Orange County News Blog

In "Precious," newcomer Gabourey Sidibe "carries the alternately exhausting and exhilarating narrative on her formidable shoulders."

​Precious, the film adaptation of poet Sapphire's best-selling novel Push, has generated buzz since its Sundance premiere, added Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry as its high-powered "presented by" team since then, and has even produced talk of a best-supporting actress Oscar nomination for comedienne Mo'Nique.

Mo'Nique, fer chrissakes!?!
 
Precious is now taking over literally half of Edwards University in Irvine, where it opens on three screens today in its exclusive Orange County opening. And one of tonight's showings will be followed by a panel discussion involving various UC Irvine academics.

Chill the Red Bull, re-heat the coffee and warm up the crack pipe: your eyeballs are about to get a workout from local screens in the days ahead.

"Imagine This" took a film crew high into the Andes Mountains.

First, Laguna Beach Film Society screens the documentary Imagine This tonight. Eion Bailey, an actor you may remember from TV's ER, took some friends and a film crew into a remote mountain village in Peru to see if they could change the lives of the people there in one week. Hit with unrelenting rain, a language barrier and limited resources, the Yanks set out to transform a local school, childrens' transportation to it and the every-day surroundings.

Imagine This screens at 7 p.m. at South Coast Cinema, 162 S. Coast Hwy., Laguna Beach. Admission is free to film society members and $15 for everyone else. For an extra $5, you can attend a pre-film reception that includes wine and hors d'oeuvres and begins at 6 p.m. around the corner at Wells Fargo Bank's Community Room, 260 Ocean Ave., Laguna Beach. Call (949) 494-5872, extension 201, for more information.

Robin Williams is not exactly the "World's Greatest Dad."

​When the guy who played Mork from Ork strips down to his shaved nakedness and exposes his Little Nanu Nanu, or the guy who played Sheriff Andy Taylor and Benjamin Matlock gets head from the woman who played Seinfeld's mom, it can mean only one thing.

You're not in TV Land anymore.

Yesenia (Daniela Schmidt, left) and Francisca (Maya Zapata) get down.

Suppose someone made a comedy based on American Idol (I know, been there, done that with American Dreamz; just work with me, people). Now let's say the parts spoofing Idol were clever, at times hilarious. But then the filmmaker moved beyond the evils of fame to take on even heavier social ills. Suddenly your bouncy little comedy about the road to fame has been steamrollered.

That's precisely the problem with Casi Divas, which opens today at Regency South Coast Village in Santa Ana, Century Stadium and AMC 30 at the Block in Orange and Cinemark at the Pike in Long Beach.

 

Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) and Lt. Gen. George Miller (James Gandolfini) go toe-to-toe.

​G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was the big winner at the weekend box office, but a much different war movie barely registered a blip. The savage political comedy from Britain In the Loop, which is in limited release, is worth a look. Heck, it's this generation's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Directed by Glasgow-born Italian Scot Armando Iannucci and written by Jesse Armstrong and Simon Blackwell (with help from Iannucci, Tony Roche and Ian Martin), In the Loop is actually spun from the cult BBC series The Thick of It, which Iannucci created and co-wrote. The movie hilariously follows some of the behind-the-scenes political operatives, also-rans and errand boys and girls who make Downing Street and Pennsylvania Avenue tick . . . like a time bomb.

On film, Orange County has been subjected to bioscience (Creator), thinking simians (Conquest of the Planet of the Apes) and Jack Black (Orange County). But are we ready for clueless babes, a serial slasher and flesh-eating zombies?

EEEEEENNNNKTTT!!! Time's up. They're on the way whether we're ready or not.
 
Creep Creepersin's comedic horror flick (or horrific comedy, take your pick) O.C. Babes and the Slasher of Zombietown is being released on DVD Tuesday. You can get a copy at finer zombie-slasher film retailers everywhere, or order it direct for $9.99 here.

Sean and Ed (buh-dump-dum) go to a bar to celebrate Sean's 21st birthday. There they encounter patrons who run the gamut of Orange County stereotypes. There's Madison the bitch, Savannah the slut, Megan the hot nerd, Lindsey the hot edgy nerd, Ashley and Michelle the porn stars, Mike and Bret the bro jock guys, assorted old barfly skanks, a surfer chick and an uptight ultra-conservative closet fetishist county Board of Supervisors chairman.

OK, all except that last one.

As they would any other night, Sean and Ed strike out left and right. Then a half-eaten woman runs into the bar (hate it when that happens) to warn about flesh-eating zombies pillaging outside. The bar is then locked up tighter than a Laguna Beach drum circle, but before you can say, "Oh, Sean and Ed, now I get it," the bodies start dropping INSIDE the bar faster than Orange County Register pink slips. See, it turns out another Orange County stereotype was inside: no, not a felonious ex-sheriff and the Little Sheriff escaped from prison. It's a serial killer and his slashing blade, which had been out all week killing your friends and neighbors before those damn zombies came along to ruin everything.                         

O.C. Babes and the Slasher of Zombietown, which was apparently shot in eight hours, stars Vic Vasquez as Sean, Brandon Shira as Ed, Elissa Dowling as Madison, Monique La Barr as Savanah and Nikki Wall as Mrs. Creep. To help promote the film, members of the cast and creators will be out signing DVD packages, but you must travel to get to them. They are scheduled to be at Spudic's Movie Empire, 5910 Van Nuys Blvd., Van Nuys, from 1-3 p.m. Sunday, and at Dark Delicacies, 4213 W. Burbank Blvd., Burbank, at 2 p.m. Aug. 1.
 
Consider this your warning!

With Observe and Report opening in cineplexes everywhere Friday and Paul Blart: Mall Cop still flashing on second-run screens nearby, the vice president of AlliedBarton Security Services ("America's leading physical security company with over 50,000 employees nationwide") has penned an opinion piece offered to the Weekly titled, "Retail Security Officers Deserve Respect Not Guffaws."

Contract cops of the world unite!

"While audiences loved Mall Cop and will likely line up to see the upcoming Observe and Report (in theaters this weekend) starring Seth Rogan, real world contract security companies who serve malls, see more fiction than fact in these comic portrayals," writes Tom Walton.

"How does the reality of life as a retail security officer compare with what is depicted in these comedies? These movies provide some light-hearted fun and entertainment, but in no way personify the real world of mall security officers on the job," Walton continues. "These hard-working, highly trained men and women are our country's first responders who have a wide range of skills--from the sensitivity to deal with lost children to the ability to respond to and effectively address law enforcement incidents."

That's right, people, these are the brave heroes who tail minority kids, immediately get auto locksmiths on the horn and can point out restroom locations in every direction--all in one $9-per-hour shift.

Maybe I'm minimizing this vital career?

"Security officers," informs Walton, "are often put in high-risk situations as they confront and detain criminals engaged in theft, trespassing, gang activity and every other manner of unlawful behavior that occurs where thousands of consumers congregate on a daily basis."

Keen insights, for sure, but what Tom Walton deserves the most credit for is providing the title of the next madcap mall cop comedy: Confront and Detain. I see Rob Schneider in the lead . . .

Frost/Nixon may have gotten skunked at the Oscars, but it did win "Best Picture for Grown-ups" in AARP the Magazine's awards for movies those over 50 enjoy. Otherwise, the media's fixation with Opie's flick is waning, but not with Richard Nixon himself, who is rolled into the plot line of a movie that will likely be seen by many more people (especially if they are under 50), Watchmen.

It's 1985 and Watergate never happened. Richard Nixon is still U.S. president, having secured an unlimited term by unleashing a devastating new weapon to win the Vietnam War.

That weapon was a glowing blue man with infinite powers, who now doubts whether the world is worth saving, and he's just one of the dysfunctional masked heroes known as Watchmen.

Wait, so you mean that didn't really happen? The blue man was not Tobias Fünke of Arrested Development? Gotta bring it all back to home to the OC somehow, people. 

This past Tuesday night at the Edwards South Coast Village in Santa Ana, and an Orange County Film Society-sponsored advance screening of the new Gus Van Zant-directed, Sean Penn-starring Harvey Milk biopic, simply titled Milk.

Go ahead and Google the name if you must -- it's not like Harvey's story is getting taught in public schools -- but some background info is in order here. Harvey Milk was the first openly gay person to win an elected office in the United States, a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in 1978. Months after his election, he and then SF mayor George Moscone were shot and killed by Dan White, a troubled fellow supervisor who got elected on a family values platform.

Yeah, I'll just say it -- if White were still around today (he suicided in 1985; don't rest in peace), he would've voted Yes on Prop 8.

But back to the movie. I wondered going into this how Van Zant was going to present the then-raging controversy that surrounded Proposition 6, a statewide ballot initiative in 1978 that was chiefly sponsored by then-Fullerton state senator John Briggs. Lest you think the recently-passed Proposition 8 is extreme, Briggs' Prop 6 would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. Not only that, but it also called for the firing of all straight teachers who dared voice any support for their gay colleagues. Briggs' amendment was defeated---but not by much.

(See, this is why I've always thought it's a batshit-crazy idea to let the public make laws through the initiative process.)

OK, OK, back to the the movie for sure this time. So the theater is packed, and Denis O'Hare, the actor playing Briggs, is playing the part of Stereotypically Orange County Republican Conservative Christian Right-Wing Asshole to the hilt. There's a scene in which Penn (as Harvey) and his staff are hearing about Prop 6 for the first time, and they're about to decide what to do about it. What followed got the biggest laugh of the evening. Here's the exchange, lifted from the Milk script, which you can download yourself right here.

=====
ANNE KRONENBERG: Not great. State Senator John Briggs is Anita Bryant's go-to guy in California for sure. He's filed his petition for a statewide referendum to fire all gay teachers and anyone who supports them.

[A pall falls over the room. This is worse than expected.]

HARVEY MILK: How many signatures will he need to qualify for the ballot?

CLEVE JONES: Whatever. He can get them in two Sundays at church in Orange County.
=====

Cleve Jones, a longtime friend of Harvey's, is played by Emile Hirsch, but when Hirsch delivers the line in the film, he says "Orange Fucking County."

Later, there's a scene in which Briggs and Harvey are debating Prop 6, and the word FULLERTON flashes on the bottom the screen. I never knew there were Briggs/Harvey debates over Prop 6, much less one that happened here, on Briggs' home turf. (Wonder where the actual debate took place; I'm guessing Cal State Fullerton.)

The whole movie? Pretty great -- one I'll buy for sure, instead of just ripping a copy from my Netflix queue. Look for a full review in this Wednesday's Weekly (that's right -- we're out a day early on account of Thanksgiving), same day the film opens.

The makers of a new documentary called "Orgasmic Birth" promise that such a thing is possible when you give birth without drugs, wheelchairs and stirrups. The enigmatic (and not immediately obvious) sensual secrets of childbirth will be revealed at a screening of the film tonight in Laguna Niguel. If you're still not convinced, there will be a panel of doctors, midwives, mothers, doulas and the like after the film to chat about the many (orgasmic?) ways women can give birth but are never told about. The screening and panel are a fundraiser to help support the ongoing efforts of a group of parents and medical professionals, (known as the Community Alliance for Birth Options), who are trying to get OC hospitals to lift the embarrassingly tight lid they keep on midwife assisted hospital births (only two hospitals in the county currently allow midwives to deliver babies; see the OCW story here). Funds will also go to CABO's other venture: with midwife BJ Snell at its center, the group plans to open a free-standing birth center in December for women who want to give birth with a midwife in a medical setting. And maybe have an orgasm or two while they're at it.

Film screening details after the jump...

If you're anything like me, the exciting Hollywood blockbusters being released this summer may as well not bother, because you haven't a spare dime to spend seeing them. As the cost of living continues to rise, finding entertainment that's as cheap as possible becomes increasingly necessary and frankly, it's a lot to ask of the American public to spend what amounts to about three gallons of gas on a movie that may or may not be any good anyway. Thank heavens, then, for the internet, which not only offers a plethora of incredible entertainment but also provides mankind with the thrill of the hunt that we instinctively desire . . . but with Google instead of a bow and arrow.

This weekend, I recommend that everyone stay home and watch Ray Tintori's Death to the Tinman, available for free* right here: Death to the Tinman. Tintori adapts L. Frank Baum's story of the Tin Woodman in his Oz series, but keeps the basic framework of the story the same. Death to the Tinman tells the story of Bill, the "most hated man in a twenty mile radius," and his passionate love for Jane, daughter of the town pastor. The pastor, in an effort to keep Bill away from his daughter, asks God to put a curse on the axe Bill uses to chop wood. Bill loses both of his arms in the succeeding wood chopping accident, his legs in an industrial machine, and the rest of his body in a plane crash. His friend, an engineer, builds him a metal body to contain his heart and eyes, but the rest of Bill's body mysteriously reforms and leaves the morgue. Tin Bill rushes to see Jane, only to find that she has fallen in love with the eyeless, heartless version of himself. Tin Bill decides to win her back at any cost, and mayhem ensues.

Death to the Tinman contains more incredible shots and ideas in its twelve minutes than most feature films. Tintori uses stylistic elements of German Expressionism, silent cinema, late '50s Bergman, Guy Maddin, Terrence Malick, Wes Anderson, surrealist cinema . . . the list goes on. But rather than feeling like a too clever amalgam of everything one would learn in film school, Death to the Tinman adapts these influences to create something completely original and brilliant. Alternately hilarious and heartbreaking (and never less than completely beautiful to look at), the film should hopefully serve as Tintori's license to demand carte blanche on any future project in which he is involved. Prior to Tinman, Tintori made another excellent short called Jettison Your Loved Ones and recently, Tintori has directed some music videos for MGMT ("Time to Pretend" and "Electric Feel") and served as art director on Benh Zeitlin's short film Glory at Sea (trailer of which can be seen here . . . check that trademark Tintori feel!)

It's short, it's free, it's mind blowingly good. How many other things can you say that about nowadays?

Now that Obama has sewn up the Democratic nomination for Presidential candidate, he will begin to face the problem that all principled politicians have faced at one point or another. Stick to the idealistic viewpoints and policies in which they truly believe, though they may alienate a large portion of the electorate, or slide closer to the middle of the political spectrum for maximum voter appeal, but in the process abandon some of their cherished beliefs. Considering the fact that he's a Democrat, it's hard not to assume that he will begin to undercut all of his progressive views tout suite in an effort to prove that he's not a socialist bomb-throwing terrorist, as so many of his predecessors have done, generally to their disservice. Let's just hope that this time around, the Democratic party understands the purpose of presenting a truly alternative platform rather than just adopting their opponents' and adding in a few kind words about the environment. But it truly is a difficult dilemma. One of the drawbacks of the democratic process is that it frequently requires politicians to compromise and pander in an effort to earn the votes of frequently poorly informed or (let's not split hairs) willfully ignorant voters. After all, what good is having vision if you can't be elected to a position in which you can enact it. Whoever wrote "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" obviously never got to have his feet massaged in Air Force One.

Michael Ritchie's 1972 film The Candidate presents the story of attractive, young, politically progressive California politician Bill McKay. The son of a former governor, McKay is drafted into running for the office of senator against a popular Republican incumbent. Initially, no one believes McKay has a chance, including his own campaign staff, so he feels free to speak his mind, believing that no matter what he says, he will be unable to win. Deciding instead to merely stand up for his principles and forget about electability, McKay travels the state presenting his populist message to the voters. However, much to everyone's surprise, McKay begins to develop a following and as the gap between incumbent and challenger grows increasingly narrower, McKay begins to feel the pressure to compromise in order to win. Will Obama . . . er, McKay give in, make concessions to politics and become everything he always disliked?

Featuring tremendous performances by Robert Redford as McKay and Peter Boyle as the head of his campaign, The Candidate won Best Screenplay at the Academy Awards. With its proto-Aaron Sorkin plot line and its Altman-esque vibe, The Candidate is recommended viewing for anyone who wishes to understand more fully the realities of pragmatic politics.

I'm writing this while taking a break from a particularly arduous experimentation with Apple's iMovie '08 program. Despite being billed as extremely user friendly for the casual home filmmaker, I'm having a lot of trouble getting it to do things that I think should be pretty basic. Basically, I can't make heads or tails of it, which is ironic because I was trained on much more sophisticated editing software during my time in film school at an extremely prestigious public university, known for its highly selective admission policy, the industriousness of its student body and its rigorous academic standards—though I won't be so gauche as to mention its name here*.

Despite my ineptness, a quick glance around the internet shows that plenty of smarter people are making their own films. As the technology to do so grows cheaper and (allegedly) easier to use, the art form becomes democratized, which can be a bit of a mixed blessing. For every budding basement Bertolucci, there are a million unashamed Ed Woods (minus the historically contextualized charm), and as the haystack grows ever larger, the needle gets harder to find...but hey, better too much than too little, I suppose. However, it would be nice if more people would put a little planning into their work before slapping it up on YouTube for the world to see.

This is where filmmaker Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas, Internal Affairs, Timecode, et al) steps in. Figgis recently released a book, Digital Filmmaking, in which he offers a fascinating tutorial on the art of low-budget filmmaking. As the title implies, he is writing strictly for the digital video crowd, understanding that in this day and age, only the most ambitious and confident among us shoot their low budget movies on actual film. Figgis addresses nearly all basic aspects of low budget video production including equipment choice, technical tips, working with your actors, distribution and much more.

What sets Figgis' book apart from other similar manuals is his easy-to-digest conversational style, his frequent use of incidents throughout his own career as examples of what he is talking about and his excitement about the possibilities that the digital medium offers. The advent of any technology always generates some friction between the old guard set on keeping the status quo and those who would eagerly embrace the new. In the film industry (much the same as the music industry) there has been a debate for some time about the relative merits of the analog (film) versus the digital (video).

Working with actual film tends to be a much more difficult technical process, requiring an incredible amount of planning—before, during and after the shoot. It's prohibitively expensive, tremendously fickle and it can take countless hours to create the smallest piece of footage. Digital, on the other hand, is fast, cheap and forgiving. It needs less of pretty much everything than film does and the fact that it's so relatively inexpensive to use and that you can see what you've filmed immediately after you've filmed it means that you can shoot and shoot and shoot until you get it right, without having to worry about how much you're spending burning through your film.

Both media have their unique aesthetic qualities. Though the argument that film just plain looks better than digital is completely subjective (and frequently depends on how each format was shot), there is an undeniable visual difference between the two. What I admire about Figgis' book is his clear emphasis on the message over the medium. Regardless of with what media a story is created, the ultimate worth of the work lies in what it is about and how it's conveyed, not in the tools that were used to create it. Ideally, one would present their story with all the visual oomph it warrants (and the book definitely offers nuts-and-bolts tips to help you achieve this), but in the end, for Figgis, the story a film tells trumps the technical skill with which it is told. This is a refreshing breath of sanity in an industry that at times has seemed paralyzingly obsessed with whether or not the digital format is valid as a creative medium. You work with what you have and if you really have the drive to create and you have something worth telling, any noticeable technical limitations begin to decrease in importance. Great advice in this modern age of part-time teenage filmmakers and aspiring Hollywood-types alike. Buy this book and make your movie.

Digital Filmmaking by Mike Figgis; Faber and Faber. Paberback, 158 pages, $13.00.

*Though I will mention it down here. It was UC Santa Cruz, and yes, I graduated summa cum loaded, thank you very much.

Early critical reports on You Don't Mess With the Zohan haven't looked too good, though audiences will have the final say in the film's commercial success. The preview left me uninspired, which is a shame because it was co-written by comedy-man-of-the-hour Judd Apatow and borderline genius Robert Smigel. Then again, I haven't been much of a fan of Adam Sandler since I was sixteen. Sandler's career trajectory has been fascinating though. His early appearances on Saturday Night Live rubbed many critics the wrong way, due to his frequently infantile persona and the lack of subtlety in his performances. Slowly though, in spite of what the intelligentsia had to say, Sandler became one of the show's breakout stars, attracting a younger audience than the series had enjoyed in years. Infantile, yes. Unsubtle in his comedic focus, yes. But so was his fan base. His early films were also almost universally despised by critics, but thanks again to his devoted followers, they continued to make money and Sandler began appearing in bigger, more ambitious projects.
Unfortunately for me, something happened to his films post-Wedding Singer. They stopped making me laugh. I could chalk this up to my getting older, but frankly, I still find much to enjoy in his first two films, Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. The comedy is far more abstract, odd (and in a way, charmingly gentle) in these works than in his more recent oeuvre. Sandler's humor seemed to increasingly move out of the pre-school and into the frat-house, and it was this loss of innocence that changed the humor.
What is interesting to note is that the random, surreal, idolization of the man-child humor of his early works that critics found so distasteful has (with a little more focus and depth) become de rigeur in the modern adult comedy as typified by Apatow and his associates. Sandler's cinematic persona was just a new twist on an old comedic trope. The idiot with a heart of gold has been a sturdy cinematic character since the creation of the form, from Stan Laurel to Jerry Lewis to Steve Martin to Sandler to Will Ferrell and beyond. But it was Sandler's taste for the non sequitur that gave mainstream film comedy a shot in the arm (the frequent appearance, in Billy Madison, of a giant penguin that antagonizes Sandler for seemingly no reason, for example). Like many "artists" (though the snob in me cringes at the application of the word here), Sandler's innovations went initially unappreciated by the critical community at large. But when viewed retrospectively, one can see the seeds of much of what is currently beloved by comedy fans...and in that sense, his first two films can be appreciated as visionary. So, if You Don't Mess With the Zohan doesn't sound like it's worth your money, try watching Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore again with a fresh perspective and see if they don't charm a little more now than they did initially.

So they finally coaxed me out of the ivory tower that is the Calendar Dept. and convinced me to blog. Okay, first thing's first. A moment of silence for Harvey Korman. Blazing Saddles is playing this Wednesday at the Regency South Coast Village. Go see it and be reminded of the man's brilliance.

My film pick of the weekend is definitely not Sex and the City. Haven't seen it, and, merciful God willing, I won't ever have to. Lest you assume my opinion is based on some kind of willful ignorance, I will tell you that having spent two years with a roommate for whom the show was a guilty pleasure, I have watched my fair share of episodes. I'll let the highly paid critics tell you why the movie is bad, but let me just point out how annoying it is that Carrie Bradshaw, ostensibly a "sex" columnist, is constantly having her mind blown by the most basic of kinks. "A foot fetish? Well, I mean, I've read about that in books, but I thought it was just a legend!" Compare this to the borderline unflappable Dan Savage, who I am reasonably sure is familiar with nearly every facet of human sexuality and has even added a few descriptive words to our sexual lexicon.

So, it was a silly show, and it's allegedly a silly movie (though if you want to hear some real hating, ask me about Entourage) but I won't deny that, at times, it had its charms—mainly thanks to the show's stars: Sarah Jessica Parker, Cynthia Nixon, Kim Cattrall and Kristin Davis. But wouldn't it be nice to be able to see these appealing stars in far more interesting vehicles? Well, thanks to the magic of DVD rental, you can!

Film pick of the weekend comes early this week, because when weekends go long, the movies open sooner. And we all know what you're going to go see at midnight tonight.

I call it INDIANA JONES AND THE KICKING OF YOUR CRYSTAL ASS.

(Don't tell me that "crystal ass" makes no sense. If Echo and the Bunnymen can sing about shattering your crystal heart, I can move the metaphor to other regions of the body.)

[EDIT: A friend posing as an anonymous reader informed me via my personal blog that the Echo and the Bunnymen lyric I'm thinking of actually says "brittle heart." He's right, and I've been singing it wrong for over 20 years, it seems.]

First, a warning: If you're one of those people who gets all huffy the instant you suspect anything onscreen might be computer-generated -- don't go. If you're one of those people, yet you liked SPEED RACER...you're either a hypocrite or an inveterate George Lucas-basher. And don't get me wrong, Lucas deserves some of the bashing he's taken, especially as regards changing his older movies with CG that doesn't fit. But as far as I'm concerned, he and Steven Spielberg have earned back a lot of goodwill with this one. It's the only Spielberg movie in over a decade that actually ends when it's supposed to.

Chronic-what?

You know what I'm saying. There's really only one choice this weekend, like it or not (I'll probably be saying that a lot in the weeks to come). So yeah, PRINCE CASPIAN is here. And it's no secret that the book is the lamest of the Narnia books. Basically all that happens in it is that the four kids from the last story get summoned back to Narnia by Susan's magic horn, they walk around in the woods for a while, meet a prickly dwarf named Trumpkin who tells them the story of Prince Caspian, then they run into Prince Caspian, then his evil uncle Miraz shows up and Peter fights him. The end.

Not exactly a cinematic structure, that. So director Andrew Adamson had a bit more of a challenge on his hands here. Adapting THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE faithfully worked out well, but CASPIAN needs some tweaking. And tweak he does: the story begins in Narnia with the borth of Lord Miraz' son, giving him the leeway to kill nephew Caspian, who then flees to the forests of Narnia. Now, it turns out that Caspian and Miraz are both part of a race called Telemarines, who are basically Conquistadors that invaded Narnia some years back (1300 years have passed since the last movie), but Caspian is pretty much the only one of them who's any good. It has been believed that Narnia's fairy-tale creatures were purged -- making Miraz essentially the equivalent of Lord Farquad from SHREK, a previous Adamson film -- but Caspian soon finds out otherwise, when he encounters a pair of dwarfs, one being the aforementioned Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage, who should never be asked to fake an accent, EVER; he cannot do it, and LASSIE should have proven that fact definitively) and the other being borderline evil Nikabrik (Warwick Davis, embodying the hypothetical offspring of Willow and Leprechaun).

I'm sure you're all going to SPEED RACER. I probably will at some point too. But I have to say that after watching the first seven minutes online, I'm really less than enthused.

The idea of a Speed Racer movie has always struck me as the sort of thing you'd see in some kind of parody movie about the film industry, something Griffin Mill or the cast of FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION would greenlight, as a commentary on how sad blockbusters have become. Realistically, folks, the cartoon was poorly animated, badly dubbed, and as such mostly insufferable except as a curiosity. Nonetheless, the Wachowski siblings appear to have thrown themselves headlong into the task of making it as strange an experience as possible, and since it looks like every review out there references some kind of colorful candy or breakfast cereal brand, I'll refrain from doing so and say that it looks like a good-sized post-birthday party puke.

But there's another visual feast opening this weekend, and that's my real pick: Tarsem Singh's THE FALL. I know there were problems with his first major movie THE CELL, but I truly believe they were part and parcel of the New Line brass at the time. It didn't seem like coincidence that THE CELL, DARK CITY, and SPAWN all came out within a short window, and all had killer visuals but were hampered with a story that felt the need to explain itself again and again via gratuitous expository dialogue.

Tarsem's newest is more independent, a labor of love shot all over the world over the course of four years. Still looks to have amazing visuals, though. Here, just see for yourself:

There's really only one, isn't there?

I mean, sure, if you live near an L.A. art-house theater, you can and should go see SON OF RAMBOW, unless you already caught it at the Newport Beach fest. But I don't need to tell you what the main movie to see this weekend is.

[Adopting Beavis and Butt-head voice and clutching air guitar] DUH, DUH, DUDUDUH! DUDUDUDUDUDUH DUH DUHDUH DUH!

Okay, some things don't translate so well to the printed word. But that's the riff from IRON MAN.

I'd love to review the movie for you right here and now...but I was at the film festival all weekend and didn't have time to see it. I wonder if it'll be playing anywhere nearby?

[That's a joke. Obviously it's playing everywhere]

While I am somewhat sick of superhero origin movies, I am a big fan of the directing skills of Jon Favreau. ELF is the only recent Christmas film that merits incorporation into the grand pantheon of cinematic holiday classics, and ZATHURA is children's sci-fi at its best (though it is somewhat scary for littler ones—my brothers were creeped out by the carnivorous aliens).

Now, take Favreau, and give him Robert Downey Jr. to work with, and if it's anything less than magic one can only assume that they had a whole lot of bad days. I can't imagine them misstepping.

Unless they don't use the Black Sabbath song at all, that is.

Dual picks today, because I have the sense to recognize when my personal taste is likely to diverge from yours.

First, PATHOLOGY, in which Crank creators "Neveldine & Taylor," who apparently no longer require the luxury of first names, script a tale of deranged young doctors in the L.A. coroner’s office who test each other to come up with ever-more elaborate murders in hopes of stumping their colleagues as to the cause of death. The duo bring their crazed, anything-goes sensibility to the table, but aren’t a perfect match with German director Marc Schoelermann, who seems to like his horror more brooding and artsy.

So while our main characters engage in plenty of gratuitous sex, violence, and combinations of both, Schoelermann will be damned if he lets his main character, the rather obviously named Dr. Grey (Milo Ventimiglia), look like he’s enjoying a second of it. As the new kid who gets swept up in all the madness, Ventimigilia is morose from the start and not exactly the portrait of seduced innocence this story really needs. Nonetheless, when a movie opens with the diner scene from When Harry Met Sally as performed by cadavers, and later proceeds to sex scenes involving scalpels and needles, the actual plot becomes inconsequential. Fans of hard-R exploitation will love this; everyone else will likely be appalled. Screw ‘em.

I realize that may not be the masses' cup of tea, so allow me to also suggest the more family friendly FORBIDDEN KINGDOM. When I first heard that Jackie Chan and Jet Li would be doing a movie together, I was excited. Then when I heard it would be directed by the Stuart Little guy and star a dopey white kid, my heart sank. I mean, I enjoyed Warriors of Virtue as much as anybody (dopey white kid plus kung-fu kangaroos), but I expect more from Jet and Jackie.

Then I saw the movie, and it's pretty decent. The set-up, in which said dumb kid finds a magic staff that transports him back to ancient China, is very '80s. The rest is just a story that seems to be made up as it goes along, involving lots of fights, including one between Jackie and Jet that's the equivalent of so many Marvel superhero battles: the big names have a misunderstanding, then battle to an effective draw before teaming up against the real menace (Collin Chou).

Also Jet pisses in Jackie's face at one point. That's just weird, and a little fetishistic. But arguably no more so than rubber nipples on Batman.

All told, it's a fairly kickass kung-fu flick for kids. Bloodless, but just make sure your young 'uns are past the stage of copying all the moves they see.

STREET KINGS

I'm not sure STREET KINGS will be a big popular hit. The public likes people to root for: heroes and villains, not a whole cast of morally compromised individuals. But if you're like me and groove on contemporary South Central crime dramas where the cops are bad and the crooks often even worse, this is the one. I should note that I'm already a fan of David Ayer, screenwriter of TRAINING DAY and director of HARSH TIMES (the only flaw in that one was that its ending was so inevitable). I also like Keanu Reeves when he's used in the right way (hint: don't ask him to do Shakespeare). Here he is, and he even goes light on the makeup to make his skin look kinda scarred and blotchy.

Reeves plays alkie Tom Ludlow, whose booze of choice is airplane-size bottles of vodka, ostensibly because they can't be smelled on the breath, is a star officer in the precinct of Captain Wander (Forest Whitaker, doing his best Denzel impersonation). But internal affairs are on his case, and his ex-partner Terrence (Terry Crewes) might be about to turn rat. But before Ludlow can have it out with his former pal, the latter is killed by apparent gangbangers. As Ludlow tries to catch the perps, he starts to realize that maybe it wasn't an accident or coincidence (ya think?)

The brilliance of Ayer's work here is that he knows we action-junkies will accept a degree of vigilante justice onscreen, even if, like me, we're bleeding hearts in reality. So when things kick off with Keanu busting in on a crime ring, shooting the bad guys in cold blood, and fudging the evidence, it's kind of okay, because it's made very clear that these guys were torturing and raping underage girls whom they locked in a hidden cage. So you watch this and go, "Well maybe sometimes it is okay to have a little police brutality. Necessary evil and all that."

You go along with that. But then Ayer keeps upping the ante, to the point where finally you go, "Okay, NOW this shit they're doing is definitely unacceptable." But you missed the point where a line was specifically crossed -- Ayer has gotten you so used to different hues of gray that it wasn't clear when they turned black.

On a minor note, I like that Cedric the Entertainer is billed here with "the Entertainer" in quotes, which is how I've always imagined it anyway. Though I will say he's decent in small dramatic roles, and I hope he keeps at those and away from broad "comedies."

For the first time in many weeks, there's actually a movie I'm excited to see this weekend. And I probably won't get to it because I'm busy cramming for the Newport Beach fest. But I ain't gonna lie, I really do want to see THE RUINS.

I know what you're thinking, that this is just another SHUTTER or ONE MISSED CALL or any of those other crappy "horror" movies that haven't screened in time for review and I've ended up covering. But I'm thinking not, and here's why;

1. It's rated R. Those other ones were all pandering PG-13. If a movie is rated R and doesn't screen, it has a chance of being good (see also CRANK, SAW III).

2. It's based on a book. In horror movie code, that means "might have a script that's slightly above stupid."

3. It has decent actors in it, namely Jena Malone from DONNIE DARKO, and Shawn Ashmore from the X-MEN movies. Malone in particular doesn't usually do mindless garbage, and Ashmore probably has enough action figure residuals that he doesn't have to do stuff he doesn't like.

4. It's about killer vines getting all under your skin and stuff. Sounds high-concept, but this kind of thing actually happens, sort of.

5. Fangoria's Michael Gingold gave it a good review. And he didn't like any of those other non-screening movies I mentioned.

So I'm looking forward to it, at some point in the future when I have free time. You guys need to go see it now so it'll do well enough to still be in theaters by the time that free time of mine comes around. it is your duty as my disciples. Thank you.

If you read my entry a few posts down, you know it isn't going to be SUPERHERO MOVIE (mark my words, eventually someone will put out a film entitled PARODY MOVIE, and it will still suck, but in a really postmodern kind of way).

So, what to pick this weekend? 21 or STOP LOSS? Because those are really you're only choices unless you want to drive out of county and see AMERICAN ZOMBIE or something like that (better yet, go see THE ROOM Saturday midnight at the Sunset 5. It's been running there for four years now, and is a must-attend for any cinemaniac at some point).

I'm stalling because it's hard to make a pick. But I'm going to go with STOP LOSS. And not just because it's Kimberly Peirce's follow-up to BOYS DON'T CRY, though that's a good reason. It's also because 21 sounds lame -- it stars a white guy playing a person who was actually Asian.

But here's another thing I dig about STOP LOSS, and which will make for some really genius Youtube mash-ups a year or so from now: It stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Channing Tatum as army buddies.

Geeks know where I'm going with this. There's a big blockbuster movie set for next year that also stars Tatum and Gordon-Levitt as army buddies who have a major falling out.

It's called G.I. JOE. And they're playing Duke and Cobra Commander, respectively.

Think of this as the prequel.

FLASH POINT

This is, admittedly, a slightly qualified pick. I wanted to pick DOOMSDAY, but the fact that it didn't screen for review even to the geek websites is a really bad sign. As is the fact that it stars Rhona Mitra. And that Malcolm McDowell seems to have been removed from all advertising materials -- was he embarrassed?

I'd also like to be able to pick HORTON HEARS A WHO, but I just have this sinking feeling that Dr. Seuss has been Shrekified, and that would make me sad. The downside potential is just too great for me to risk my meager reputation in recommending it to you.

So, FLASH POINT. This one is a bit of a challenge to write about, because I'm pretty certain that the character names as seen on the movie's subtitles are not all the same names that the credits and press materials have. Louis Koo's character, on the official website, is called "Wilson." Not so in the movie -- I could've sworn it was something like "Ha Neung." And I remember quite specifically one of the villains in the movie was called "A Hu," which I thought was funny because he's an A-hole, but the site says he's "Tiger."

Twofold pick this week.

If you're not yet caught up on the Oscar nominees for Best Picture, then the AMC quintuple-feature of all of them is the best deal in town, tomorrow at 11 a.m., at The Block in Orange as well as a couple of other area multiplexes. Thirty bucks, with in-and-out privileges, and all-you-can-eat popcorn. I may have mixed feelings on the merits, overstated or otherwise, of some of these films, but all are ultimately worth seeing.

If that bores you, then I recommend THE SIGNAL. I'm not going to give a full review here, as the version I've seen was a festival version that has since been recut, though judging by the reviews I've read, one of my most nagging issues with the film -- an intro that appears to bear no relation to the rest of the story -- has been fixed and fully integrated. I'm glad to hear it, because even with that nit-pick, the movie was without a doubt one of the best I saw last year, and the first strong contender this year for any future best-of list.

Directed by three different people, THE SIGNAL is more cohesive than you'd expect. The premise is simple: All televisions, monitors, computers, etc. start broadcasting a hypnotic signal that brings out the craziest, most homicidal side of anyone who watches it. Some people show the signs more overtly than others, and the mid-section of the film, veers into very dark comedy as a particular group's derangement manifests itself in a bizarre forced normality, proceeding with a dinner party even as the world ends outside.

It's hard to go into more detail since it's been a while since I've seen it. But I can't wait to see it again. Nor should you.

THE SPIDERWICK CHRONICLES

Spiderwick, Spiderwick, does whatever a Spiderwick does...

“And what exactly might that be?” I hear you inquire.

In short: Entertain. THE SPIDERWICK CHRONICLES, aside from its blatant CG, is a charming throwback to all those Spielberg-produced kid movies of the '80s. Its kids feel real, there's danger but not too much. And just enough sentiment to make you feel, but not so much you'll feel manipulated.

Most impressive of all, perhaps, is that it features Martin Short voicing a computer-generated character who somehow manages not to be annoying, and a better-than-adequate dual performance by the previously insufferable English kid Freddie Highmore (of undeserved FINDING NEVERLAND acclaim) as identical American twins, moody Jared Grace and his nerdy bro Simon. Their older sister Mallory is played by Irish actress Sarah Bolger (IN AMERICA), who also pulls off the American thing believably. (How come we're letting all these aliens steal work from American child actors, huh? Oh, right, American child actors tend to be unbearably cutesy.)

IN BRUGES

I'm slightly bummed. A new Colin Farrell action-comedy opened today, but not at The Block, so no midnight screening was to be had. Guess I'll have to find some other time that works, when the kiddies (mostly) won't be out in force.

Anyway, in case you haven't heard about this movie, don't be fooled by the title into thinking it's some kind of art-house flick. It's Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson hiding out in Bruges, which is a European town where my grandfather was once held as a German POW (yep, really). And they're both doing they're natural Irish accents for once, and talking shit, cursing a mile a minute like real Irishmen do.

Just like in the Harry Potter movies, Gleeson must help his young charge to defeat Ralph Fiennes, which is always a worthy goal, since Fiennes mostly sucks. But he's best as a villain -- so long as he doesn't do that high-pitched Voldemort whine that's supposed to be frightening but sounds girlish -- so there's hope for the man.

I hear there's midgets in this movie too. And Farrell karate-chops one of them. Enough said.

CLOVERFIELD

Since many people are asking what exactly “Cloverfield” means in the context of the movie, let's deal with that right of the bat – it doesn't mean anything. It wasn't even supposed to be the film's real title initially, just a red herring to throw people off track named after one of the streets near producer J.J. Abrams' West L.A. Office. But once the buzz began following the untitled trailer in front of Transformers, that was the name that stuck – its only reference in the movie comes at the beginning when we are told that what we are about to see is footage dealing with a military case designated with that code name, found in “the area formerly known as Central Park.” That gets a laugh – one of the film's few.

Our sister publications LA Weekly and Village Voice just published their annual, massive film critics' poll for 2007, which includes 102 of the nation's critics, some of whom you know and some you don't, though all of the critics you regularly read in our paper are included. (My own page in the poll is HERE.)

Topping the list are the usual faves: THERE WILL BE BLOOD, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, etc. But further down the list you get to more eccentric choices -- NORBIT? Comedy is highly subjective, I suppose; I put HOT ROD on my list, after all. And I have to give mad props to whoever voted for "Meatwad" as Best Supporting Actor for his role in the Aqua Teen Hunger Force Movie (were there an award for best poster, that would have to take it too). SOUTHLAND TALES is loved and hated, but it's interesting to note that most of its strongest supporters don't actually live in the Southland.

The Worst list is where things get interesting. I hate when readers impugn motives without evidence, so I don't want to do it too much here, but it's notable that almost every highly acclaimed movie of '07 is on the Worst list somewhere. I understand visceral reactions to polemics like REDACTED (though I liked it) or even the "cranky critic" reaction against FX-heavy flicks like 300 and TRANSFORMERS. But when titles like JUNO and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN make the list, it feels like the choice is simply to spite one's peers, a reactive move prompted by them being chosen as #1 elsewhere -- I confess, I was tempted to vote for THERE WILL BE BLOOD just because I'm tired of it winning everything and being excessively compared to Welles and Kubrick (oh, how it wants to be them, but it ain't), but it has a lot of merits despite its flaws.

But really, there are things one can reasonably dislike about a movie like JUNO; but...worse than EPIC MOVIE? Worse than BRATZ? THE MESSENGERS? There may be an element here of critics with a certain degree of power choosing not to have seen those movies in the first place. Or the idea that such films aren't even worthy of bashing.

What do I know, though. I liked SHOOT 'EM UP.

I'll be seeing ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM on the 25th, but in the meantime, we have a real gem opening today...

ROMANCE AND CIGARETTES

It's been on the shelf for almost three years – lost in the shuffle when MGM was sold to Sony – but don't let that scare you.

It's a musical – but try not to let that scare you either. I'll admit I'm not the biggest fan of musicals; like many a straight guy, I learned to appreciate the form primarily from Trey Parker. Comedies that are already inherently absurd make more sense with musical numbers, as do Disney fantasies – it's when a movie is serious and musical that it's harder for me to like. CHICAGO, let's face it, was a gay man's conception of what a straight guy ought to find sexy. RENT I'm not gonna touch. HAIRSPRAY – totally not my thing. For me, musicals work on stage in a way that they can't onscreen, because the experience is akin to a live concert, and concerts don't generally translate well to the big screen either.