Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/08/29/

Pyzik's review link

So many modern comedies attempt to generate laughs by showing people treating one another cruelly. The characters lie, cheat, steal, screw a best friend's girlfriend, or empty man seed into a beer cup and laugh when their buddy drinks it.

"The 40-Year-Old Virgin" (something every father wishes to say about his daughter one day) is an anomaly among modern comedies because every character in the film is someone you wouldn't mind having dinner with.

They're all smart, kind, funny, sensitive and genuine. Even the creepy Michael McDonald-loving electronics store manager has her redeeming qualities.

The miracle of the movie is how effortlessly it induces laughter, drama and suspense without vilifying characters, overcooking its concept, or depending on false plot turns.

...

All that and I haven't really talked about how funny the movie is.

And boy is it funny.

I'm talking eye-watering, loss-of-bladder-control funny.

For all the talk of character and relationships and friendship, the movie is not afraid to get down and dirty with plenty of toilet humor.

"The 40 Year Old Virgin" is filled to the brim with jokes, some of which come from big laugh moments, like the drunk driving or hair wax scenes. There are also many subtle jokes drawn from character and performance that prove this movie is destined to become a heavily quoted cult classic sitting in dorm room shelves alongside "The Big Lebowski."

Quite frankly, "The 40 Year Old Virgin" is one of the best comedies you're likely to see this year or any other year.

So many modern comedies attempt to generate laughs by showing people being cruel to one another. The characters lie, cheat, steal, screw a best friend's girlfriend, or empty man seed into a beer cup and laugh when their buddy drinks it. "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" is an anomaly among modern comedies because every character in the film is someone you wouldn't mind having dinner with. They're all smart, kind, funny, sensitive, and genuine. Even the creepy, Michael McDonald-loving electronics store manager has her redeeming qualities. The miracle of the movie is how effortlessly it induces laughter, drama, and suspense without vilifying characters, over-cooking its concept, or depending on false plot turns.

...

All that and I haven't really talked about how funny the movie is. And boy is it funny. I'm talking pants wetting funny. For all I've said about character and relationships and friendship, the movie is not afraid to get down and dirty with plenty of toilet humor, most of which comes from the ways in which the guys talk to each other. "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" is filled to the brim with jokes, some of which come from big laugh moments, like the drunk driving or hair wax scenes, but there are also so many subtle jokes that this movie is destined to become a heavily quoted cult classic sitting in dorm room shelves along side "The Big Lebowski." Quite frankly, "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" is one of the best comedies you're likely to see this year or any other year.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/04/18/

Sobczynski's review link

I don't know how they managed to do it, but the makers of "The Amityville Horror" have figured out a way to make a film that is actually worse than either the 1979 original or its two subsequent theatrical sequels.

This is not as easy as it sounds, because those previous films were among the worst horror films ever made - each one a compilation of ancient clichŽs and tasteless images tied together by one of the most ridiculous "true" tales of terror of modern times.

Somehow, though, producer Michael Bay and screenwriter Scott Kozar - the same whiz kids who whizzed upon another classic title with their grotesque revamping of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"- have created a film nothing short of gory gibberish.

Jeez, even this most preposterous of urban legends deserves a little more respect than it has been afforded here.

I don't know how they managed to do it but the makers of "The Amityville Horror" have figured out a way to make a film that is actually worse than either the 1979 original or its two subsequent theatrical sequels. This is not as easy as it sounds because those previous films were among the crappiest horror films ever madeÐeach one a compendium of hoary cliches and tasteless images tied together by one of the most ridiculous "true" tales of terror of modern times. Somehow, though, producer Michael Bay and screenwriter Scott KozarÐthe same whizzes who whizzed upon another classic title with their grotesque revamping of "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre"Ðhave created a film that makes those earlier installments look like the original "The Haunting" by comparison with this gory bit of gibberish. Jeez, even this most preposterous of urban legends deserves a little more respect than it has been afforded here.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/01/30/

Valentin's review link

Military drama, sports drama, melodrama, soap opera - Lin's latest film has it all, in large, undigested chunks, thanks to a clichŽ-ridden, by-the-numbers screenplay by the little-known David Collard.

Assuming they care, viewers must dig deeper to the level of subtext to extract the faint glimmers of a political or social ideology.

If ideology sounds like a strong word to use in reviewing "Annapolis," it shouldn't be.

The triumphal nature and exceptionality embedded in national ideology and popular culture easily find support in the ethos propagated by "Annapolis." The storyline is about an underdog overcoming personal and professional odds to become not just a naval officer but a shining beacon of Americanism, pure and unadulterated.

"Annapolis" takes pains to prove that Jake's individualism can take him only so far.

Self-discipline through physical exertion, rigorous study and, of course, obedience to the orders of his commanding officers (regardless of whether he finds them fair or ethical) is what will make him a "true" American. All the better if getting there involves beating the overachieving Asian stereotype (his bunkmate Loo) through physical prowess. That Jake has to take on and defeat an African-American is a given.

Lin indulges in low camera angles and overly broad acting to ensure the audience roots exclusively for Jake in the final bout (Lin and his screenwriter pile on another clichŽ plot turn by giving Jake one more reason to hate Cole the day before the big bout).

Military drama, sports drama, melodrama, soap opera, Justin Lin's (Better Luck Tomorrow) latest film, Annapolis has it all, in large, undigested chunks, thanks to a clichŽ-ridden, by-the-numbers screenplay by the little-known David Collard. Viewers anxious about whether Annapolis treats the storyline and setting as opportunities to make explicit political statements about the Bush administration or the war in Iraq need not be concerned. The closest Annapolis comes to acknowledging the current political climate is in the last scene, as one of the central characters departs Annapolis for parts unknown (but his camo-wear and rucksack suggest he's leaving for an extended period of time). Annapolis could be set at any time and really any place (little is made of the student's water-based training). Assuming they care, viewers will have to dig deeper, to the level of subtext, to extract the faint glimmers of a political or social ideology.

If ideology sounds like a strong word to use in reviewing a derivative, uninspired film like Annapolis, it shouldn't. The triumphalism and exceptionalism that are embedded in national ideology and popular culture easily find their support in the ethos propagated by Annapolis in its storyline about an underdog overcoming personal and professional odds to become not just a naval officer, but a shining beacon of Americanism, pure and unadulterated. Annapolis takes pains to prove that Jake's individualism limits his personal and professional prospects. Self-discipline through physical exertion, rigorous study, and, of course, obedience to the orders of his commanding officers (regardless of whether he finds them fair or ethical), is what will make him a "true" American. If obtaining that goal involves beating an overachieving Asian stereotype through physical prowess, then all the better. That Jake has to take a member from another minority group in the final bout is a given. Lin indulges in low camera angles, and overbroad acting to ensure the audience roots exclusively for Jake in the final bout (Lin and his screenwriter pile on another clichŽd plot turn by giving Jake one more reason to hate Cole the day before the big bout).

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/01/30/

Cornelius' review link

So you've just become a critic's darling with a smash hit in the independent film world. What's an up-and-coming director to do?

If you're Justin Lin, whose "Better Luck Tomorrow" was a major hit on the film festival circuit a while back, you apparently follow up your success the lazy way: by churning out the dopey, formulaic "Annapolis," an embarrassingly limp drama about struggling cadets that could only please audience members who have never seen a movie before.

...

What "Annapolis" is, ultimately, is an explosion at the clichŽ factory.

There's not a character, scene or line of dialogue we haven't seen 50 times before, usually in better movies.

Aside from the intentional choppiness of the fight scenes (a gimmick which fails to engage viewers the way Lin thinks it will), there's nothing here that Lin couldn't have directed in his sleep.

This is cheap storytelling by rote.

Considering that his next projects are the third "Fast and the Furious" movie and an Americanized remake of "Oldboy," it would seem as if Lin were going after the easy money instead of looking for another filmmaking challenge.

"Annapolis" is a dull, forgettable studio programmer absent of any of the intelligence Lin once promised.

What a waste.

So you've just become a critical darling with a smash hit in the independent film world. What's an up-and-coming director to do? If you're Justin Lin, whose "Better Luck Tomorrow" was a major hit on the film festival circuit a while back, apparently you follow up your success the lazy way, by churning out the dopey, formulaic "Annapolis," an embarrassingly limp drama about struggling cadets that could only please audience members who have never been out to see a movie before.

...

What "Annapolis" is, ultimately, is an explosion at the clichŽ factory. There's not a character, a scene, a line of dialogue that we haven't seen fifty times before, usually in better movies. Aside from the intentional choppiness of the fight scenes (a gimmick which fails to engage the viewer the way Lin thinks it will), there's nothing here that Lin couldn't have directed in his sleep. This is cheap storytelling by rote. Considering that his next projects are the third "Fast and the Furious" movie and an Americanized remake of "Oldboy," it would seem as if Lin were going after the easy money, instead of looking for another filmmaking challenge. "Annapolis" is a dull, forgettable studio programmer, absent of any of the intelligence Lin once promised. What a waste.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/04/04/

Sobczynski's review link

The film stars Queen Latifah as Gina, a character who was first seen in "Barbershop 2," where she was tossed into a couple of scenes solely to set up this continuation.

Here, she and her daughter Vanessa have relocated to Atlanta, where the child goes to a fancy arts school and Gina slaves away in a hoity-toity hair salon run by evil Eurotrash Jorge (played by the great Kevin Bacon). Before long, Gina, who is the unheralded star of the shop, quits and decides to open up her own place.

...

Watching "Beauty Shop" is like seeing "The Odd Couple" with an all-female cast; the gender switch provides a few minutes of novelty, but it soon becomes apparent that it is merely an excuse to rehash the same stuff viewers have already seen and heard before without throwing anything fundamentally unique into the mix.

It isn't as much awful as it is fundamentally unnecessary.

The film stars Queen Latifah as Gina, a character who was first seen in "Barbershop 2," where she was tossed into a couple of scenes solely to set up this continuation. Here, she and her daughter Vanessa (Paige Hurd) have relocated to Atlanta, where the child goes to a fancy arts school and Gina slaves away in a hoity-toity hair salon run by evil Eurotrash Jorge (Kevin Bacon, deploying an accent as fake as his hair). Before long, Gina, who is the unheralded star of the shop, quits and decides to open up her own place.

...

Watching "Beauty Shop" is like seeing "The Odd Couple" with an all-female cast; the gender switch provides a few minutes of novelty but it soon becomes apparent that it is merely an excuse to rehash the same stuff viewers have already seen and heard before without throwing anything fundamentally unique into the mix. It isn't as much awful as it is fundamentally unnecessary;

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/03/14/

Rodger-Snelson's review link

The movie ends up coming across like a series of sketch comedy routines where some instances will fascinate, while others make you grimace as they crash and burn.

However, there are some genuinely funny moments, particularly from Vince Vaughn's jive-talkin' Raj and The Rock hamming it up in a performance of "Ain't Woman Enough" by Loretta Lynn. Andre 3000 also delivers some moments of hilarity as a sensitive new age gangster in Sin Lasille's posse.

These moments are countered by overlong and mundane scenes such as the nostalgic homage to "Pulp Fiction," with a dance between Travolta and Thurman that distracts from the flow of what could have been a much better movie.

On the positive front, there are no faults with any of the acting, and the chemistry between Travolta and Thurman is as fervent as it was back when they last appeared on screen together in 1994.

It ends up coming across like a series of sketch comedy routines where some of it works and some of it does not. There are some genuinely funny moments particularly from Vaugn's jive-talkin' Raj and The Rock hamming it up in a performance of ÔAin't Woman Enough' by Loretta Lynn. Andre 3000 also delivers some moments of hilarity as a sensitive new age gangster in Sin Lasille's posse. But there are some overlong and mundane scenes such as the nostalgic homage to Pulp Fiction, with a dance between Travolta and Thurman, which tend to distract from the flow of what could have been a much better movie. On the positive front there are no faults with any of the acting and the chemistry between Travolta and Thurman is as fervent as it was back when they last appeared on screen together 1994.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/01/09/

Bryant's review link

The movie brilliantly shows the dire consequences of Jack and Ennis' suppressed love, not only on their own lives but on the lives of their wives and children, who feel the cold effects of a burden they don't even know exists.

The movie accomplishes all this without stating the obvious.

When the two are alone together, they don't strut around the mountainside sounding off like a Jane Austen novel about how and why they can never be lovers in a society that sees their union as an abomination.

Instead, all is understood with truthful looks and sparse words.

Jack says: "It could be like this, just you and me, always."

Ennis-less the dreamer-replies with a story from his childhood about a rancher who was brutally murdered because he lived with another man. He fatally sums things up: "If you can't fix it, you gotta stand it."

Ennis' line is what some prudent person could have put on his gravestone, had Ennis let anybody other than Jack know that this was his one and only mantra.

"Brokeback" has been labeled a "gay cowboy movie" by countless folk.

But to see this movie and call it a "gay cowboy" film is to have misunderstood its entire objective.

We are stuck in a culture that loves to label things; to call people either gay, bi, trans, queer, etc.

But "Brokeback Mountain" boils down love, orientation, sex and everything else to its bare essentials.

Two souls connect. That is what happens; that is why it's tragic when they're forced apart.

The movie lets sex and love happen because they happen, not because its characters are genetically predetermined to get aroused by a man or a woman-or some such nonsense.

To believe that "Brokeback" is a "gay cowboy movie," or a homosexual movie made only for a gay audience, is as silly as thinking the demographic for the recently released "Pride and Prejudice" is only 19th-century spoiled English brats.

The movie brilliantly shows the dire consequences of Jack and Ennis' suppressed love, not only on their own lives, but on the lives of their wives and children who feel the cold effects of a burden they don't even know exists. But it does all this without specifically stating the obvious. When the two are alone together, they don't strut around the mountainside pontificating like a Jane Austen novel about how and why they can never be lovers in a society that sees their union as an abomination. Instead, all is understood with truthful looks and a few sparse words. Jack says: "It could be like this, just you and me, always." Ennis Ð less the dreamer Ð replies with a story from his childhood about a rancher who was brutally murdered because he lived with another man, fatally summing things up: "if you can't fix it, you gotta stand it." His line is what some prudent person could have put on his gravestone, had Ennis let anybody other than Jack know that this was his one and only mantra.

...

Brokeback, therefore, has been labelled a "gay cowboy movie" by countless folk. But to see this movie and call it a "gay cowboy" film is to have misunderstood its entire objective. We are stuck in a culture that loves to label things; to call people either gay, bi, trans, queer, etc. But Brokeback Mountain boils down love, orientation, sex, and everything else to its bare essentials. Two souls connect. That is what happens; that is why it's tragic then they're forced apart. The movie lets sex and love happen because they happen, not because its characters are genetically predetermined to get aroused by a man or a woman Ð or some such nonsense. To believe that Brokeback is a "gay cowboy movie", or a homosexual movie made only for a homosexual audience, is as silly as thinking the demographic for the recently released Pride and Prejudice is only 19th century spoiled English brats.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/01/09/

Orndorf's review link

"The gay cowboy flick," it turns out, is pretty damn good.

"Brokeback Mountain" might be a lightning rod for controversy, but as a motion picture it's one of the best of the year.

Refreshingly concentrated on romance and desire, Ang Lee's powerful film is a devastating examination of self-loathing and regret, boasting an incredible performance from the last actor I would expect anything this profound from: Heath Ledger.

Both looking for work in 1963, cowboys Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhall) and Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) are paired up and sent to Brokeback Mountain to help herd sheep for the summer.

The two find an easygoing friendship based on mutual hardship. The relationship gets complicated quickly when Jack takes Ennis into his tent one cold night, and the two take their companionship to the next level.

Unable to deal with their love for each other, the men reluctantly go their separate ways, eventually finding wives (Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway) and siring children over the years, but still processing the deep, complex love between each other.

The two periodically reconnects during visits and getaways, and it becomes clear that the difficulty of trying to accept their feelings might eventually unravel them for good.

"The gay cowboy flick," it turns out, is pretty damn good. "Brokeback Mountain" might be a lightning rod for controversy, but as a motion picture, it's one of the best of the year. Refreshingly concentrating on romance and desire, Ang Lee's powerful film is a devastating examination of self-loathing and regret, boasting an incredible performance from the last actor I would expect anything this profound from: Heath Ledger.

Both looking for work in 1963, cowboys Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhall) and Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) are paired up and sent to Brokeback Mountain to help herd sheep for the summer. Finding an easygoing friendship based on mutual hardship, the relationship gets complicated quickly when Jack takes Ennis into his tent one cold night, and the two take their companionship to the next level. Unable to deal with their love for each other, the men reluctantly go their separate ways, eventually finding wives (Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway) and siring children over the years, but still processing the deep, complex love between them. Periodically reconnecting during visits and getaways, it becomes clear that the difficulty of trying to accept their feelings might eventually unravel them for good.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/08/29/

Sobczynski's review link

Although the acting is usually the last thing noticed in a spectacle of this size, the performances show interesting choices.

Damon and Ledger have both been cast against type (an ordinary director would cast Damon as the intellectual and reserved Jacob and Ledger as the brash Will), and both are adequate at suggesting their gradual belief in their increasingly bizarre surroundings.

On the other hand, Bellucci, as the central villain, has little to do aside from stand around in a remote tower, muttering various incantations and curses, often under tons of makeup. (It is a typically perverse Gilliam move, I suppose, to cast arguably the most heart-stoppingly beautiful woman in the world in a film and then bury her under old-age makeup for a healthy chunk of her on-screen time.)

Although the acting is usually the last thing that gets noticed in a spectacle of this size, the performances here are an interesting, if varied, lot. Damon and Ledger has both been cast against typeÐan ordinary director would have had Damon as the intellectual and reserved Jacob and Ledger as the brash WillÐand both are quite good at suggesting their gradual belief in their increasingly bizarre surroundings. Headey is also impressive as the strong and fearless Angelika and Peter Stormare is hilarious as the crazed Italian employed by the French to tag along with the Grimms and report on their efforts. On the other hand, Bellucci, as the central villain, has little to do aside from stand around in a remote tower and mutter various incantations and curses, often under tons of makeup. (It is a typically perverse Gilliam move, I suppose, to cast arguably the most heart-stoppingly beautiful woman in the world in a film and then bury her under old-age makeup for a healthy chunk of her on-screen time.)

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/08/29/

Weinberg's review link

What should have been a dark and twisted take on the classic fairy tales has, against all odds, hit the screen looking like "deleted scenes" footage. Much as it pains me to say it, this is a staggeringly inert, helplessly confused, and periodically infuriating misfire.

But it'll take more than one turkey in 20-some years before I'll wash my hands of Terry Gilliam.

Let's just call this one an outright blunder and move on to the next masterpiece.

What should have been a dark and twisted take on the classic fairy tales has, against all odds, hit the screens looking like so much "deleted scenes" footage. Much as it pains to say it, this is a staggeringly inert, helplessly confused, and periodically infuriating misfire. But it'll take more than one turkey in 20-some years before I'll wash my hands of Terry Gilliam. Let's just call this one an outright blunder and move on to the next masterpiece.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/10/17/

Childress' review link

Domino Harvey (Keira Knightley) was the daughter of actor Laurence Harvey. When her father passed away, Domino moved around with her socialite mother (Jacqueline Bisset), substituting Beverly Hills socialism for fist and weapons training.

At a bogus seminar for bounty hunters, Domino meets Ed (Mickey Rourke), Choco (Edgar Ramirez) and famous bail bondsman Claremont Williams III (Delroy Lindo). Soon she's going on runs with them, exchanges lap dances for information and becomes "Bounty Hunter of the Year."

Domino Harvey (Keira Knightley) was the daughter of actor Laurence Harvey. When he passed away, Domino moved around with her socialite mother (Jacqueline Bisset) substituting Beverly Hills socialism for fist and weapons training. At a bogus seminar calling out for bounty hunters, Domino meets Ed (Mickey Rourke), Choco (Edgar Ramirez) and famous bail bondsman, Claremont Williams III (Delroy Lindo). Soon she's going on runs with them, exchanges lap dances for information and becomes "Bounty Hunter of the year."

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/10/17/

Orndorf's review link

With "Domino," director Tony Scott has entered a phantom zone where chaotic, artistically bankrupt visual style is somehow supposed to carry an entire film.

A psychotically photographed eyesore/headache combo, "Domino" would be a lot easier to swallow had writer Richard Kelly provided something of substance to balance out all the garbage.

Instead, these two proudly create one of the worst films of 2005.

With "Domino," director Tony Scott has entered a phantom zone where chaotic, artistically bankrupt visual style is somehow supposed to carry an entire film. A psychotically photographed eyesore/headache combo, "Domino" would be a lot easier to swallow had writer Richard Kelly provided something of substance to balance out all the garbage. Instead, these two proudly create one of the worst films of 2005.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/02/20/

Snider's review link

It doesn't help that the movie stars Walker, who in nearly every film appearance manages to be out-acted by whatever surrounds him.

In this case, it's snow and ice.

Yes, the snow and ice deliver a more compelling performance than Paul Walker does. See, they're Greenlandic snow and ice, but they're pretending to be Antarctic - and I totally believe them.

Paul Walker, though, I never believe he's anything other than a surfer.

It doesn't help that it stars Paul Walker, who in nearly every film appearance manages to be out-acted by whatever surrounds him. In this case, it's snow and ice. Yes, the snow and ice deliver a more compelling performance than Paul Walker does. See, they're Greenlandic snow and ice, but they're pretending to be Antarctic -- and I totally believe them! Paul Walker, though, I never believe he's anything other than a surfer.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/02/20/

Sobczynski's review link

When "Eight Below" simply concentrates on the animals, the movie is actually pretty impressive at times. The canine performers are handsome to look at and they go through their paces as well as anyone could hope from quadrupeds.

More importantly, the film doesn't candy-coat their struggle; we are always made aware of the danger they are in, and parents of more sensitive kids should probably know not all of them make it to the end credits.

However, when the two-legged actors take center stage the movie (which pushes two hours) drags considerably. So much time is devoted to Walker's attempts to convince people to give him money and his tentative romance with a comely pilot (played by the wonderfully named Moon Bloodgood) even the most dog-obsessed members of the audience will find themselves growing restless.

Despite some beautiful photography and impressive performances from the canine cast, the human section of "Eight Below" drags down the proceedings to such a degree that I can't recommend it to paying audiences.

Frankly, this is the kind of film more suitable for DVD viewing where the fast-forward button can be easily (and frequently) deployed.

When "Eight Below" simply concentrates on the animals, it is actually pretty impressive at timesÐeven though I am not quite a dog person, the canine performers are handsome to look at and they go through their paces as well as anyone could hope from quadrupeds. More importantly, the film doesn't candy-coat their struggle; we are always made aware of the danger they are in and parents of more sensitive kids should probably know that not all of them make it to the end credits. It is when the two-legged actors take center stage that the movie (which pushes two hours) drags considerablyÐso much time is devoted to Walker's attempts to convince people to give him money and his tentative romance with a comely pilot (played by the wonderfully named Moon Bloodgood) that even the most dog-obsessed members of the audience will find themselves growing restless.

Despite some beautiful photography and impressive performances from the canine cast, the human section of "Eight Below" drags down the proceedings to such a degree that I can't quite recommend it to paying audiencesÐcertainly not in the same way that I could recommend a film like "The Black Stallion" or "Never Cry Wolf" or "Duma." Frankly, this is the kind of film that is more suitable for DVD viewing where the fast-forward button can be easily (and frequently) deployed.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/10/24/

Childress' review link

"Say Anything," "Jerry Maguire," "Almost Famous" - these are top 10 films in just about any year.

They had romance but featured the heart of a romantic in not only the relationships but the world in which they competed; sports, rock 'n' roll or a father letting go of his child.

The city of Elizabethtown just can't compete, and as a result the emotional undercurrent Crowe specializes in by not forcing but earning is just not there.

You're less likely to care whether or not Bloom has reached an emotional peak in his journey and more probable to yell at him to stop jumping around.

Elizabethtown is a journey, though, and maybe it's up to the individual to decipher what it actually is.

Is it the crippling fear of failure in a time where personal connection depends on success?

Is it stopping to appreciate your own life in an America where so much has been gained through loss?

Or is it wishing you had a woman beside you who could guide you through every highway, byway and fork in the road so you never have to stop and ask for directions again?

Whatever it is, I don't doubt I will be visiting Elizabethtown again in the future.

Say Anything, Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous Ð these are top ten films in just about any year. They had romance but featured the heart of a romantic in not only the relationships but the world in which they competed whether it be sports, rock Ôn' roll or a father letting go of his child. The city of Elizabethtown just can't compete and as a result the emotional undercurrent that Crowe specializes in by not forcing but earning is just not there. You're less likely to care whether or not Bloom has reached an emotional peak in his journey and more probable to yell at him to just stop jumping around. Elizabethtown IS a journey though and maybe its up to the individual to decipher what it actually is. Is it the crippling fear of failure in a time where personal connection depends on success? Is it stopping to appreciate your own life in an America where so much has been gained through loss? Or is it wishing you had a woman beside you who could guide you through every highway, byway and fork in the road so you never have to stop and ask for directions ever again? Whatever it is, I don't doubt I will be visiting Elizabethtown again in the future.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/10/24/

Lessing's review link

But then the rest of the film comes in and crushes these gentle scenes to oblivion.

Susan Sarandon plays Drew's mother, Hollie. She bursts into the memorial service and proceeds to give a seven-minute speech in the manner of one frenziedly seeking a best supporting actress Oscar.

She then embraces life by dancing. At this point, exhaustion set in, and a growing communal silent prayer emanated from the audience asking God to end the movie.

But no such luck.

But then the rest of the film comes in and crushes these gentle scenes to oblivion. Susan Sarandon (playing Drew's Mom, Hollie) bursts into the memorial service and proceeds to give a seven-minute speech in the manner of one who is frenziedly seeking a best supporting actress Oscar. She then embraces life by dancing. At this point, exhaustion set in, and a growing communal silent prayer emanated from the audience asking God to end the movie. But no such luck.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/03/13/

Sobczynski's review link

Occasionally, I am asked if it is more difficult to write a review for a really good movie or a really bad movie.

Actually, those extremes usually make for an easier review - it is relatively simple to sing the praises or viciously scorn something truly great or dreadful.

In fact, the hardest kind of film to review is one like "Failure to Launch." A film that is so thoroughly dull and drab that it becomes a chore to simply recall the details, let alone come up with some keen and profound observations.

After all, is it fair that a critic must sit down and apply thought and insight into discussing a film, when it is clear that precious little of the same went into its production?

Occasionally, I will get asked if it is more difficult to write a review for a really good movie or a really bad movie. Actually, those extremes usually make for an easier reviewÐit is relatively simple to sing the praises or viciously scorn something that is truly great or truly dreadful. In fact, the hardest kind of film to review is one like "Failure to Launch," something that is so thoroughly dull and drab that it becomes a chore to simply recall the details, let alone come up with some keen and profound observations. After all, is it really fair that a critic should have to sit down and apply far more thought and insight into discussing a film when it is clear that precious little of the same went into its actual production?

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/03/13/

Orndorf's review link

"Failure to Launch" is a romantic comedy that will make you hate romantic comedies. It is pure drivel, created with the idea that anything involving love will automatically draw the viewer in, yet fails to provide any evidence why anyone should care.

The film is needlessly broad, too, twisting the knife further while it parades around slapstick more suited to episodes of "Yes, Dear."

Remember "Showtime?" The disgraceful 2002 Eddie Murphy/Robert DeNiro comedic disaster? Yeah, they let the guy who made that direct again.

Hollywood never disappoints.

...

I always thought the reason for a romantic comedy was to root for the characters. "Failure to Launch" doesn't welcome anything remotely approaching participation.

On one side is Trip, whom Dey can't depict with sensitivity, and instead turns the character into a paintball-shootin', home cooking-lovin' cartoon so the people in the back row will understand that Trip is a wounded man-boy waiting for love.

Performed with unusual shrillness by McConaughey, the actor overplays his hand constantly and ends up making Trip feel like one of those slime balls who tries to sweet-talk underage girls into appearing in adult films.

"Failure to Launch" is a romantic comedy that will make you hate romantic comedies. It is pure drivel, created with the idea that anything involving love will automatically draw the viewer in, yet fails to provide any evidence why anyone should care. The film is needlessly broad too, twisting the knife further while it parades around slapstick more suited to episodes of "Yes, Dear."

...

Remember "Showtime?" The disgraceful 2002 Eddie Murphy/Robert DeNiro comedic disaster? Yeah, they let the guy who made that direct again. Hollywood never disappoints.

...

I always thought the reason for a romantic comedy was to root for the characters. "Failure to Launch" doesn't welcome anything remotely approaching participation. On one side is Trip, who Dey can't depict with sensitivity, and instead turns the character into a paintball-shootin', home cooking-lovin' cartoon so the people in the back row will understand that Trip is a wounded man-boy waiting for love. Performed with unusual shrillness by McConaughey, the actor overplays his hand constantly, and ends up making Trip feel like one of those slime balls who tries to sweet talk underage girls into appearing in adult films.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/02/13/

Weinberg's review link

Put Alan Thicke in the lead role of Firewall and, without changing one line of dialogue, the flick would debut at 9pm Eastern on ABC's Movie of the Week.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is the sort of mantra Harrison Ford's agents must coo into his eardrums every other day. Which explains why a 63-year-old actor is playing a character who is clearly in his mid-40s.

Time makes fools of us all, Harrison Ford, and while we movie nerds still love and admire your body of work, you really should be careful. "Firewall" is the sort of movie that damages reputations, shortens careers and breaks hips.

If Ford is trying to sell us on the idea that he is still macho enough to get violent, no problem.

Stop with the glorified TV flicks and give us a new Indiana Jones adventure already.

Put Alan Thicke in the lead role of Firewall and, without changing one line of dialogue, the flick would debut at 9pm Eastern on ABC's Movie of the Week.

...

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the sort of mantra that Harrison Ford's agents must coo into his eardrums every other day, which explains why a 63-year-old actor is playing a character who's clearly in his mid-40s. Time makes fools of us all, Harrison Ford, and while we movie nerds still love and admire your body of work, you really should be careful; "Firewall" is the sort of movie that damages reputations, shortens careers, and breaks hips. If you're trying to sell us the idea that you're still macho enough to get violent, no problem. Stop with the glorified TV flicks and give us a new Indiana Jones adventure already.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/02/13/

Sobczynski's review link

He was the kind of movie star that hadn't been seen in Hollywood since the days of Humphrey Bogart - women swooned over his looks, men admired his tough, no-nonsense attitude and any kid who saw "Star Wars" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" at the right age simply wanted to be him.

His films were a canny mixture of surefire hits, and he became a hugely popular performer with audiences and critics alike.

This streak lasted until about 1994, and when it ended, it ended hard.

Since that time, Ford has embarked on a series of films so embarrassingly bad - especially in comparison to his earlier triumphs - it seems at times he has deliberately chosen the worst possible projects.

Films such as "Six Days, Seven Nights," "K-19: The Widowmaker" and "Hollywood Homicide" might have seemed like good ideas at the time, but all these movies did was underline the fact that you should never cast Ford in a role requiring a convincing romantic lead, a convincing Russian accent or someone to share the screen with the likes of Josh Hartnett.

The final nail in the coffin for many Ford fans came when he decided to decline the central role of the drug czar that later went to Michael Douglas in Steven Soderbergh's award-winning "Traffic," reportedly because of an aversion to Soderbergh's on-the-fly shooting style.

Ford felt more at home in Robert Zemeckis' silly Hitchcock pastiche "What Lies Beneath," a film I can almost guarantee moviegoers haven't given a minute's thought to since it opened six years ago.

His taste in projects has become so suspect I am guessing a good number of people are now silently praying the endlessly discussed fourth "Indiana Jones" picture never gets off the ground. Then it won't besmirch the good name of the previous films.

From the 1980's through the mid-90's, you couldn't find an actor with a better career going for him than Harrison Ford. He was the kind of movie star that hadn't been seen in Hollywood since the days of Humphrey BogartÐwomen swooned over his looks, men admired his tough, no-nonsense attitude and any kid who saw "Star Wars" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" at the right age simply wanted to be him. His films were a canny mixture of sure-fire hits (his excursions as Han Solo, Indiana Jones and Jack Ryan as well as "The Fugitive") and more challenging projects that allowed him to work with bolder filmmakers like Ridley Scott ("Blade Runner"), Peter Weir ("Witness" and "The Mosquito Coast") and Roman Polanski ("Frantic") and he became such a hugely popular performer, with audiences and critics alike, that even his rare missteps (such as the grotesque "Regarding Henry") were forgiven as minor aberrations.

This streak lasted until about 1994 and when it ended, it ended hard and since that time, Ford has embarked on a series of films so embarrassingly bad, especially in comparison to his earlier triumphs, that it has seemed at times as if he has deliberately been choosing the worst possible projects. Films such as "Six Days, Seven Nights," "K-19: The Widowmaker" and "Hollywood Homicide" might have seemed like good ideas at the time but all they did is underline the fact that you should never cast Ford in a role that requires a convincing romantic lead, a convincing Russian accent or someone to share the screen with the likes of Josh Hartnett. Perhaps in honor of the actor he had long been compared too, he played a part once performed by BogartÐunfortunately, it was in Sydney Pollack's hideous remake of "Sabrina" and he looked just as ill-cast there as Bogart did in the original. (In an even-more inexplicable move, he not only apparently continued to accept phone calls from Pollack actually worked with Pollack again in the lousy "Random Hearts.") The final nail in the coffin for many of his fans came when he decided to decline the central role of the drug czar that later went to Michael Douglas in Steven Soderbergh's award-winning "Traffic," reportedly because of an aversion to Soderbergh's on-the-fly shooting style; he felt more at home in Robert Zemeckis's silly Hitchcock pastiche "What Lies Beneath," a film that I can almost guarantee that you haven't given a minutes thought to since you saw it six years ago. His taste in projects has become so suspect that I am guessing that a good number of people are now silently praying that the endlessly discussed fourth "Indiana Jones" picture never gets off the ground so that it won't besmirch the good name of the previous films.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/09/26/

Sobczynski's review link

On this overnight flight, both mother and daughter are extremely weary and decide to take a nap. When Kyle wakes up, Julia is missing.

To make matters worse, no one on board can even remember seeing the little girl on the plane in the first place.

Becoming increasingly frantic, Kyle goes on such a torrid search about the plane that when parental hysteria sets in, she has to be reprimanded by the flight's air marshal so she doesn't invoke a frenzy among the other passengers.

The captain even offers to assist Kyle, but the information he uncovers seems to be just as troubling - Kyle's recent tragedy may suggest she's suffering from a psychotic breakdown and the child named "Julia" may never have existed at all.

...

While the plan seems steadfast on the surface, it depends on two huge factors: 1) an overly paranoid mom who is already freaked out when her child left her side in the airport and who somehow decides to stray away from her child immediately after takeoff, and 2) a small child who's a perfect little angel on an aircraft and does nothing annoying while flying so no other passengers notice her.

After the plane takes off, Kyle falls asleep and when she wakes up a couple of hours later, Julia is missing. Kyle begins searching for her but as thing progress, Julia cannot be found anywhere. Even more mysteriously, no one on boardÐnot even those sitting right next to herÐcan recall ever having seen Julia on the plane in the first place.

Increasingly frantic, Kyle begins to disrupt the flight to such a degree that she is put under the custody of the flight's sky marshall (Peter Sarsgaard) while the captain (Sean Bean) orders a search of every nook and cranny. They don't discover the child but they do come up with some troubling information that suggests that the child may not even exist and that Kyle, traumatized by her recent tragedy, may have suffered from a psychotic break.

...

It is an enormously complicated plan that seems to be foolproof on the surface yet is somehow dependent entirely on knowing that a.) a paranoid and overly anxious mother (whom we have already seen freak out in the airport when her child wandered away for a moment) would immediately move to another row of empty seats and fall asleep the minute that the plane left the ground and that b.) the child in question would be so quiet and stillÐtwo traits that aren't exactly commonly seen in small children on long plane flightsÐthat absolutely no one on board would notice her at all.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/11/14/

Sobczynski's review link

The notion of a music star trying to make the transition to movie star by appearing in a thinly veiled version of their own life story is not a new one-everyone from the Beatles to Bob Dylan to Mariah Carey have tried it with varying degrees of success.

The best examples of the genre-such as "8 Mile" and the Prince vehicle "Purple Rain"-worked because they transcended their clichŽd screenplays by including an authentic feel.

Even if the stories were completely made up, they at least felt real enough while watching them.

While a good portion of the material in "Get Rich or Die Tryin" is indeed inspired by the life of Jackson-who once worked as a drug dealer and who did survive an attack in which he was shot nine times-too much of it comes across as just another rehash of the same tired inner-city gangster clichŽs we have seen done a hundred times before.

Although the film theoretically wants to be a gritty portrait of the streets and depict on-screen what Jackson does on his CDs, all it winds up doing is glorifying thuggish violence again and again.

Sure, the final scene has Marcus literally turning his back on the cycle of violence instead of getting swept up in it again, but since such a thing wouldn't exactly play well with the film's target audience, the film allows someone else to get the violent and crowd-pleasing last licks instead.

The notion of a music star trying to make the transition to movie star by appearing in a thinly veiled version of their own life story is not a new oneÐeveryone from the Beatles to Bob Dylan to Mariah Carey have tried it with varying degrees of success. The best examples of the genreÐsuch as the aforementioned "8 Mile" and the Prince vehicle "Purple Rain" worked because they transcended their cliched screenplays by remembering to include an authentic feel and moodÐeven if the stories were completely made up, they at least felt real enough while watching them. While a good portion of the material in "Get Rich or Die Tryin" is indeed inspired by the life of JacksonÐwho once worked as a drug dealer and who did survive an attack in which he was shot nine times, too much of it comes across as just another rehash of the same tired inner-city gangster cliches that we have seen done a hundred times before. Although the film theoretically wants to be a gritty portrait of the streets in order to depict on screen what Jackson does on his CD's, all it winds up doing is glorifying thuggish violence again and again. Sure, the final scene has Marcus literally turning his back on the cycle of violence instead of getting swept up in it again; however, since such a thing wouldn't exactly play well with the film's target audience, the film allows someone else to get the violent and crowd-pleasing last licks instead.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/11/14/

Orndorf's review link

"Get Rich or Die Tryin'" is an empty exercise in urban mythmaking, even going so far as to end the film with some Christ imagery to help pound home the rebirth idea.

"Get Rich or Die Tryin'" is an empty exercise in urban mythmaking, even going so far as to end the film with some Christ imagery to help pound home the rebirth idea.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/03/28/

Sobczynski's review link

When putting together the trailer for a film, the tendency these days is to take the highlights (the biggest explosions, the wildest laughs) and splice them together into a two-minute reel designed solely to lure audiences to the local multiplex.

In most cases, these previews present a fairly skewed perspective of the films they are meant to promote.

But in the case of the new comedy "Guess Who," I can honestly say that the trailer-a laughless compilation of dumb sight gags and overblown mugging from stars Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher-is a perfect representation of the film itself.

If you didn't find anything in that preview amusing, I guarantee you will feel the same about the full-length version.

If you did find the trailer hilarious, you will probably find the movie itself equally zany while silently weeping for whatever tragedies in life you might have endured that might have caused you to consider this to be a refreshing balm for your tortured soul.

...

"Guess Who" is a mess that painfully kills 105 minutes of your life with tired jokes and wasted talent.

If the film does bring black and white audiences together, it will only be through the common pain felt for anyone enduring a particularly awful film.

When putting together the coming attractions trailer for a film, the tendency these days is to take the unquestioned highlights (the biggest explosions, the wildest laughs) and splice them together into a two-minute reel designed solely to lure audiences to the local multiplex. In most cases, these previews present a fairly skewed perspective of the films they are meant to promote but in the case of the new comedy "Guess Who," I can honestly say that the trailerÐa laughless compilation of dumb sight gags and overblown mugging from stars Bernie Mac and Ashton KutcherÐis a perfect representation of the film itself. If you didn't find anything in that preview amusing, I guarantee that you will feel the same about the full-length version. If you did find the trailer hilarious, I will suggest that you will probably find the movie itself equally zany while silently weeping for whatever tragedies in life you might have endured that might have caused you to consider this to be a refreshing balm for your tortured soul.

...

"Guess Who" is a mirth-free mess that painfully kills 105 minutes of your life with tired jokes (even trying to wring grins out of gags based on metrosexuals and the appearance of "Ebony and Ivory" on the soundtrack) and wasted talent; once again, Mac has failed to find a vehicle worthy of the skills that he brings to television every week and Kutcher, who suggested the possibility of better things in "The Butterfly Effect," is coasting here on material that is beneath even him. If the film does bring black and white audiences together, it will only be through the common pain felt by anyone enduring a particularly awful film.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/11/28/

Snider's review link

make no mistake; this is the darkest, most unsettling episode yet, and it's only getting more frightening from here.

As Harry grows, the stories around him mature.

"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" makes the point, for the first time, that all the peril Harry regularly encounters can actually kill someone. "Dark and difficult times lie ahead," says Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). The fact that he says it at the end of the movie-after dragons, ritual bloodlettings and death have been used to great effect for 144 minutes-makes you wonder what could "lie ahead" that is any worse.

It is a fray, make no mistake; this is the darkest, most unsettling episode yet, and it's only getting more frightening from here. As Harry grows, the stories around him mature. "Goblet of Fire" makes the point, for the first time, that all the peril Harry regularly encounters can actually kill someone. "Dark and difficult times lie ahead," says Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). The fact that he says it at the END of the movie -- after dragons, ritual bloodlettings and death have been used to great effect for 144 minutes -- makes you wonder what could "lie ahead" that could be any worse.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/11/28/

Sobczynski's review link

Many creepy and nightmarish creatures are on display in the eagerly awaited "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"-loathsome snakes, fire-breathing dragons, trident-swinging mermen, Robbie Coltrane. But the most terrifying monster to attack Harry and his loyal friends is the most common and ordinary one of them all-hormones.

Throughout the film, our heroes are constantly bombarded by the same weird feelings and petty jealousies that strike even the lowliest Muggles.

By the time Harry does battle in the final reels with his ultimate nemesis, the all-evil Lord Voldemort, he almost seems relieved-it may be bad but sure beats the terrors of finding a girl to ask to the big formal dance.

...

The film is directed by Mike Newell, a somewhat surprising choice for such a gig. He is probably best known for such character-driven films as "Four Weddings and a Funeral," "Donnie Brasco" and "Mona Lisa Smile" and has never before worked on something on this scale.

This choice makes sense during the more dramatic scenes, which are the real heart of the film, but it doesn't quite pay off during the action set-pieces, where Newell seems to be in a little over his head.

This doesn't really hurt the film, but compared to Alfonso Cuaron, a filmmaker adept at both character pieces ("Y Tu Mama Tambien") and flights of extraordinary visual fantasy ("A Little Princess" and "Great Expectations"), Newell's work comes up a little short by comparison.

However, this installment still makes for a more interesting film than the impersonal touch Chris Columbus gave the first two films.

As it appears the producers are seeking a new director each for each entry, I can only hope they continue to lean toward people with the ability to touch the heart as well as dazzle the eye.

There are any number of creepy and nightmarish creatures on display in the eagerly awaited "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"Ðloathsome snakes, fire-breathing dragons, trident-swinging mermen, Robbie ColtraneÐbut the most terrifying monster to attack Harry and his loyal friends is the most common and ordinary one of them allÐhormones. Throughout the film, our heroes are constantly bombarded by the same weird feelings and petty jealousies that strike even the lowliest muggles. By the time that Harry does battle in the final reels with his ultimate nemesisÐthe all-evil Lord VoldemortÐhe almost seems relievedÐit may be bad but it sure beats the terrors of finding a girl to ask to the big formal dance.

...

The film was directed by Mike Newell, a somewhat surprising choice for such a gigÐhe is probably best known for such character-driven films as "Four Weddings and a Funeral," "Donnie Brasco" and "Mona Lisa Smile" and has never before worked on something on this scale. This choice makes sense during the more dramatic scenes, which are the real heart of the film, but it doesn't quite pay off during the action set-pieces, where he seems to be in a little over his head. This doesn't really hurt the film but compared to what Alfonso Cuaron, a filmmaker adept at both character pieces ("Y Tu Mama Tambien") and flights of extraordinary visual fantasy ("A Little Princess" and "Great Expectations"), Newell's work comes up a little short by comparison. However, it still makes for a more interesting film than the impersonal touch that Chris Columbus gave to the first two films. As it appears that the producers of the films are going to be looking for new directors each for each entry, I can only hope that they continue to lean towards people with the ability to touch the heart as well as dazzle the eye.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/03/27/

Sobczynski's review link

On the surface, Lee's latest film, "Inside Man," looks like just such a commercial compromise. It is a straightforward genre picture of a type that he has never attempted before; even the most finely-tuned auteurist radar would be hard-pressed to find any suggestions of Lee's distinctive style, for the most part. (Even publicity for the film has downplayed Lee's contributions-quite a turnaround for the relentlessly self-promoting director.)

In a nutshell, this is a film that practically anyone in the Directors Guild of America could have taken charge of and made a perfectly acceptable thriller.

The shocking thing about the film is that despite such generic trappings (or possibly because of them), Lee has responded to the challenge with one of his very best films to date: a relentless and thrilling hostage drama that relies more on brains than brawn to generate excitement, contains a gallery of excellent performances and even winds up making, in its own off-hand manner, keen observations about life in the strange melting pot that is post-9/11 New York.

...

Though the movie goes on too long for its own good in the final scenes, "Inside Man" is a standout bit of popular entertainment that understands a film can be both intelligent and exciting.

Even though the notion of the usually distinctive Lee suppressing his style as completely as he does here is disconcerting, doing this film seems to have recharged something in him. Lee seems more connected to his work than he has in a long time.

If Lee can now figure out how to harness that energy and focus and channel it into something more personal, it could signal his return to the ranks of great American filmmakers.

On the surface, Lee's latest film, "The Inside Man," looks like just such a commercial compromise. It is a straight-forward genre picture of a type that he has never attempted before and even the most finely-tuned auteurist radar would be hard-pressed to find any suggestions of Lee's distinctive style for the most part. (Even the publicity for the film has downplayed Lee's contributionsÐquite a turnaround for the relentlessly self-promoting director.) In a nutshell, this is a film that practically anyone in the D.G.A. directory could have taken charge of and made a perfectly acceptable thriller. The shocking thing about the film is that despite such generic trappings (or possibly because of them), Lee has responded to the challenge with one of his very best films to dateÐa relentless and thrilling hostage drama that relies more on brains than brawn to generate excitement, contains a gallery of excellent performances and even winds up making, in its own off-hand manner, keen observations about life in the strange melting pot that is post-9/11 New York.

...

Though it goes on perhaps a little too long for its own good in its final scenes, "The Inside Man" is a standout bit of popular entertainment that understands that a film can be both intelligent and exciting. And even though the notion of the usually distinctive Lee suppressing his style as completely as he does here is a bit disconcerting, I have to say that doing this film seems to have recharged something in himÐhe seems more connected to his work than he has in a long time. If he can now figure out how to harness that energy and focus and channel it into something more personal, it could signal his return to the ranks of great American filmmakers.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/03/27/

Orndorf's review link

Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) is a self-assured criminal looking to pull off the perfect bank heist. Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) is a hostage negotiator assigned to keep Russell in check during his siege on the bank.

When it becomes clear that Frazier has no control of the heist, he begins a battle of wits with Russell to save the hostages and salvage his poor career reputation.

The situation is complicated further by Madeline White (Jodie Foster), an intermediary who is trying to protect a provocative document locked inside a safe deposit box for her particularly important client (Christopher Plummer).

In the last 20 minutes "Inside Man" begins to crumble, and for two very specific reasons, the first of which is the screenplay, which sweats hard trying to stay one step ahead of the audience for the majority of the running time and then suddenly changes course.

The last moments of the film feature the characters tying up loose ends that have already been concluded earlier by Lee, thus grinding the film to a halt. Any thriller worth its thrills knows better than to reveal all the cards and still continue to play.

Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) is a self-assured criminal looking to pull off the perfect bank heist. Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) is a hostage negotiator assigned to keep Russell in check during his siege on the bank. When it becomes clear that Frazier has no control of the heist, he begins a battle of wits with Russell to save the hostages and to salvage his poor career reputation. The situation is complicated further by Madeline White (Jodie Foster), an intermediary who is trying to protect a provocative document locked inside a safe deposit box for her particularly important client (Christopher Plummer).

...

It's the last 20 minutes of the film where "Man" begins to crumble, and for two very specific reasons: the first of which is the screenplay, which sweats hard trying to stay one step ahead of the audience for the majority of the running time, and then suddenly changes course. The last moments of the film feature the characters tying up loose ends that have already been seen to conclusion earlier by Lee, thus grinding the film to a halt. Any thriller worth its thrills knows better than to reveal all the cards and still continue to play.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/10/03/

Sobczynski's review link

Some of you out there may be a bit put off by my seeming obsession with the concept of Jessica Alba in a bikini.

But I am simply reporting the facts-she is a gorgeous woman and Stockwell seems to clearly realize that it is the only thing most viewers will be focusing on.

However, even this aspect winds up having diminishing returns because we know while she won't be wearing anything more, we also know that she won't be wearing anything less either.

Partly because of the PG-13 rating and partly because if she wouldn't undress to play a stripper in a good movie like "Sin City," she certainly wouldn't waste such a reveal on the likes of this.

And yet Alba is probably the best thing about this movie because, unlike the others, she has an extremely harmless and likable nature.

Walker gets to redo the meathead schtick he developed in the "Fast and the Furious" films when saying things like "I got your back, dog!" and, when describe a fearsome pirate of old, "He and his crew-they were gnarly."

No one has ever sounded more inept when trying to properly situate such slang.

Some of you out there may be a bit put off by my seeming obsession in this review with the concept of Jessica Alba in a bikini but I am simply reporting the factsÐshe is a gorgeous woman and director John Stockwell seems to clearly realize that it is the only thing that most viewers are going to be focusing on. To that end, although he tries to build a little suspense by keeping her out of a swimsuit for the first 12 minutes or so, she spends most of the film in a series of stamp-sized outfits displaying a body that he never gets tired of exploringÐat one point, he literally swims the camera into her cleavage underwater in a shot that Russ Meyer would have applauded. However, even this aspect winds up having diminishing returns because we know that while she won't be wearing anything more, we also know that she won't be wearing anything less eitherÐpartly because of the PG-13 rating and partly because if she wouldn't undress to play a stripper in a good movie like "Sin City," she certainly wouldn't waste such a reveal on the likes of this.

And yet, Alba is probably the best thing about this movie because, unlike the others, she has the harmless and likable nature of a puppy dog that you simply can't resist even when it does something stupid. Walker gets to redo the other-white-meathead schtick that he developed in the "Fast and the Furious" filmsÐwith the possible exception of Dr. Evil, no one in film history has ever sounded lamer when trying to deploy slang as he does when saying things like "I got your back, dog!" and, when describe a fearsome pirate of old, "He and his crewÐthey were gnarly."

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/04/25/

Lessing's review link

Their actions trigger a turf war that brings many powerful (and magical) fighters out of the woodwork. The ensuing battles are back-to-back, original and satisfying.

...

Very rarely does a chaotic mood work for a movie, but "Kung Fu Hustle" succeeds with ease. Chow manages to cultivate maddening storylines with both brains and muscle, and after viewing tons of careful and methodical action films (take anything directed by Michael Bay as an example), it's so refreshing to see a movie willing to be spontaneous and uninhibited.

Their actions trigger a turf war that brings many powerful (and magical) fighters out of the woodwork. The ensuing battles are back-to-back, original and satisfying.

...

Very rarely does a chaotic mood work for a movie, but Kung Fu Hustle succeeds with ease. Chow manages to cultivate maddening storylines with both brains and muscle, and after viewing tons of careful and methodical action-films (take anything directed by Michael Bay as an example) its so refreshing to see a movie willing to be spontaneous and uninhibited.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/04/25/

Dionwr's review link

Stephen Chow is one of those happy cases of a filmmaker who has become successful enough to do anything he wants and is using that freedom to improve dramatically from film to film. "Shaolin Soccer" was faster and funnier than his earlier "The God of Cookery," and "Kung Fu Hustle" is his best work yet.

Stephen Chow is one of those happy cases of a filmmaker who has become successful enough to do anything he wants and is using that freedom to improve dramatically from film to film. "Shaolin Soccer" was faster and funnier than his earlier "The God of Cookery," and "Kung Fu Hustle" is his best work yet.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/04/25/

Snider's review link

Chow has set "Hustle" in the 1940s in Pig Sty Alley, a u-shaped tenement high-rise on the outskirts of a Chinese city.

The landlord is greedy and unfair, but his wife is even worse. Clad in a housecoat and curlers, a cigarette forever dangling from her lips, she bullies all the occupants of their little ghetto into paying their rent and keeping the peace.

Still, Pig Sty Alley is a relatively happy place, the residents living out their cramped lives without much connection to the hectic, dangerous world of the city. The slum has merchants and businessmen, housewives and laborers; a microcosm of lower-class life.

Into this world comes the ruthless Axe Gang, a well-choreographed group of miscreants who wear black suits and top hats and occasionally break out into dance numbers. They are unaware of Pig Sty's existence until word gets back to them that a couple of Axe Gang wannabes are there, attempting to extort residents by pretending to be true members of the gang.

Chow has set "Hustle" in approximately the 1930s in Pig Sty Alley, a U-shaped tenement high-rise on the outskirts of a Chinese city. The landlord is greedy and unfair, but his wife is even worse. Clad in a housecoat and curlers, a cigarette forever dangling from her lips, she bullies all the occupants of their little ghetto into paying their rent and keeping the peace.

Still, Pig Sty Alley is a relatively happy place, the residents living out their cramped lives without much connection to the hectic, dangerous world of the city. The slum has merchants and businessmen, housewives and laborers, a full microcosm of lower-class life.

Into this world comes the ruthless Axe Gang, a well-choreographed group of miscreants who wear black suits and top hats and occasionally break out into dance numbers. They are unaware of Pig Sty's existence until word gets back to them that a couple of Axe Gang wannabes are there, attempting to extort residents by pretending to be true members of the gang.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/10/31/

Childress' review link

Those more cynical and possibly more disturbed fans may pause at the downgrading of the sequel's rating from a PG-13 to a mere PG. While not a series based on bloodshed, there is still nothing mere about the more family-friendly rating.

"The Legend of Zorro" arrives with its fair share of violence and probably more individual deaths by explosion than listed on Wile E. Coyote's HMO chart.

The action, spread liberally throughout the two hour-plus affair, doesn't have the playfulness that came with Zorro learning to fit comfortably in his shoes.

He is more skillful now, taking every opportunity to jump and spin up into the air, but Martin Campbell's direction of it is no less skillful. Some impressive stunt work is on hand, and the train climax is fast-paced and nicely executed.

Those of us more cynical and possibly slightly more disturbed fans may take hesitation in the downgrading of the sequel's rating from a PG-13 to a mere PG. While this is not a series based on bloodshed, there is still nothing mere about the more family-friendly rating. The Legend of Zorro arrives with its fair share of violence and probably more individual deaths by explosion than listed on Wile E. Coyote's HMO chart. The action, spread liberally throughout the two hour-plus affair, doesn't have the playfulness that came with Zorro learning to fit comfortably in his shoes. He's more skillful now, taking every opportunity to jump and spin up into the air, but Martin Campbell's direction of it is no less skillful. Some impressive stuntwork is on hand and the train climax is fast-paced and nicely executed.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/10/31/

Orndorf's review link

For years, Zorro (Antonio Banderas) has been protecting his people from danger.

However, on the eve of California's ratification to join the United States, Zorro is pestered to settle down by his wife, Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones, returning with her immaculate lighting). He also finds he has no relationship with his son, Joaquin (Adrian Alonso).

The arrival of Frenchman Armand (Rufus Sewell) brings sinister plans to California and exacerbates the floundering marriage between Zorro and Elena as they separate to investigate Armand's plans for his new home. Finding he can't throw away his legend as easily as he thought, Zorro rides again to save California at her most important hour.

For years, Zorro (Antonio Banderas) has been protecting his people from danger; however, on the eve of California's ratification to join the United States, Zorro is pestered to settle down by his wife, Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones, returning with her immaculate lighting), and finds he has no relationship with his son, Joaquin (Adrian Alonso). The arrival of a Frenchman Armand (Rufus Sewell) brings sinister plans to California, and exacerbates the floundering marriage between Zorro and Elena, as they separate to investigate Armand's plans for his new home. Finding he can't throw away his legend as easily as he thought, Zorro rides again to save California at her most important hour.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/10/31/

Goss' review link

Despite all its family-friendly faults, "The Legend of Zorro" is still passable entertainment, a much more tolerable option than the strikingly similar "Mummy" sequel (especially the nearly-identical scene in which the kid, aboard a train, tells the villain how his father is going to kick his butt).

Going in with expectations for a Zorro flick, you get just what you expect, only in weaker form.

Sure, it's long, plodding, predictable and inferior to the original, but there is still a minimal amount of fun to be had.

Yet, despite all its family-friendly faults (and several shoddy CG shots), Legend is still passable entertainment, a much more tolerable option than the strikingly similar Mummy sequel (especially the nearly-identical scene in which the kid, aboard a train, tells the villain how his father is going to kick his butt). Going in with expectations for a Zorro flick, you get just what you expect, only in a weaker form. Sure, it's long, it's plodding, it's predictable, and it's inferior to the original, but there is still a minimal amount of fun to be had.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/04/25/

Lybarger's review link

"A Lot Like Love" is one of those romantic comedies that features characters so shallow and annoying one hopes they will eventually end up apart so that the gene pool will be saved from irreparable damage.

...

Much of the reason "A Lot Like Love" is so worthless is that you can see the comic potential disappearing in front of your eyes.

"A Lot Like Love" is one of those romantic comedies that features characters so shallow and annoying that one hopes they will eventually end up apart so that the gene pool will be saved irreparable damage.

...

Much of the reason "A Lot Like Love" is so worthless is that you can see the comic potential disappearing in front of your eyes.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/03/28/

Sobczynski's review link

Plain and simple, this film is a desperate exercise in naked greed that is as unfunny as it is unnecessary.

...

The jokes are so uniformly weak and uninspired that when the occasional funny line does crop up, it appears to have come purely by accident.

Apparently having learned nothing from that experience, she has decided to grace us with "Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous," a desperate exercise in naked greed that is as unfunny as it is unnecessary.

...

The jokes are so uniformly weak and uninspired that when the occasional funny line does crop up, it appears to have come purely by accident, much like the fabled 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters eventually coming up with "Hamlet"; the difference here is that the rest of the script feels like the typical output (literary and otherwise) of such an experiment.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/12/05/

Valentin's review link

Wright's adaptation isn't without its faults. This includes his unrestrained use of music to underline key emotional moments or in the indulgence of certain romantic clichŽs that, despite their likely presence in Austen's novel, should have been either discarded or minimized. (A character walking across a meadow with the sun at his back is one egregious example, as is the final, superfluous scene that only rehashes the dramatic content of a previous scene.)

Still, Wright deserves credit for his attention to period detail, including the production design. The Bennet home looks lived in, as do the costumes.

The directing style emphasizes mobile camerawork over the static, conventional shots audiences have come to expect from dialogue-heavy period pieces.

In the ballroom scenes, Wright uses a Steadicam or a dolly to track different characters as they move across the hall, and in one shot literalizes the first stirrings of attraction between Elizabeth and Darcy.

Wright's adaptation isn't without its faults, primarily in his unrestrained use of music to underline key emotional moments, or in the indulgence of certain romantic clichŽs that, despite their likely presence in Austen's novel, should have been either discarded or minimized (a character walking across a meadow with the sun at his back is one egregious example, as is the final, superfluous scene that serves only to reiterate or repeat the dramatic content of a previous scene). Still, Wright deserves credit for his attention to period detail, including the production design (the Bennet home looks lived in, and the costumes, as well as a directing style that emphasizes mobile camerawork over the static, conventional shots audiences have come to expect from period pieces, especially dialogue-heavy period pieces. In the ballroom scenes, Wright uses a Steadicam or a dolly to track different characters as they move across the hall, and in one shot, literalizes the first stirrings of attraction between Lizzie and Darcy.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/12/05/

Orndorf's review link

The year is 1797, and the Bennet family, including Mr. (Donald Sutherland) and Mrs. (Brenda Blethyn), are looking to marry off their daughters Lydia (Jena Malone), Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), Mary (Talulah Riley), Kitty (Carey Mulligan) and Jane (a radiant Rosamund Pike) to any man of wealth and good standing.

Hopes for a decent match come into their lives with the arrivals of Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods) and Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen), but Darcy's far too snobbish and cold to the girls. The plain and outspoken Elizabeth dismisses him immediately.

Yet, over the course of a year, as the sisters embark on their separate adventures in love and marriage, Darcy continually finds himself in Elizabeth's company. Eventually the two must confront powerful feelings inside, while those around the couple (including Judi Dench) sharpen their knives in disapproval.

...

What makes "Pride" such an enduring work from author Jane Austen (it is one of the most adapted novels to television and the big screen in history) is the yearning for romance.

Austen wrote of manners and disapproving personas, but underneath the period trappings of honor and class struggle lies the quivering heart of a romantic.

Filmmakers have come from near and far to adapt her novels, yet all seem to focus on the rigidness of the era and the inability for anyone to express oneself freely.

What makes Austen come alive on the screen is when a filmmaker digs deeper and extracts the living, breathing emotions pulsing underneath the stiff exteriors.

The year is 1797, and the Bennet family, including Mr. (Donald Sutherland) and Mrs. (Brenda Blethyn), are looking to marry off their daughters Lydia (Jena Malone), Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), Mary (Talulah Riley), Kitty (Carey Mulligan), and Jane (a radiant Rosamund Pike) to any man of wealth and good standing. Hopes for a decent match come into their lives with the arrivals of Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods) and Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfayden, giving the difficult role a good shot), but Darcy's far too snobbish and cold to the girls, with the plain and outspoken Elizabeth dismissing him immediately. Yet, over the course of a year, as the sisters embark on their separate adventures in love and marriage, Darcy continually finds himself in Elizabeth's company, forcing the two to confront powerful feelings inside, while those around the couple (including Judi Dench) sharpen their knives in disapproval.

...

What makes "Pride" such an enduring work from author Jane Austen (one of the most adapted novels to television and the big screen in history) is the yearning for romance. Austen wrote of manners and disapproving personas, but underneath the period trappings of honor and class struggle lie the quivering heart of a romantic. Filmmakers have come from near and far to adapt her novels, yet they all seem to focus on the rigidness of the era, and the inability for anyone to express themselves freely. What can make Austen come alive on the screen is when a filmmaker can dig deeper and extract the living, breathings emotions that are always pulsing underneath the stiff exteriors.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/12/05/

Bentin's review link

Guys, it's still Jane Austen, and it's still romance. No sword fights. No fox hunts. But give the story a chance to work on you; I think you'll enjoy its common sense and realistic feel.

Guys, it's still Jane Austen and it's still romance. No sword fights. No fox hunts. But give the story a chance to work on you and I think you'll enjoy its common sense and realistic feel.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/02/27/

Weinberg's review link

The people who end up really hating "Running Scared" are the ones who mistakenly took it for a serious flick.

This is a self-aware action parody that wears a very straight face.

...

Call it mindless, brutal, derivative, and silly if you like ... and I probably wouldn't disagree with you.

But when all is said and done, "Running Scared" antes up the cinematic insanity and is not stingy about giving the ticket buyer his money's worth.

The people who end up really hating "Running Scared" are the ones who mistakenly took it for a flick meant to be taken seriously. This is a self-aware action parody that wears a very straight face, and for all its over-the-top indulgences, the flick is, quite simply, actually a big ball of freaky fun.

...

Call it mindless, brutal, derivative, and silly if you like ... and I probably wouldn't disagree with you. But when all's said and done, "Running Scared" antes up with the cinematic insanity, and it's sure not stingy about giving the ticket buyer his money's worth.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/02/27/

Snider's review link

The plot is a patchwork of coincidences and connections, some of which are truly ridiculous.

But that seems to be the idea.

The shadowy underworld characters are larger than life and intentionally unrealistic; the pimp wears a full-length fur coat, for example, and behaves like the Big Bad Wolf.

The pedophiles' shadows appear monstrous when seen through a beveled glass window, with elongated, claw-like fingers - clearly modern-day stand-ins for witches or ogres.

And Oleg, like a figure in a Grimm fairy tale, is scared of what's happening but still resourceful enough to evade serious harm, and he's never so terrified as to distress the audience.

The plot is a patchwork of coincidences and connections, some of which are truly ludicrous. But that seems to be the idea. The shadowy underworld characters are larger than life and intentionally unrealistic; the pimp wears a full-length fur coat, for example, and behaves like the Big Bad Wolf. The pedophiles' shadows appear monstrous when seen through a beveled glass window, with elongated, claw-like fingers -- clearly modern-day stand-ins for witches or ogres. And Oleg, like a figure in a Grimm fairy tale, is scared of what's happening, but still resourceful enough to evade serious harm, and he's never so terrified as to distress the audience.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/02/27/

Sobczynski's review link

Paul Walker stars as Joey Gazelle, a low-level mob flunky who gets to do the dirty work for his superiors.

As the film opens, a drug deal Gazelle is participating in is invaded by a masked gang. In the ensuing gun battle, one of Joey's superiors kills one of the invaders and he is revealed to be a dirty cop. Joey is given the hot gun and ordered to get rid of it as soon as possible.

Instead, he takes it back to his house and stashes it in a hole in the wall with a bunch of other guns.

This is witnessed by Oleg (Cameron Bright), best friend of Joey's stepson, Nicky (Alex Neuberger) and the son of violent next-door neighbor, Ivan (John Noble). Since Ivan likes to beat up on Oleg and his mother (Ivana Milicevic), Oleg pinches the gun and takes it home with him.

After Dad smacks him around for not properly appreciating the John Wayne film "The Cowboys" (the only one in which he died), Oleg is inspired by another scene in the film - one in which a sweet-faced kid is forced to gun down a bad guy - and puts a slug in Dad's shoulder before fleeing.

Once Joey figures out what happened, he realizes that he has to track down Oleg and retrieve the gun before it can fall into the wrong hands.

As you may have guessed, "Running Scared" is lurid, almost unspeakable trash. Some may be shocked to learn it was written and directed by Wayne Kramer, whose previous film was the strikingly different "The Cooler."

Where that film was elegant and refined, here Kramer's work is more in tune with the sensibility of a 12-year-old boy who has been playing "Grand Theft Auto" for so long it has scrambled his brain to the point where a pimp, hooker or thug is lurking behind every corner. Even the simplest declarative statements require the kind of language that would make David Mamet blush.

...

It may sound like I am coming down negatively on "Running Scared" but if you can get past the movie's superficiality and sheer nastiness, it is an admittedly stylish and entertaining bit of bruising pop cinema.

Most of you - at least the sober and rational types amongst you - will probably throw up your hands (among other things) in horror at the very thought of this film and decry it one more symbol of the downfall of civilization.

To be honest, part of me that feels the same, but I cannot deny that I found myself far more amused and intrigued by its gory and goofy charms than I could have possibly anticipated when I took my seat.

Movie fans who are willing to embrace such strangeness instead of recoiling from it are likely to find themselves equally intrigued by the tawdry wares it has to offer.

Paul Walker stars as Joey Gazelle, a low-level mob flunky who gets to do the dirty work for his superiors. As the film opens, a drug deal he is participating in is invaded by a masked gang and, in the ensuing gun battle, one of Joey's superiors kills one of the invaders and he is revealed to be a dirty cop. Joey is given the hot gun and ordered to get rid of it as soon as possible. Instead, he takes it back to his house and stashes it in a hole in the wall with a bunch of other guns. This is witnessed by Oleg (Cameron Bright), the best friend of Joey's stepson Nicky (Alex Neuberger) and the son of violent next-door neighbor Ivan (John Noble). Since Ivan likes to beat up on Oleg and his mother (Ivana Milicevic), Oleg pinches the gun and takes it home with him. After Dad smacks him around for not properly appreciating the John Wayne film "The Cowboys" (the only one in which he died), Oleg is inspired by another scene in the filmÐthe one in which a sweet-faced kid is forced to gun down a bad guyÐand puts a slug in his shoulder before fleeing. Once Joey figures out what happened, he realizes that he has to track down Oleg and retrieve the gun before it can fall into the wrong hands.

...

As you may have guessed, "Running Scared" is lurid and almost unspeakable trash and it may come as a shock to some to learn that it was written and directed by Wayne Kramer, whose previous film was the strikingly different "The Cooler." Where that film was elegant and refined, his work here is more in tune with the sensibility of a 12-year-old boy who has been playing "Grand Theft Auto" for so long that it has scrambled his brain to the point where a pimp, hooker or thug is lurking behind every corner and even the simplest declarative statements require the kind of language that would make David Mamet blush.

...

It may sound like I am coming down negatively on "Running Scared" but if you can get past its superficiality and sheer nastiness, it is an admittedly stylish and entertaining bit of bruising pop cinema. Most of youÐat least the sober and rational types amongst youÐwill probably throw up your hands (among other things) in horror at the very thought of this film and decry it as being one more symbol of the downfall of civilization. To be honest, there is a part of me that feels that very same way but I cannot deny that I found myself far more amused and intrigued by its gory and goofy charms than I could have possibly anticipated when I sat down into my seat. Movie fans who are willing to embrace such strangeness instead of recoiling from it are likely to find themselves equally intrigued by the tawdry wares it has to offer, even though they may quietly speculate afterwards that everyone could have saved themselves a lot of wear and tear if Oleg's father had the good sense and taste to show his kid "Rio Bravo."

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/04/10/

Sobczynski's review link

For those of you who don't do the majority of your reading on airplanes, "Sahara" is the latest attempt by Hollywood to bring the works of best-selling novelist Clive Cussler to the big screen.

Most of his books concern the adventures of the heroic he-man Dirk Pitt, who travels the globe solving ancient mysteries, testing out elaborate scientific equipment, and generally saving the world from one danger or another.

With his fancy gadgets and his cultured ways, he essentially comes off as James Bond without the accent.

...

Only Dirk Pitt can save the day-provided he can tear himself away from other interests and his "Lynrd Skynrd's Greatest Hits" CD (the film somehow feels the need to make room for the fairly inexplicable inclusion of "Sweet Home Alabama" on the soundtrack.).

More bad news:

The chemistry between McConaughey and Cruz is virtually non-existent, and the only surprise the film has to offer is the final bikini-clad clinch between the two. It seems to have been added in as an afterthought to capitalize on their real-life romance and seems out of place with the rest of the film.

Instead, it is a wildly extravagant yet deadly dull action-adventure that weakens improbable heroics with a flat visual style, an inappropriately foolish script and casting decisions so ill-advised that they make the notion of Jimmy Fallon as a romantic lead seem almost credible by comparison.

For those of you who don't do the majority of your reading on airplanes, "Sahara" is the latest attempt by Hollywood (following 1980's disastrous "Raise the Titanic") to bring the works of best-selling novelist Clive Cussler to the big screen. Most of his books concern the adventures of the heroic he-man Dirk Pitt, who travels the globe solving ancient mysteries, testing out elaborate scientific equipment and generally saving the world from one danger or another.

...

Only Dirk Pitt can save the dayÐprovided he can tear himself away from his bong and "Lynrd Skynrd's Greatest Hits" CD. (The former is a joke but the film does somehow make room for the fairly inexplicable inclusion of "Sweet Home Alabama" on the soundtrack.)

...

The chemistry between McConaughey and Cruz is practically non-existent and the only surprise that the film has to offer is the final bikini-clad clinch between the two; it seems to have been added in as an after-thought to capitalize on their real-life romance and seems wildly out of place with the rest of the film.

...

Instead, it is a wildly extravagant yet deadly dull action-adventure that subverts its two-fisted tales of improbable heroics with a flat visual style, an inappropriately goofy screenplay and casting decisions so ill-advised that they make the notion of Jimmy Fallon as a romantic lead seem almost credible by comparison.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/11/07/

Sobczynski's review link

Inevitably, "Saw II" ends setting us up for yet another sequel sure to degrade the original even further.

Here's my pitch for that film-a mad killer stalks a bunch of filmmakers who squander the lives of audience members throughout the world by conning them into wasting 90 precious minutes on boring and repetitive junk.

Inevitably, "Saw II" ends much as the first one didÐa completely implausible final twist that insists that we re-evaluate everything that we have already seen (unless you are one of the millions who is likely to spot the twist a mile away)while setting us up for the depressingly inevitable "Saw III." Here's my pitch for that filmÐa mad killer stalks a bunch of filmmakers who squander the lives of audience members throughout the world by conning them into wasting 90 precious minutes on boring and repetitive junk

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/04/03/

Sobczynski's review link

However, there are the occasional moments in this wildly uneven and awkwardly paced film where Gunn does strike upon something genuinely amusing and winds up scoring big laughs.

A couple of the shocking sight gags make an impact, especially when one of the deputies slowly comes apart at the seams after an encounter with the fully mutated Grant.

Elizabeth Banks, who has been in a lot of movies recently - and been good in all of them (you may recall her as the hot-to-trot bookstore clerk in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin") - is very funny as Starla and keeps the character from simply becoming another screaming bubble-head.

Best of all is Michael Rooker as the unfortunate Grant. He scores big laughs by the way he utters the single word "Meat!" but somehow manages to find an unexpected layer of pathos to play even while buried under tons of gruesome makeup.

Sure, he may be a monster bent on destroying the world, but deep down (make that way deep down) he really just wants to be loved.

On the other hand, there are the occasional moments in this wildly uneven and awkwardly paced film where Gunn does strike upon something genuinely amusing and winds up scoring some big laughs. A couple of the shocking sight gags make an impact, especially the one in which one of the deputies slowly comes apart at the seams after an encounter with the fully mutated Grant. Elizabeth Banks, who has been in a lot of movies recently and who has been good in all of them (you may recall her as the hot-to-trot bookstore clerk in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin"), is very funny as Starla and keeps her from simply becoming another screaming bubble-head. Best of all is Michael Rooker as the unfortunate GrantÐhe scores big laughs just by the way he utters the single word "Meat!" but somehow manages to find an unexpected layer of pathos to play even while being buried under tons of gruesome makeup. Sure, he may be a monster bent on destroying the world but deep down (make that way deep down), he really just wants to be loved.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/04/03/

Snider's review link

If James Gunn is going to write and direct more zippy yarns like this one, complete with the fake portentous musical score and moderately hammy acting, I may one day forgive him for writing the "Scooby-Doo" movies.

We'll need another "Slither," though. There were two "Scooby-Doos," after all.

If James Gunn is going to write and direct more zippy yarns like this one, complete with the fakely portentous musical score and moderately hammy acting, I may one day forgive him for writing the "Scooby-Doo" movies. We'll need another "Slither," though. There were two "Scooby-Doos," after all.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/01/17/

Sobczynski's review link

Franco and Myles are a pair of star-crossed lovers played by two people who couldn't generate an authentic spark between them if they commenced their trysts by rolling around in gasoline and then firing flamethrowers at each other.

However, anyone expecting the grand passion of the opera is likely to be thoroughly disappointed with this film, which demonstrates an emotional temperament that is less Richard Wagner and more Jack Wagner and features a pair of star-crossed lovers played by two people who couldn't generate an authentic spark between them if they commenced their trysts by rolling around in gasoline and then firing flamethrowers at each other.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/10/10/

Snider's review link

This is the male equivalent of a chick flick. Two men bond and fraternize over betting, set against a backdrop of football.

...

The conflict, of course, deals with Brandon getting too cocky and too wealthy, letting his predictions slip, and thus bringing ruin to everyone around him. The screenplay takes no chances on our missing the point and gives Brandon such terrific, terrible dialogue as "Somewhere along the way I lost something" and "I gotta be Brandon again."

It is the male equivalent of a chick flick, with bonding and fraternizing superimposed against (what else?) football, and it never finds a good way to go about it.

...

The conflict, of course, deals with Brandon getting too cocky and too wealthy, letting his predictions slip, and thus bringing ruin to everyone around him. The screenplay (by Dan Gilroy) takes no chances on our missing the point and gives Brandon such helpful dialogue as "Somewhere along the way I lost something" and "I gotta be Brandon again."

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/10/10/

Childress' review link

Walter is an archetype Pacino has latched onto in the past decade.

Pacino has played father figure to Chris O'Donnell ("Scent of a Woman"), John Cusack ("City Hall"), Johnny Depp ("Donnie Brasco"), Keanu Reeves ("The Devil's Advocate"), Jamie Foxx ("Any Given Sunday") and Colin Farrell ("The Recruit").

With McConaughey, Pacino could have just phoned in another part-time sleepy, part-time manic advisor but instead revels in Walter's flaws and vices.

...

Pacino never met a speech opportunity he couldn't pounce on (next to Christopher Walken-probably our finest over-the-top orator), and he has some of his most priceless rants here since playing Lucifer.

Walter is an archetype that Pacino has grappled onto in the past decade. When Liam Neeson isn't playing mentors, Pacino has played father figure to Chris O'Donnell (Scent of a Woman), John Cusack (City Hall), Johnny Depp (Donnie Brasco), Keanu Reeves (The Devil's Advocate), Jamie Foxx (Any Given Sunday) and Colin Farrell (The Recruit). Now with McConaughey, Pacino could have just phoned in another part-time sleepy, part-time manic advisor but instead revels in Walter's flaws and vices. Pacino never met a speech opportunity he couldn't pounce on (and next to Christopher Walken Ð probably our finest over-the-top orator) and he has some of his most priceless rants here since playing Lucifer.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/09/06/

Orndorf's review link

Also disconcerting is Cannon's overwhelming need to point out his skin color in every scene. I kid you not, Cannon points out his African-American heritage whenever he can, presumably to capture the urban audience.

"Underclassman" is filled with such dreary material, including a nerdy Caucasian "wannabe thug" classmate of Tracy's and a portly cop who (of course) is a slob and in the film's most insulting sequence has trouble defecating in a bush.

This is the material that "Underclassman" seems most proud of.

...

Siega and Cannon attempt to pay off the story by adding an insanely ludicrous plot twist. They complete their lobotomy on the audience by staging needless explosions for the finale in an effort to cover up the rest of the nonsense.

...

Nick Cannon, thank you for curing what ails me, and I'm glad this movie was able to showcase your acting skills - proving that you definitely don't possess any.

Also disconcerting is Cannon's overwhelming need to point out his skin color in every scene. I kid you not, Cannon points out his African-American heritage whenever he can, I assume trying urgently to get the urban audience on his side. "Underclassman" is filled with this dreary material, including a nerdy Caucasian "wannabe thug" classmate of Tracy's, and a portly cop, who (of course) is a slob, and in the film's most insulting sequence, has trouble defecating in a bush. This is the material that "Underclassman" seems most proud of.

...

Seiga and Cannon attempt to pay off the story by adding an insanely ludicrous plot twist, and completing the lobotomy on the audience by staging needless explosions for the finale in an effort to cover up the rest of the nonsense.

I guess "Underclassman" is a good showcase for Cannon's talents: now there's actual proof that he doesn't have any.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/01/23/

Cornelius' review link

This sequel to "Underworld" (itself a miserably unentertaining mess) is indeed unbearably boring, seeming to drone on for at least three times its 106-minute running time.

I'm always baffled by movies such as this one. When a group of people spend months, perhaps years, working on creating just the right story, perfecting it until it's ready to show to the public, and this is the best they can do, I wonder when exactly everyone involved just gave up.

Surely the writers, director and producers didn't think they were hitting storytelling gold with this one. Right?

Oh, how I hope so.

Here, for those interested, is the plot, as best I could piece it together through the haze of tedium and half-caring: Selene (Kate Beckinsale) is a "death dealer," an ass-kicking vampire assassin who took time off from the centuries-old war between vampires and werewolves (here known pretentiously as "lycans") in order to uncover a conspiracy within the vampire clan.

This, I should mention, was told entirely in flashback over the opening credits; any sequel that begins with five minutes of footage from the previous film (and accompanying narration) is not helpful to newcomers, but is, instead, unforgivably lazy.

This sequel to "Underworld" (itself a miserably unentertaining mess) is indeed unbearably boring, seeming to drone on for at least three times its 106 minute running time. I'm always baffled by movies such as this one; when a group of people spend months, perhaps years, working on creating just the right story, perfecting it until it's ready to show to the public, and this is the best they can do, I pause to wonder when exactly everyone involved just gave up. Surely the writers, director, and producers didn't think they were hitting storytelling gold with this one. Right? Right? Oh, how I hope so.

...

Here, for those interested, is the plot, as best I could piece things together through the haze of tedium and half-caring: Selene (Kate Beckinsale) is a "death dealer," an ass-kicking vampire assassin who took time off from the centuries-old war between vampires and werewolves (here known pretentiously as "lycans") in order to uncover a conspiracy within the vampire clan. This, I should mention, was told entirely in flashback over the opening credits; any sequel that begins with five minutes of footage from the previous film (and accompanying narration) is not helpful to newcomers, but is, instead, unforgivably lazy.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/01/23/

Sobczynski's review link

Then again, you could say the same thing about the actors, all of whom are required to stand around in weird outfits and speak weirder dialogue while reacting to effects that are never quite as spectacular as their reactions would otherwise suggest.

Although Beckinsale still looks fabulous in her outfit, she comes off as one of the more bloodless vampires in film history. Instead of embracing the goofiness around and having fun with a role that is inherently ridiculous, she clomps around with a dour expression that makes her seem more like an exceptionally glum fetish model than anything else.

However, she is Ms. Personality when compared to Speedman, who is so aggressively bland (even when he is tearing out throats in full werewolf mode) he makes Willie Aames look like Christopher Walken by comparison.

Closer in tone to a cheapo direct-to-video sequel than anything else, "Underworld: Evolution" is a pointless and murky exercise in naked greed masquerading as a horror film. The closest thing to a frightening moment comes during a closing scene that blatantly tries to set up an "Underworld 3."

As far as I can tell, the two films together have come up with exactly one good idea-the notion that our memories are carried in our blood and a vampire can receive those memories (especially those which conveniently reveal plot points) while feeding on a victim.

In other words, if some nimble vampire babe one day decides to drain me of my blood, I can at least die knowing that she will be suffering just as much as me once she gets to the memories of seeing this film.

Then again, you could say the same thing about the actors as well, all of whom are required to stand around in weird outfits and speak weirder dialogue while reacting to effects that are never quite as spectacular as their reactions would otherwise suggest. Although Beckinsale still looks fabulous in her outfit, she still comes off as one of the more bloodless vampires in film history; instead of embracing the goofiness around and having fun with a role that is inherently ridiculous (as Milla Jovovich did in the "Resident Evil" films), she clomps around with a dour expression that makes her seem more like an exceptionally glum fetish model than anything else. However, she is Ms. Personality when compared to Speedman, who is so aggressively bland (even when he is tearing out throats in full werewolf mode) that he makes Willie Aames look like Christopher Walken by comparison.

Closer in tone to a cheapo direct-to-video sequel than anything else, "Underworld: Evolution" is a pointless and murky (visually as well as narrativelyÐthe cinematography so dark, presumably to lessen the impact of the cheesy special effects, that it may prove to be literally unwatchable in theaters where they turn the projector bulbs down to save a few pennies) exercise in naked greed masquerading as a horror filmÐthe closest thing to a frightening moment comes during a closing scene that blatantly tries to set up an "Underworld 3." As far as I can tell, the two films, taken together, have come up with exactly one good ideaÐthe notion that our memories are carried in our blood and that a vampire can receive those memories (especially ones that help conveniently reveal plot points) while feeding on a victim. In other words, if some lissome vampire babe ever decides to drain me of my blood one day, I can at least die knowing that she will be suffering just as much as I once she gets to the memories of seeing this film.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/03/20/

Sobczynski's review link

The quality of performance is an aspect of big-budget action filmmaking that is usually ignored most of the time. It is generally assumed that the performers are going to be spending more time dodging explosions and reacting to unknown special effects to do much of anything else, so it comes as a blessed relief to discover that the performances here are uniformly strong and sure.

For Portman, a superlative actress (and not a half-bad rapper) who tends to wilt somewhat when in the throes of a lackluster script (as a close look at the "Star Wars" movies will prove beyond a doubt), her turn as Evey is an inspired bit of work that convincingly demonstrates the gradual radicalization of a young woman whose eyes have finally opened to the world around her.

As V, Weaving overcomes the seemingly insurmountable problem of spending his every on-screen moment hidden behind an immobile Guy Fawkes mask (for all intents and purposes, his role is essentially a voice-over job) and transforms a collection of cool action moves and slogans into a genuinely flesh-and-blood creation.

Because the movie features at its center a hero who unapologetically embarks on a wave of violent revolt against the government in order to inspire revolt, there will no doubt be plenty of people ready to condemn "V for Vendetta" as an effort from depraved liberals in Hollywood to glamorize and promote the ideals of terrorism.

This is, of course, laughable and presumes that all viewers - except for the critics, of course - are simple-minded sheep who will slavishly imitate any behavior they see on the screen.

What "V for Vendetta" may hopefully do, if enough people see it and respond to it, is remind the entertainment industry there used to be a time when popular entertainment was allowed to comment on what was going on in the world instead of simply ignoring it altogether.

The quality of performance is an aspect of big-budget action filmmaking that is usually ignored most of the timeÐit is generally assumed that the performers are going to be spending more time dodging explosions and reacting to unknown special effects to do much of anything elseÐso it comes as a blessed relief to discover that the performances here are uniformly strong and sure. For Portman, a superlative actress (and not a half-bad rapper) who tends to wilt somewhat when in the throes of a lackluster script (as a close look at the "Star Wars" movies will prove beyond a doubt), her turn as Evey is an inspired bit of work that convincingly demonstrates the gradual radicalization of a young woman whose eyes have finally opened to the world around her. As V, Hugo Weaving overcomes the seemingly insurmountable problem of spending his every on-screen moment hidden behind an immobile Guy Fawkes mask (for all intents and purposes, his role is essentially a voice-over job) and transforms a collection of cool action moves and slogans into a genuinely flesh-and-blood creation.

...

Because it features at its center a hero who unapologetically embarks on a wave of violent revolt against the government in order to inspire revolt, there will no doubt be plenty of people ready to condemn "V for Vendetta" as an effort from depraved liberals in Hollywood to glamorize and promote the ideals of terrorism. This is, of course, laughable and presumes that all viewersÐexcept for the critics, of courseÐare simple-minded sheep who will slavishly imitate any behavior that they see on the screen. What it may hopefully do, if enough people see it and respond to it, is remind the entertainment industry that there used to be a time when popular entertainment was allowed to comment on what was going on in the world instead of simply ignoring it altogether.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/02/06/

Orndorf's review link

"When a Stranger Calls" has the potential to be something of a terror; however, it doesn't stop director Simon West from paging through every thriller gag in the book.

A lousy filmmaker ("The General's Daughter," "Tomb Raider"), West is trying to make so much out of absolutely nothing here, with long passages of "Stranger" dragging by without anything occurring.

Sequence after sequence simply finds Jill entering a room, getting spooked and leaving the room.

For 90 minutes West repeats this formula with shampoo-direction-like skill, reminding the audience they have paid to watch an insignificant filmmaker try to drag out a five-minute idea into a feature-length movie.

"Stranger" would be a lot more effective if West had more of an imagination.

Instead, the film is yet another round of spooky cats, rumbling sound effects for no reason, and jump scares to keep the audience awake.

But that doesn't stop director Simon West from paging through every thriller gag in the book. A lousy filmmaker ("The General's Daughter, "Tomb Raider"), West is trying to make so much out of absolutely nothing here, with long passages of "Stranger" dragging by without anything occurring. Sequence after sequence simply finds Jill entering a room, getting spooked, and leaving the room. For 90 minutes West repeats this formula with shampoo-direction-like skill, reminding the audience that they've paid to watch an insignificant filmmaker try to drag out a 5-minute idea into a feature length movie. "Stranger" would be a lot more effective if West had more of an imagination. Instead, the film is yet another round of spooky cats, rumbling sound effects for no reason, and jump scares to keep the audience awake.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/02/06/

Snider's review link

The bare-bones story simply can't survive being stretched to a feature-length running time, and Camilla Belle is not nearly as charismatic an actress as she would need to be to carry this movie by herself.

She's in almost every frame, yet she never registers as a real person whose safety we should fear for.

There might be terror out there, but it's not coming from inside the movie.

But the bare-bones story simply can't survive being stretched to a feature-length running time, and Camilla Belle is not nearly as charismatic an actress as she would need to be to carry this movie by herself. She's in almost every frame, yet she never registers as a real person whose safety we should fear for. There might be terror out there, but it's not coming from inside the movie.

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2006/02/06/

Sobczynski's review link

Camilla Belle (who possesses perhaps the greatest set of eyebrows seen on the screen since the days of Brooke Shields)

Camilla Belle, the young actress who more than held her own against Daniel Day-Lewis in "The Ballad of Jack and Rose" and who possesses perhaps the greatest set of eyebrows seen on the screen since the days of Brooke Shields, stars as high-school babysitter Jill Johnson

Patel's review http://www.unews.com/news/2005/04/18/

Sobczynski's review link

Directed by Nicole Kassell, "The Woodsman" has an ambitious and provocative idea behind it; it wants to take that most reviled criminal type, the child molester, and present him in a way that is, if not sympathetic, at least understanding of his feelings and his struggles with the demons that may still have hold of him.

Bacon plays Walter, who, as the film opens, is just being released from prison after serving time for molesting a couple of girls.

He takes a job in a furniture factory where the boss knows about his past but is willing to overlook it because of the quality of his work. One coworker, Mary Kay (Eve), tries to ask him out but he rebuffs her.

Later, he hooks up with another coworker, tough-as-nails Vickie (Bacon's real-life wife Kyra Sedgwick), and finds himself opening up to her about his past. Vickie, a victim of sexual abuse herself, is surprisingly understanding and willing to accept him despite his past.

Before long, however, his transition grows much rougher, as his past becomes exposed and his internal demons wreak havoc upon him.

At one point, he idly follows a girl around in a shopping mall and later, while "bird watching," finds himself drawn into a conversation with a 12-year-old that would be creepy even if we didn't know what he was once (and perhaps still) capable of.

"The Woodsman" has an ambitious and provocative idea behind it; it wants to take that most reviled criminal type, the child molester, and present him in a way that is, if not sympathetic, at least understanding of his feelings and his struggles with the demons that may still have a hold of him.

...

Bacon plays Walter, who, as the film opens, is just being released from prison after serving time for molesting a couple of girls. He takes a job in a furniture factory where the boss (David Alan Greer) knows about his past but is willing to overlook it because of the quality of his work. Off the clock, he lives in near-total isolationÐhis only visitor is his reasonably friendly brother-in-law (Benjamin Bratt), but his presence only serves to remind Walter of how his sister refuses to see him. One co-worker, Mary Kay (Eve), tries to ask him out but he rebuffs her; later, he hooks up, after a fashion, with another co-worker, the tough-as-nails Vickie (Kyra Sedgwick) and finds himself opening up to her about his past. Vickie, a victim of sexual abuse herself, is surprisingly understanding and is willing to accept him despite his past.

Before long, however, his transition grows much rougher. Upset at being rebuffed, Mary Kay discovers his secret and makes sure that everyone else in the factory knows it as well; even though his boss courageously sticks up for him, the work atmosphere is poisoned for him. A rash of molestations begins to occur in his neighborhood and a not-so-friendly cop (Mos Def) begins to visit regularly and basically insinuates to Walter that even if he isn't responsible, he will most likely slip at some point. The scary thing to Walter is that the cop may be right; as the pressure on him grows, he starts to see predators and prey everywhere and he begins to indulge in increasingly reckless behavior. At one point, he idly follows a girl around in a shopping mall and later, while "birdwatching," finds himself drawn into a conversation with 12-year-old Robin (Hannah Pilkes) that would be creepy even if we didn't know what he was once (and perhaps still) capable of.