horror genre is that very few horror films, or “scary movies,” are actually scary. Poltergeist is a rare horror film that actually delivers the scares.

There are two common misconceptions in the horror genre. The first is that members of the cast are expendable. The second is that violence is scary. Producer Steven Spielberg clearly knew that both of those misconceptions were untrue when bringing Poltergeist to life.

Instead of making a film about a bunch of otherwise uninteresting people getting picked off one by one by a mysterious, unseen killer, Poltergeist is a film about a middle class family that, though already struggling with their fair share of issues as it is, experiences bizarre and unexplained phenomena that threaten them individually and as a family unit. There is more to build off of emotionally when your main characters are related to each other and love each other in ways that a group of friends or strangers cannot even begin to approach.

While horror films often times include characters like the goofy stoner friend or the sex-crazed boyfriend/girlfriend, not everybody has friends or experienced people like this. Most moviegoers, however, do know what it’s like to have a mom or a dad, sisters and/or brothers, or some other relative or someone they consider family that cares for them on a deep, nurturing level. Because of this, there’s more for a viewer to connect with in Poltergeist.

The film also makes perfect use of its child actors. Poltergeist puts the children in harm’s way (sometimes to a very great extent) and that is one of the easiest ways to elicit fear in the minds of viewers. We seem hardwired to view children as innocent and precious and seeing them in danger somehow sits wrong with nearly everyone. This makes the fear, worry and panic from the girl’s parents resonate all the more hauntingly in the finished product.

An interesting bit of trivia for you is that, despite the horror label attached to it, nobody dies in Poltergeist. How many horror films can boast that? This proves that a high body count isn’t necessary. In fact, a body count is only really needed when a film is loaded with flat and underdeveloped (sometimes undeveloped) characters. Poltergeist ratchets up the fear and sense of danger by continually investing in the small, tight-knit cast it has. Five family members, a few supporting ghost hunters and a creepy house. That’s all it took for Poltergeist to be a winning formula. It’s clearly the work of Spielberg, taking a small cast and developing them to the fullest. He’s always been a very complete kind of filmmaker.

The other thing that makes Poltergeist stand out from the crowd is the lack of violence. While there is aggression and violence dished out by the house and supernatural elements within it, there isn’t any horror genre violence performed between the human cast. Instead, the film uses the intrigue and terror of the unknown and supernatural to keep you on the edge of your seats. Instead of hacked-off limbs and gore, some of Poltergeist’s most chilling moments are the quiet ones. Stillness and quiet are often times infinitely more terrifying than any masked killer.

Everything is utilized to its maximum potential in this film. It’s taught without stringing you along and scary without grossing you out. A few of the visual effects look dated but this film still manages to stand the test of time. While haunted house tales aren’t exactly anything new, Poltergeist crafts a jarring experience by telling its story through the all-too-real lens of the American family.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Dirty Dancing (1987)

One of the most talked-about and hyped up chick flicks of all time, Dirty Dancing fits into the mold of 80s coming-of-age films but also establishes itself alongside Flashdance and Footloose as one of the Big Three 80s dance movies. Aside from the music and dancing, though, this movie does very little to distinguish itself from other mediocre teenage romances.

After years of telling my wife that I’d watch it someday, that someday finally came. Dirty Dancing isn’t nearly as bad as I was expecting, but outside of the dancing and killer soundtrack, the film is hardly remarkable and very little of it is even memorable.

Jennifer Grey stars as Frances “Baby” Houseman, a 17-year old on the verge of womanhood. Set in 1963, Baby and her family head to a well-to-do resort in upstate New York to mingle with other rich folk and ignoring the problems of the world. The hoity-toity young lass finds herself falling in love with the working class dance instructor at the resort, causing her to question some of the things she’s been raised to believe.

Hardly an original concept, this tale of forbidden love is enhanced by the film’s soundtrack. Instead of just using the soundtrack as incidental music, the songs heard throughout the movie are more often than not coming through somebody’s radio or record player. For this, Dirty Dancing rises above other 80s flicks that merely included radio-friendly songs as a means of being hip and pushing soundtrack sales numbers.

Using some very popular songs and some classics that had been largely forgotten about, Dirty Dancing breaks away from most of the 80s teen and chick flick pack through its music and accompanying choreography. Baby is introduced to the world of “dirty dancing” through her new working class friends. Some of the dancing is raunchy but for the most part it’s just kids having wild fun listening to the hot new rock ‘n’ roll sounds.

There is some drama that causes Baby to get pulled further into the life of her new friends and ever closer to dance instructor Johnny (played by Patrick Swayze, as if I had to tell you). Things get steamy as Baby undergoes a sexual awakening. The only problem I had with all this is that Baby is a minor. Sure, she’s 17 and that’s the age of consent in some states, but sexually liberating minors always makes me cringe a little. It’s easy to forget Baby’s age, as Jennifer Grey was 26 when the film was made. It’s funny how most movies about teens have casts full of twentysomethings.

In the end, Dirty Dancing turns out to be on the high end of the chick flick spectrum. Then again, that only gets you so far. It’s, as I like to say, mostly harmless as a film. For guys out there who may be dreading it- don’t. It’s really not that bad. It’s not fantastic, but it’s not that bad. Is it worth all the spoofs, jokes and clichés that have emanated from it? Probably. Is it going to make you want to want to tear up your Man Card? That depends on your personality.

After watching Dirty Dancing, my Man Card is intact. It’s an easy watch for the girls and easy to get through for the guys. You can do better in the realm of chick flicks (though that would mean delving into actual romance films) but you could certainly do a lot worse.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Princess Bride (1987)

This tongue-in-cheek send up of fairy tale renaissance romance has become something of a cult classic. It features superb acting, cheeky humor, clever dialog and not a hint of self-importance. The world of The Princess Bride is full of colorful characters, lush scenery and the kind of on-screen magic that cult classics are made of.

The tale of The Princess Bride is itself as story within a story. A young boy, Fred Savage, is sick and his grandfather is watching him for the day. He reads from a book of the same name and is met throughout the film by commentary from his grandson, who is disapproving towards such mushy fairy tale junk. The grandfather persists and sucks his grandson and the audience into the tale of Westley and Princess Buttercup.

On the surface, it’s a standard tale of two lovers separated by distance and time. The hero makes his way through a series of escalating perils to return to his true love. The challenges he faces are bizarre and the woman he fights for is lovely, though otherwise unimpressive. This is the true test to any live-action fairy tale- making the characters likable.

If you plucked most fairy tale heroes and their women out of the books and put them in real life, the men would typically be arrogant and full of themselves while the women would mostly seem vain and naïve at best. If we met them on the street, the good guys in fairy tales wouldn’t be very likeable. The fact that the actors have put aside any reservations and absorbed themselves so deeply into these shallow characters makes The Princess Bride all the better. They don’t try to humanize them or rationalize their actions. They portray everything deadpan but they don’t shy away from including the more cartoonish elements to this very flesh-and-blood film.

As I think it probably is with most fairy tales, it’s the supporting cast that makes the movie. The princess and the hero are to be expected, but in order to like either of them you need a villain who is foul and far more arrogant and conceited than the hero. Only then will audiences sympathize with the hero’s quest and his love’s longing to be rid of her captor.

While the villain is the most essential supporting player, you also need lackeys for both sides of the battle. In The Princess Bride, the evil Prince Humperdinck has his sidekick and the hero, Westely, picks up his band of helpers along the way. With a cold calculating six-fingered count, a Spaniard bent on revenge and André the Giant in your supporting roles, you can’t help but be entertained. Throw in an inspired cameo performance by Billy Crystal (under heavy makeup) and you’ve got yourself a winner.

Pulling all this comedic potential together is director Rob Reiner. Made during his heyday, Reiner knew just where to find the funny in each and every scene. While not every moment of the film is amusing and enjoyable, Reiner creates some classic scenes that have been cherished and recited by fans for over 20 years now. Though far from perfect, The Princess Bride is a light and fun tale that can be enjoyed by those who love silly romantic fairy tales and those that love to make fun of them.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

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