1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/13/05 4:00am)
Have you ever been in that conversation where someone is ranting on about how movie adaptations of books are never as good as the original? These people are all around and make up a general population of people who seem to have some moral hatred of seeing a movie based on a book.\nSome may believe that film is a poor excuse for people not to read, and that those who watch movies before reading the book are taking the easy way out. Others may disagree with this idea, instead believing that there is just a real lack of successful page-to-screen adaptations, arguing that movies often aren't true to the book. In my opinion these people need to open their eyes.\nThe fact is a majority of the films being released today, as well as from the past, are adaptations of pieces of writing. Whether from novels, plays, short stories or even poems, people have been adding sound and vision to written stories since the creation of motion pictures.\nI bring this topic up because as we enter the post-summer, pre-holiday/Oscar season rush of films, I've noticed that many upcoming releases are retellings of books. Some may in fact live up to that age-old argument favoring print to film, however some may go down in history as masterpieces.\nTake for example last month's extremely well-crafted masterpiece, "The Constant Gardner," which was adapted from the John Le Carré bestselling novel of the same name. Here's an amazing story that works perfectly for the big screen, and that, although was a bestseller, was probably fairly unknown by the general public prior to its release. \nOther film adaptations this year are Roman Polanski's retelling of Charles Dickens classic "Oliver Twist" (this will be the 17th adaptation to film or TV of this story, and yes Disney's "Oliver and Company" does count), the first part of C.S. Lewis' successful "Chronicles of Narnia" series of books, the fourth Harry Potter book "The Goblet of Fire" (volumes five and six have 2007/8 release slots), Rob Marshall's take on "Memoirs of a Geisha" and Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain," which was taken from a short story written by author Annie Proulx. One I am definitely anticipating is the film based on Hunter S. Thompson's highly underrated, semi-autobiographical novel "The Rum Diary," set for a 2006 release.\nSo with all these titles coming out, and many more to come, the question that comes to mind is: why film adaptations? What do these books have that others don't? The answer, in my opinion, is that they all tell unique stories.\nWhat do you think was running through Francis Ford Coppola's head when he first read Mario Puzo's "Godfather Trilogy" or S.E. Hinton's "The Outsiders?" Or when Milos Forman decided to take on Ken Kesey's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?" The answer, I think, is they both envisioned telling these wonderful stories using film. \nI find it amazing when a truly good book is brought to life on the big screen, but I'm equally impressed when a film is so good that it inspires me to seek out and read the book (don't believe me, try reading Thomas Harris' "The Silence of the Lambs" or Hubert Selby Jr.'s "Requiem for a Dream," both incredible books that are rewarding, even after viewing the films.)\nSometimes I even find myself reading a book and just envisioning how well it would work on film. A recent example of this for me was Cormack McCarthy's latest novel, "No Country For Old Men," which I indulged in this summer. For those unfamiliar with McCarthy's work, he, in my opinion, is one of the better American writers working today. His stories are rich with detail, fascinating characters and a sumptuous attraction to history. \nWhile I feel all of his works I have read could be adapted, "No Country For Old Men" is one of those books that is just aching to be put on the big screen. I bring up this example not only because I think McCarthy is a brilliant writer, but also because according to www.imdb.com the Coen Brothers ("Fargo," "Blood Simple") announced they are taking the helm of "NCFOM" for a 2007 release date. I must say the movie geek in me came out full force with this tasty tidbit of information.\nNow with this column I'm in no way saying that print is dead and that film is the future of storytelling. The feeling I get after reading a truly remarkable book can sometimes never be replaced by the movie-going experience, but I think film can create a world and emotion that are sometimes so vivid and beautiful that you hate your imagination for not taking you there before.
(10/13/05 3:23am)
Have you ever been in that conversation where someone is ranting on about how movie adaptations of books are never as good as the original? These people are all around and make up a general population of people who seem to have some moral hatred of seeing a movie based on a book.\nSome may believe that film is a poor excuse for people not to read, and that those who watch movies before reading the book are taking the easy way out. Others may disagree with this idea, instead believing that there is just a real lack of successful page-to-screen adaptations, arguing that movies often aren't true to the book. In my opinion these people need to open their eyes.\nThe fact is a majority of the films being released today, as well as from the past, are adaptations of pieces of writing. Whether from novels, plays, short stories or even poems, people have been adding sound and vision to written stories since the creation of motion pictures.\nI bring this topic up because as we enter the post-summer, pre-holiday/Oscar season rush of films, I've noticed that many upcoming releases are retellings of books. Some may in fact live up to that age-old argument favoring print to film, however some may go down in history as masterpieces.\nTake for example last month's extremely well-crafted masterpiece, "The Constant Gardner," which was adapted from the John Le Carré bestselling novel of the same name. Here's an amazing story that works perfectly for the big screen, and that, although was a bestseller, was probably fairly unknown by the general public prior to its release. \nOther film adaptations this year are Roman Polanski's retelling of Charles Dickens classic "Oliver Twist" (this will be the 17th adaptation to film or TV of this story, and yes Disney's "Oliver and Company" does count), the first part of C.S. Lewis' successful "Chronicles of Narnia" series of books, the fourth Harry Potter book "The Goblet of Fire" (volumes five and six have 2007/8 release slots), Rob Marshall's take on "Memoirs of a Geisha" and Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain," which was taken from a short story written by author Annie Proulx. One I am definitely anticipating is the film based on Hunter S. Thompson's highly underrated, semi-autobiographical novel "The Rum Diary," set for a 2006 release.\nSo with all these titles coming out, and many more to come, the question that comes to mind is: why film adaptations? What do these books have that others don't? The answer, in my opinion, is that they all tell unique stories.\nWhat do you think was running through Francis Ford Coppola's head when he first read Mario Puzo's "Godfather Trilogy" or S.E. Hinton's "The Outsiders?" Or when Milos Forman decided to take on Ken Kesey's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?" The answer, I think, is they both envisioned telling these wonderful stories using film. \nI find it amazing when a truly good book is brought to life on the big screen, but I'm equally impressed when a film is so good that it inspires me to seek out and read the book (don't believe me, try reading Thomas Harris' "The Silence of the Lambs" or Hubert Selby Jr.'s "Requiem for a Dream," both incredible books that are rewarding, even after viewing the films.)\nSometimes I even find myself reading a book and just envisioning how well it would work on film. A recent example of this for me was Cormack McCarthy's latest novel, "No Country For Old Men," which I indulged in this summer. For those unfamiliar with McCarthy's work, he, in my opinion, is one of the better American writers working today. His stories are rich with detail, fascinating characters and a sumptuous attraction to history. \nWhile I feel all of his works I have read could be adapted, "No Country For Old Men" is one of those books that is just aching to be put on the big screen. I bring up this example not only because I think McCarthy is a brilliant writer, but also because according to www.imdb.com the Coen Brothers ("Fargo," "Blood Simple") announced they are taking the helm of "NCFOM" for a 2007 release date. I must say the movie geek in me came out full force with this tasty tidbit of information.\nNow with this column I'm in no way saying that print is dead and that film is the future of storytelling. The feeling I get after reading a truly remarkable book can sometimes never be replaced by the movie-going experience, but I think film can create a world and emotion that are sometimes so vivid and beautiful that you hate your imagination for not taking you there before.
(10/06/05 4:00am)
While leaving the theater after "A History of Violence" it was apparent to me this film is going to create division with its audience. Some may deem it overly violent and pointless trash. Others may call it a modern-day masterpiece, and some may even leave the theater unsure of how to feel. In my opinion, this illustrates that director David Cronenberg ("Dead Ringers," "The Fly") succeeded with this film, which, like so many of his works, sets out to leave us thinking.\n"A History of Violence" stars Viggo Mortensen ("The Lord of the Rings" trilogy) as Tom Stall, a family man with a simple life in a simple town (the fictional Millbrook, Indiana). He runs a small café, has a beautiful wife and two kids, owns a nice quiet farm home and seems happy. \nStall's straightforward, routine life is disturbed one evening when two "out-of-towners" come into the restaurant with guns demanding money and threatening the lives of the employees and customers. With a gun pointed at his head and a coworker about to be brutally murdered, Stall, acting on instinct, disarms and shoots both men in the blink of an eye. \nThe shooting makes both local and national news. Stall is hailed a local hero and gains the support of the whole town.\nOne day at the restaurant, Stall is greeted by three tough looking suits with thick Philadelphia accents. The apparent boss in the group, Carl Fogarty, played wonderfully by Ed Harris ("Pollack," "A Beautiful Mind"), starts asking Stall questions about his heroic act -- except he refers to Stall as Joey. Stall tries to correct him, saying that his name is Tom Stall, but Fogarty is convinced that he is "Crazy Joey Cusack" from Philly. \nAs the days go by, Stall continues to see Fogarty, often in his sinister black sedan, and is eventually informed by the town sheriff that Fogarty is part of the Philadelphia mob scene and is not someone to be associated with. Do these men really know Tom? Are there skeletons in Tom's closet that his family is unaware of?\nAt times "A History of Violence" seems to take its cues from films like the Cohen Brothers' "Fargo," or David Lynch's "Blue Velvet," which all set out to show the evils lurking in small town America. The dialogue during this film is, at times, corny and will obviously be scorned by some audience members, but this level of campiness is no doubt intentional, creating the feeling of a peaceful and normal environment erupting into violence. \nCronenberg, like Lynch, is a master of creating bizarre worlds for his characters. The use of gory violence, the weird music score and the underlying level of chaos that builds as the film progresses are all pure Cronenberg traits that help create a feeling of unexpected violence. \nThough there are some scenes and characters that could have been handled differently, "A History of Violence" is a very good film that, again, may not be for everyone. The acting is solid (Mortensen proves he can do more than play King), the look and feel is unique and it may leave you wondering about human nature and what happens when a dark past catches up to you.
(10/06/05 1:30am)
While leaving the theater after "A History of Violence" it was apparent to me this film is going to create division with its audience. Some may deem it overly violent and pointless trash. Others may call it a modern-day masterpiece, and some may even leave the theater unsure of how to feel. In my opinion, this illustrates that director David Cronenberg ("Dead Ringers," "The Fly") succeeded with this film, which, like so many of his works, sets out to leave us thinking.\n"A History of Violence" stars Viggo Mortensen ("The Lord of the Rings" trilogy) as Tom Stall, a family man with a simple life in a simple town (the fictional Millbrook, Indiana). He runs a small café, has a beautiful wife and two kids, owns a nice quiet farm home and seems happy. \nStall's straightforward, routine life is disturbed one evening when two "out-of-towners" come into the restaurant with guns demanding money and threatening the lives of the employees and customers. With a gun pointed at his head and a coworker about to be brutally murdered, Stall, acting on instinct, disarms and shoots both men in the blink of an eye. \nThe shooting makes both local and national news. Stall is hailed a local hero and gains the support of the whole town.\nOne day at the restaurant, Stall is greeted by three tough looking suits with thick Philadelphia accents. The apparent boss in the group, Carl Fogarty, played wonderfully by Ed Harris ("Pollack," "A Beautiful Mind"), starts asking Stall questions about his heroic act -- except he refers to Stall as Joey. Stall tries to correct him, saying that his name is Tom Stall, but Fogarty is convinced that he is "Crazy Joey Cusack" from Philly. \nAs the days go by, Stall continues to see Fogarty, often in his sinister black sedan, and is eventually informed by the town sheriff that Fogarty is part of the Philadelphia mob scene and is not someone to be associated with. Do these men really know Tom? Are there skeletons in Tom's closet that his family is unaware of?\nAt times "A History of Violence" seems to take its cues from films like the Cohen Brothers' "Fargo," or David Lynch's "Blue Velvet," which all set out to show the evils lurking in small town America. The dialogue during this film is, at times, corny and will obviously be scorned by some audience members, but this level of campiness is no doubt intentional, creating the feeling of a peaceful and normal environment erupting into violence. \nCronenberg, like Lynch, is a master of creating bizarre worlds for his characters. The use of gory violence, the weird music score and the underlying level of chaos that builds as the film progresses are all pure Cronenberg traits that help create a feeling of unexpected violence. \nThough there are some scenes and characters that could have been handled differently, "A History of Violence" is a very good film that, again, may not be for everyone. The acting is solid (Mortensen proves he can do more than play King), the look and feel is unique and it may leave you wondering about human nature and what happens when a dark past catches up to you.
(09/29/05 4:00am)
To say that Tim Burton's "Corpse Bride" is nothing more than a follow up to his cult classic "The Nightmare Before Christmas" would be unfair. While both films were created using stop-motion technology (claymation for most people), feature macabre characters, themes and songs and are laced with tons of Burton's signature touches, "Corpse Bride" is ultimately a unique love story that stands on its own quite well.\n"Corpse Bride" tells the story of Victor Van Dort (voiced by Burton muse Johnny Depp), a young son of a fish monger who is set to marry a woman, Victoria Everglot (Emily Watson), who he has never met. The film opens with the two families meeting for the rehearsal ceremony. The Van Dorts are happy their son is finally marrying, while the Everglot's interest lies solely in the groom's money which, if their plans go correctly, will carry them out of debt and back into a bourgeoisie lifestyle. \nDuring the rehearsal Victor is a nervous wreck, fumbling with his vows, finding it hard to look into the eyes of his new bride and almost burning down the ceremony with a candle. Pastor Galswells, voiced wonderfully by the always creepy Christopher Lee, who will conduct the wedding, gives Victor 24 hours to get his act together.\nIn an attempt to nail his vows and convince himself that marriage is not all that bad, Victor hikes out to the woods where he can gather his thoughts. There, while practicing the wedding ring placement, Victor accidentally resurrects the Corpse Bride who, upon rising from the grave, says "I do," thus leaving Victor with two brides to deal with. \nAfter a failed attempt to flee the scene, Victor is taken down below mortal earth to the resting place of all the dead from the area. While there he meets a number of wonderful characters, all either corpses or skeletons, and he learns the story of the Corpse Bride.\nThe scenes in the "underworld" are pure Burton and are some of the best in the movie with wonderful songs, incredible attention to detail and sets that bring to mind earlier films like "Beetlejuice" and "Edward Scissorhands." Burton's wife, Helena Bonham Carter, who seems to be Burton's new muse, voices the Corpse Bride (whose real name is Emily) and brings a lot of emotion and humanity to the character. \n"The Corpse Bride" is one of those films that truly shows the grand expanse of Tim Burton's creativity and uniqueness. The characters and story were based off his own visions, the visuals were obviously made with care and extreme detail, there is a wonderful hint of a love story mixed in and the film as a whole comes across more as a 76-minute work of art than a typical Hollywood vehicle.
(09/29/05 12:20am)
To say that Tim Burton's "Corpse Bride" is nothing more than a follow up to his cult classic "The Nightmare Before Christmas" would be unfair. While both films were created using stop-motion technology (claymation for most people), feature macabre characters, themes and songs and are laced with tons of Burton's signature touches, "Corpse Bride" is ultimately a unique love story that stands on its own quite well.\n"Corpse Bride" tells the story of Victor Van Dort (voiced by Burton muse Johnny Depp), a young son of a fish monger who is set to marry a woman, Victoria Everglot (Emily Watson), who he has never met. The film opens with the two families meeting for the rehearsal ceremony. The Van Dorts are happy their son is finally marrying, while the Everglot's interest lies solely in the groom's money which, if their plans go correctly, will carry them out of debt and back into a bourgeoisie lifestyle. \nDuring the rehearsal Victor is a nervous wreck, fumbling with his vows, finding it hard to look into the eyes of his new bride and almost burning down the ceremony with a candle. Pastor Galswells, voiced wonderfully by the always creepy Christopher Lee, who will conduct the wedding, gives Victor 24 hours to get his act together.\nIn an attempt to nail his vows and convince himself that marriage is not all that bad, Victor hikes out to the woods where he can gather his thoughts. There, while practicing the wedding ring placement, Victor accidentally resurrects the Corpse Bride who, upon rising from the grave, says "I do," thus leaving Victor with two brides to deal with. \nAfter a failed attempt to flee the scene, Victor is taken down below mortal earth to the resting place of all the dead from the area. While there he meets a number of wonderful characters, all either corpses or skeletons, and he learns the story of the Corpse Bride.\nThe scenes in the "underworld" are pure Burton and are some of the best in the movie with wonderful songs, incredible attention to detail and sets that bring to mind earlier films like "Beetlejuice" and "Edward Scissorhands." Burton's wife, Helena Bonham Carter, who seems to be Burton's new muse, voices the Corpse Bride (whose real name is Emily) and brings a lot of emotion and humanity to the character. \n"The Corpse Bride" is one of those films that truly shows the grand expanse of Tim Burton's creativity and uniqueness. The characters and story were based off his own visions, the visuals were obviously made with care and extreme detail, there is a wonderful hint of a love story mixed in and the film as a whole comes across more as a 76-minute work of art than a typical Hollywood vehicle.
(09/15/05 9:30pm)
Samuel L. Jackson seems to be one of those actors who cannot seem to turn down work. His repertoire is large and extremely diverse, and while I think this work ethic is noble and probably a lot of fun (not to mention all those paychecks), I think sometimes he may go too far. "The Man," the newest Jackson vehicle, follows in the footsteps of most buddy crime comedy/action films of the past like "Lethal Weapon" or "Rush Hour." The difference is "The Man" offers very little originality.\nJackson plays a tough Detroit Special Agent named Derrick Vann, although calling him Sam Jackson may have worked just as well since the film is full of Jackson's signature yelling and cursing. One day his corrupt partner is killed in a stolen gun deal, and Vann sets out to find those responsible.\nAndy Fidler (Eugene Levy) is a simple dental product salesman who is summoned from his safe life in Wisconsin to Detroit for a dental conference. Of course his trip takes an unexpected turn when he is mistaken for Vann at a café and is ultimately thrown into the middle of an undercover police investigation.\nThe basic premise of "The Man" is very formulaic. Loud, fast-talking agent is partnered up with a dull, geeky salesman and the two are forced to work together to take down crime. Along the way they bicker, work each other's nerves and even exchange a number of unnecessary fart and ass jokes, but eventually manage to become friends. \nAlong the way Fidler, of course, manages to mess up Vann's operation in every way possible, bugs him with annoying questions and proves to be completely useless while also extremely necessary to the investigation (you see, the brilliant gunrunners believe Fidler is an intelligent Turkish businessman in the market for stolen guns.)\nIt would be a lie to say that Jackson and Levy do not share some funny moments, playing off each other in the same way Chris Tucker did with Jackie Chan, however the movie ultimately just seems like an excuse to have these two actors work together. Levy definitely has a knack for playing geeky middle-aged white guys, and Jackson seems to love yelling at people on-screen. The problem with "The Man" is you can't have a whole movie of just this. \nThe movie was directed by Les Mayfield, the savvy mastermind behind powerful films like "Flubber," "Encino Man" and "Blue Streak," who, I'm guessing, called up Jackson and said, "Hey man, you want to make an easy million with Eugene Levy?"\nIt is impossible to completely bash this film since Jackson, even in his lowest moments, is still a fun actor to watch, however seeing "The Man" can easily be postponed until video. Levy is best suited in the Christopher Guest "mocumentaries" like "Best in Show" or "Waiting for Guffman," and if you're looking for a lighter, funny Samuel L. Jackson try Pixar's "The Incredibles," where he really shines as "the man"
(09/15/05 4:00am)
Samuel L. Jackson seems to be one of those actors who cannot seem to turn down work. His repertoire is large and extremely diverse, and while I think this work ethic is noble and probably a lot of fun (not to mention all those paychecks), I think sometimes he may go too far. "The Man," the newest Jackson vehicle, follows in the footsteps of most buddy crime comedy/action films of the past like "Lethal Weapon" or "Rush Hour." The difference is "The Man" offers very little originality.\nJackson plays a tough Detroit Special Agent named Derrick Vann, although calling him Sam Jackson may have worked just as well since the film is full of Jackson's signature yelling and cursing. One day his corrupt partner is killed in a stolen gun deal, and Vann sets out to find those responsible.\nAndy Fidler (Eugene Levy) is a simple dental product salesman who is summoned from his safe life in Wisconsin to Detroit for a dental conference. Of course his trip takes an unexpected turn when he is mistaken for Vann at a café and is ultimately thrown into the middle of an undercover police investigation.\nThe basic premise of "The Man" is very formulaic. Loud, fast-talking agent is partnered up with a dull, geeky salesman and the two are forced to work together to take down crime. Along the way they bicker, work each other's nerves and even exchange a number of unnecessary fart and ass jokes, but eventually manage to become friends. \nAlong the way Fidler, of course, manages to mess up Vann's operation in every way possible, bugs him with annoying questions and proves to be completely useless while also extremely necessary to the investigation (you see, the brilliant gunrunners believe Fidler is an intelligent Turkish businessman in the market for stolen guns.)\nIt would be a lie to say that Jackson and Levy do not share some funny moments, playing off each other in the same way Chris Tucker did with Jackie Chan, however the movie ultimately just seems like an excuse to have these two actors work together. Levy definitely has a knack for playing geeky middle-aged white guys, and Jackson seems to love yelling at people on-screen. The problem with "The Man" is you can't have a whole movie of just this. \nThe movie was directed by Les Mayfield, the savvy mastermind behind powerful films like "Flubber," "Encino Man" and "Blue Streak," who, I'm guessing, called up Jackson and said, "Hey man, you want to make an easy million with Eugene Levy?"\nIt is impossible to completely bash this film since Jackson, even in his lowest moments, is still a fun actor to watch, however seeing "The Man" can easily be postponed until video. Levy is best suited in the Christopher Guest "mocumentaries" like "Best in Show" or "Waiting for Guffman," and if you're looking for a lighter, funny Samuel L. Jackson try Pixar's "The Incredibles," where he really shines as "the man"
(09/08/05 4:00am)
Remember early on in the summer the cool fad in Hollywood seemed to be the claim that this year would prove to be the end of big summer blockbusters, and that the movie-going public was bored with formulaic money-makers. Oh, how these people were wrong. \nIt's possible that last summer was to blame for all this negative hype against Hollywood. After all; 2004 was not your average summer for movies, mainly due to controversial films like "The Passion of the Christ" or "Fahrenheit 9/11," both of which made unbelievable amounts of money, but set out to be more than just mindless entertainment. \nThe truth is this summer was just like other ones. Studios made fortunes on a number of successful films, movie going rates were as high as ever and a number of questions were put to rest. Do alien movies ("Star Wars," "War of the Worlds") sell? Yes. Are biopics (i.e. "Cinderella Man" and its lousy box office run) losing appeal? Yes. Are super hero flicks ("Fantastic Four," "Batman Begins") money-makers? Of course. Should Orlando Bloom give the bow and arrow a rest? Oh, most definitely. \nLike previous summers there were a number of surprise hits (how about that charming nature documentary "March of the Penguins"?). Ultimately though, 2005 showed that the public is still drawn to hyped-up films. However, one thing I believe to be true is that there was a lack of quality films this year. \nNow I know there are those out there who would argue with this statement, but let me explain. I saw most of the big films, like Spielberg's gooey alien suspense film "The War of the Worlds," or Tim Burton's vibrant candy-coated adaptation of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory;" however, while both were entertaining and fun for 90 minutes or so, they ultimately did not have a lasting effect on me. \nThese kinds of films serve a purpose, mainly as pure entertainment, and were worth my nine bucks, however are they films that I will revisit five years down the road? Probably not.\nI use "The War of the Worlds" as an example of this idea because I have a great deal of respect for Steve Spielberg. He after all helped launch the big summer films genre ("Jaws," "Indiana Jones Trilogy") as well as the alien-invasion movie ("E.T." and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind") which are all films I grew up on and to this day still watch. The difference is with those films he was able to give the audience the thrills they needed while also delivering strong story lines and rich characters.\nThe same goes for some of the more critically acclaimed blockbusters, particularly "Batman Begins" and "Sin City." It is safe to say I was extremely eager to see these two films, and had been following their progress for quite some time. While I enjoyed both films, I feel that neither was that great. \n"Batman" was definitely darker than its predecessors and had some great moments, but I couldn't stop thinking of Tim Burton's original "Batman" and how nobody could beat Jack Nicholson's sinister laugh as the Joker. \nIn my opinion there were only a handful of truly great films this summer, ones that will be remembered and revisited. Films like "Crash," "Layer Cake," "Land of the Dead," "Me and You and Everyone We Know," "The Aristocrats" and of course "March of the Penguins" did not feature big special effects or battling super heroes, but rather told interesting stories.\n"Crash" in my mind is the best example of this and also the best film so far this year. The film, by first time director Paul Haggis (scribe of "Million Dollar Baby"), features an amazing cast and a brilliant screenplay that deals with one of the hardest issues in film, which is racism in America.\nI know many feel that the summer is a time for cheap thrills in the cinema, but it doesn't have to be. There are a number of big-budget epic films that never fail to impress me, however every summer I feel the number of truly lasting films being released seems to be diminishing. \nSummer 2006 will again bring more super hero films with a third follow up to the X-Men saga, a "Ghost Rider" movie and the return of Superman to the big screen. Tom Cruise will again reprise his role as world's shortest secret agent in "Mission Impossible 3" or "MI:3" and Tom Hanks will take on the Catholic church with Ron Howard's "Da Vinci Code." Will it be a successful summer? Of course. Will it be memorable? That will be for you to decide.
(09/08/05 3:18am)
Remember early on in the summer the cool fad in Hollywood seemed to be the claim that this year would prove to be the end of big summer blockbusters, and that the movie-going public was bored with formulaic money-makers. Oh, how these people were wrong. \nIt's possible that last summer was to blame for all this negative hype against Hollywood. After all; 2004 was not your average summer for movies, mainly due to controversial films like "The Passion of the Christ" or "Fahrenheit 9/11," both of which made unbelievable amounts of money, but set out to be more than just mindless entertainment. \nThe truth is this summer was just like other ones. Studios made fortunes on a number of successful films, movie going rates were as high as ever and a number of questions were put to rest. Do alien movies ("Star Wars," "War of the Worlds") sell? Yes. Are biopics (i.e. "Cinderella Man" and its lousy box office run) losing appeal? Yes. Are super hero flicks ("Fantastic Four," "Batman Begins") money-makers? Of course. Should Orlando Bloom give the bow and arrow a rest? Oh, most definitely. \nLike previous summers there were a number of surprise hits (how about that charming nature documentary "March of the Penguins"?). Ultimately though, 2005 showed that the public is still drawn to hyped-up films. However, one thing I believe to be true is that there was a lack of quality films this year. \nNow I know there are those out there who would argue with this statement, but let me explain. I saw most of the big films, like Spielberg's gooey alien suspense film "The War of the Worlds," or Tim Burton's vibrant candy-coated adaptation of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory;" however, while both were entertaining and fun for 90 minutes or so, they ultimately did not have a lasting effect on me. \nThese kinds of films serve a purpose, mainly as pure entertainment, and were worth my nine bucks, however are they films that I will revisit five years down the road? Probably not.\nI use "The War of the Worlds" as an example of this idea because I have a great deal of respect for Steve Spielberg. He after all helped launch the big summer films genre ("Jaws," "Indiana Jones Trilogy") as well as the alien-invasion movie ("E.T." and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind") which are all films I grew up on and to this day still watch. The difference is with those films he was able to give the audience the thrills they needed while also delivering strong story lines and rich characters.\nThe same goes for some of the more critically acclaimed blockbusters, particularly "Batman Begins" and "Sin City." It is safe to say I was extremely eager to see these two films, and had been following their progress for quite some time. While I enjoyed both films, I feel that neither was that great. \n"Batman" was definitely darker than its predecessors and had some great moments, but I couldn't stop thinking of Tim Burton's original "Batman" and how nobody could beat Jack Nicholson's sinister laugh as the Joker. \nIn my opinion there were only a handful of truly great films this summer, ones that will be remembered and revisited. Films like "Crash," "Layer Cake," "Land of the Dead," "Me and You and Everyone We Know," "The Aristocrats" and of course "March of the Penguins" did not feature big special effects or battling super heroes, but rather told interesting stories.\n"Crash" in my mind is the best example of this and also the best film so far this year. The film, by first time director Paul Haggis (scribe of "Million Dollar Baby"), features an amazing cast and a brilliant screenplay that deals with one of the hardest issues in film, which is racism in America.\nI know many feel that the summer is a time for cheap thrills in the cinema, but it doesn't have to be. There are a number of big-budget epic films that never fail to impress me, however every summer I feel the number of truly lasting films being released seems to be diminishing. \nSummer 2006 will again bring more super hero films with a third follow up to the X-Men saga, a "Ghost Rider" movie and the return of Superman to the big screen. Tom Cruise will again reprise his role as world's shortest secret agent in "Mission Impossible 3" or "MI:3" and Tom Hanks will take on the Catholic church with Ron Howard's "Da Vinci Code." Will it be a successful summer? Of course. Will it be memorable? That will be for you to decide.
(09/01/05 6:40am)
It's always good when a film comes along that is not only original but also leaves you a bit puzzled when the end credits start to roll. "The Ballad of Jack and Rose" does just this. While this film doesn't leave unanswered questions and doesn't set out to confuse the viewer with lots of twists and turns, it is a film with a very complex look at morality. \nDaniel Day-Lewis stars as Jack Slavin, an aging hippie with a failing heart who lives on an island in his abandoned 1960s commune with his only daughter, Rose. The opening moments of the film show the duo at peace in their little secluded life. They shuffle through the daily chores with smiles; share moments staring up at the clouds and even talk about basic bridge engineering (Jack's idea of home-schooling for his daughter.) Eventually, however, we realize that life isn't exactly perfect and that Jack is sick, and probably doesn't have long to live.\nIn an attempt to think of Rose's future, Jack invites his secret lover Kathleen (Catherine Keener) and her two sons from "the mainland" to come live with him in the commune. Right away there is static as jealousy erupts and Rose begins a rebellious cycle to try and shoo off the unwelcome guests. She hits on Kathleen's oldest son Rodney after spying on her father in bed. Later Rose cuts off her long hair and starts to dress like most rebellious teenagers. The problem is that Rose is not an ordinary teenager.\nAs the tensions grow Jack tries to confront Rose about her behavior but finds it difficult because he sees a bit of himself in her actions. He finds it amusing when Rose brings a loaded gun into his bedroom in an attempt to scare Kathleen, and insists that Rose is perfectly fine when asked if she shouldn't be sent to a psychiatrist. However, as time passes, Jack begins to realize that his idea of a perfect life may not have been right or fair for Rose and his only daughter may be troubled. \n"The Ballad of Jack and Rose" is a film about remorse, knowing your responsibilities, and love. Rose loves her father almost to the point of incest, but does so because she does not know any other kind of love. Jack believes in a pure life without the problems of normal society, but seems to have forgotten the reasons for his choice of lifestyle, not to mention his daughter's well-being. \nThe DVD has no features whatsoever (a commentary track by Lewis and/or his director and wife Rebecca Miller would have been nice.) The film features stellar acting and tells an interesting story. Aspects of the film will not be for everyone due to some scenes that may be perceived as "just too weird," but this shouldn't be discouraging. The characters are fascinating, the storyline is unique and once again Day-Lewis gives a flawless performance.
(09/01/05 6:17am)
As if Steven Spielberg's status as king of the box office hadn't already been established by the summer of 1982, "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" only further solidified said status, while proving Spielberg's ability to dream up note-perfect family fare -- a genre he has occasionally tapped to varying degrees of success over the last 23 years, never outdoing "E.T." in terms of the number of hearts successfully warmed.\nMost everyone already knows the story of E.T., concerning a so-ugly-he's-cute alien accidentally left behind during an experimental trip to Earth. A youngster named Elliott finds E.T., befriends him and they both teach each other some standard life lessons. Then the government shows up, almost killing E.T. Of course he miraculously survives, and finds his way home to the tune of a stirring orchestral score. This was what audiences saw in 1982. What they didn't see were updates to the film made for a 2003 DVD version, with government agents with flashlights in their hands instead of handguns (political correctness gone awry?), and several gratuitous CG shots of E.T. inserted by ILM under Spielberg's guidance, possibly in order to make E.T. seem more real to today's children. In fact, they succeed in making him seem less real, but these minor additions only slightly detract from the overall impact of the film to those familiar with the original theatrical release.\nOf course E.T. wasn't the first or last time Spielberg would deal with aliens. 1977 saw the epic "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" portray life in the rest of the universe, as E.T. does, in a generally benevolent and exploratory light, while this summer's "War of the Worlds," the most viscerally powerful film Spielberg has made since "Saving Private Ryan," portrayed aliens as destroyers and colonizers of our world. Both of these are better films than "E.T.," simultaneously inspiring awe and humility in the face of what is out there to greet us in the rest of the universe, but neither have the same deep emotional impact.\nExtras on this single-disc edition include original on-set photos and early concept drawings, a featurette showcasing John Williams' memorable score, and an interactive for-kids-only tour of our solar system hosted by E.T. himself. Perhaps most valuable, though, is the all-too-brief 2003 reunion of the director and his cast as they reminisce about their experiences during production in 1981.\nWhile one can only futilely hope Spielberg will agree to release "E.T." on DVD in its original form sometime in the future, this slightly revamped version is the best we can expect for the time being, and the time-tested quality of the screenplay, acting and point-of-view cinematography renders this version more than satisfying.
(09/01/05 6:16am)
Oh how the British know the makings for a good gangster flick. "Layer Cake" is the directorial debut of film producer Matthew Vaughn, whose previous claims to fame were the Guy Ritchie films "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels," and "Snatch." While "Layer Cake" follows in the footsteps of the former two, combining comedy with gritty gangster violence and language, it is ultimately a more straightforward and mature gangster film, which promises a bright future for Vaughn.\nThe film tells the story of a fairly small-time cocaine dealer, Mr. X, played wonderfully by Daniel Craig ("Road to Perdition," "Enduring Love"). It is apparent from the get-go that X does not consider himself a gangster, but rather a businessman just trying to make it in the world. His plan in the beginning of the movie is to finish his one last job, cash in his million-dollar check and end his days as a drug runner. His plans change.\nAfter Craig is summoned to find a missing girl, the daughter of a very important mob boss Eddie Temple (Michael Gambon), he is drawn into a wild game of confusion where nothing seems to go his way. Along the way he attempts to buy and then sell off one million pills of E, fends off a determined Serbian assassin and even has some time for the woman of his dreams (Sienna Miller).\nAs X slowly gets drawn into the center of the mess that seems to be growing around him, we see how much he wants out, but also how much he wants in. Whether or not "Layer Cake" is a film that proves crime doesn't pay is up to you. \nLike "Snatch," and "Lock, Stock," there are enough twists and turns to warrant future viewings, and there is a certain level of dark British humor mixed in (take for example the imbecile character Duke, played wonderfully by Jamie Foreman). The British dialogue is raw and gritty, with some scenes/characters in need of a subtitle line, and the story (based off a book by the same name) is more interesting than the majority of so called "gangster films" released in the U.S.\nThe DVD surprisingly totes some nice special features that include a handful of deleted scenes, some fun, others not, two alternate endings (both very short and uneventful), a behind-the-scenes featurette about the film and a funny and insightful commentary track by Vaughn and Craig. \n"Layer Cake" had a limited release in the U.S., despite critical acclaim, and should not be missed if you are a fan of the genre. Oftentimes the film mimics "Snatch" other times it is more serious, taking cues from previous British gangster films like "The Long Good Friday" or "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead."\nThe film shows that Daniel Craig has the chops and the style to be the next James Bond (rumors are flying that he is in the pool) and Matthew Vaughn is already making himself known (he was the original choice to direct the next X-Men movie) and will surely be making his way up the Hollywood 'layer cake.'
(09/01/05 5:56am)
As a rule, any movie that headlines Cole Hauser and that guy from ESPN's bad attempt at drama, "Tilt," should be kept at arm's length. But, if you've got a couple hours to kill and you can't find anything better to spend eight bucks on, go see "The Cave." \n"The Cave" is the gripping story of a top-notch cave-diving team led by Jack (Hauser) and his wildcard younger brother Tyler (Eddie Cibrian). They're sent to Romania to explore "the Amazon of underground rivers." Each member of the team has their own special ability: some are able to get a Body Glove logo into any shot necessary, some are able to wear revealing clothing and scale sheer rock faces (thank you, Piper Perabo) and all are able to speak clearly with baseball-sized oxygen pieces in their mouths. Must've taken months of training.\nBut anyway, monsters live in the cave. And when the ceiling collapses behind them and the team is forced to find a new way out, they become a buffet for the monsters. The rest of the movie is formulaic. The first half-hour is driven on some admittedly stunning shots of caverns and submerged tunnels. But after that, you're just waiting for the next person to die.\nThe movie is the directorial debut of Bruce Hunt, who worked on second unit stuff for the Matrix films. To be fair, it's hard to blame him; the film, when not focusing on the plot and instead taking in the scenery, looks good. And the story that combines team of scientists/commandos/whatever vs. giant CGI monster(s) has been beaten into the ground. It's hard to blame the cast, either, because the dialogue is atrocious. At one point, Morris Chestnut's second-in-command actually says "respect the cave." And you have to wonder how many takes it took to get that right before Chestnut stopped laughing. \nBut that's okay, right? It doesn't matter if the story sucks, the lines are lame and the monsters rehashed. At least you'll get to see some ultraviolent death scenes. You'll at least watch a monster truck with teeth eviscerate some tool who hasn't gotten work since "Hart's War." Right? \nWrong, you sociopaths. It's rated PG-13. Everybody gets it in a swirl of bubbles, thrashing water and bad camera angles, and even a plot twist that reveals the monsters aren't as far from humans as they seem can't save the movie in its death throes.\nSo, on second thought, skip "The Cave." If you want to watch a movie about monsters terrorizing people underground, rent "C.H.U.D." instead. It has all the gore for the half the budget, and at least it's got an original name.
(09/01/05 5:55am)
How can the life and works of the Brothers Grimm be turned Hollywood and made into a decent two-hour film? If Terry Gilliam (whose past directing credits include "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," "Twelve Monkeys" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail") can't do it, then maybe it can't be done. \nAccording to historical accounts, in the early 19th century, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm spent years traveling and collecting stories of folklore and turning them into the classic fairy tales we all know today, and both moved on to teach at the University of Berlin. The film version includes little if any factual information about the Grimm brothers, and their fairy tales are slightly referenced, with only minor cameos by Little Red Riding Hood, the Big Bad Wolf, the Gingerbread Man, Hansel and Gretel, Rupunzel and a handful of magic beans. \nIn the film version, the cynical, womanizing Will (Damon) and the scholarly dreamer Jacob (Ledger) are con artists traveling to various French-occupied German towns and ridding them of supposed evil spirits, which are nothing more than their cohorts in disguise. The brothers' scam is somehow detected by a French general, Delatombe (Jonathan Pryce), and rather than killing them he sends the duo to investigate a matter of disappearing children in the small town of Marbaden. Comic relief comes in the form of the general's right-hand man Cavaldi (Stormare), who accompanies them to make certain the job gets done. The following events revolve around a series of adventures through an enchanted forest, with little forming in the way of a plot. \nIt is not entirely clear what type of film "Brothers" is attempting to be, whether it be a buddy action pic, a playful comedy or a fantasy flick. The root of this film's problem lies in its story, which is not at all engaging, and even by the end the movie, the plot still makes little sense. Furthermore, should we cheer for these heroic brothers for trying to rescue the kidnapped girls, or should we despise them for tricking unsuspecting towns out of their money?\n"The Brothers Grimm" is a far cry from the popular fairy tales. Whereas the Grimms' stories taught strict morals and life lessons, the film has little in the way of a message. Due to difficulties, director Terry Gilliam actually halted production of "Brothers" for nearly a year to complete his film "Tideland." It promises to be a much more ambitious work.
(09/01/05 5:52am)
Fairy tales, folk tales, legends, myths; they usually go under the library sign "fiction." Yet the collection of these memorable stories is a very true tale. The Grimm Brothers, Jakob and Wilhelm, were folklorists of the early 1800s, and because of their fine work we remember frightening tales like "Little Red Riding Hood," "Cinderella" and other childhood classics. The Germanic folktales that were once used to present moral teachings to children and reflect social norms have continued to be shared years after the work of the late brothers. \nAlso known for taking an interesting look at reality is film director Terry Gilliam. With films like "Fear and Loathing Las Vegas" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," Gilliam has a new film where reality and imagination collide. "The Brother's Grimm" takes the historic Grimm Brothers on an imaginative adventure through a jumbled compilation of their well-known stories. The brothers, now named Jake and Will (Heath Ledger and Matt Damon), write down local myths, but unlike the story taught in history classes today, the brothers are also the creators of these inventive stories. However, the brothers find themselves suddenly in a tale that was not made up by their clever trickery. This time, they are in a tale where the witches and wolves are real and the events happening are unfortunately not from their imaginations. \nWhen watching this film, however, I felt a bit confused. When reviewing a film I usually go by myself to the theater, but this time I invited my housemates to come along. The general reaction was probably best described when one of my housemates said at the end of the movie, "What just happened?" I wasn't really sure. With German and French accents as culturally defining as the euro and a trivial sub-plot where the brothers find themselves fighting against the French, the film does not intimidate the audience. It is difficult to feel for the characters because of a lack of development, but it is humorous enough to watch them run around pretending like they know how to fight enchanted forests. In the end, Gilliam's new film is inventive but not necessarily as memorable as the folktales of the Grimm Brothers.
(09/01/05 4:00am)
Fairy tales, folk tales, legends, myths; they usually go under the library sign "fiction." Yet the collection of these memorable stories is a very true tale. The Grimm Brothers, Jakob and Wilhelm, were folklorists of the early 1800s, and because of their fine work we remember frightening tales like "Little Red Riding Hood," "Cinderella" and other childhood classics. The Germanic folktales that were once used to present moral teachings to children and reflect social norms have continued to be shared years after the work of the late brothers. \nAlso known for taking an interesting look at reality is film director Terry Gilliam. With films like "Fear and Loathing Las Vegas" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," Gilliam has a new film where reality and imagination collide. "The Brother's Grimm" takes the historic Grimm Brothers on an imaginative adventure through a jumbled compilation of their well-known stories. The brothers, now named Jake and Will (Heath Ledger and Matt Damon), write down local myths, but unlike the story taught in history classes today, the brothers are also the creators of these inventive stories. However, the brothers find themselves suddenly in a tale that was not made up by their clever trickery. This time, they are in a tale where the witches and wolves are real and the events happening are unfortunately not from their imaginations. \nWhen watching this film, however, I felt a bit confused. When reviewing a film I usually go by myself to the theater, but this time I invited my housemates to come along. The general reaction was probably best described when one of my housemates said at the end of the movie, "What just happened?" I wasn't really sure. With German and French accents as culturally defining as the euro and a trivial sub-plot where the brothers find themselves fighting against the French, the film does not intimidate the audience. It is difficult to feel for the characters because of a lack of development, but it is humorous enough to watch them run around pretending like they know how to fight enchanted forests. In the end, Gilliam's new film is inventive but not necessarily as memorable as the folktales of the Grimm Brothers.
(09/01/05 4:00am)
How can the life and works of the Brothers Grimm be turned Hollywood and made into a decent two-hour film? If Terry Gilliam (whose past directing credits include "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," "Twelve Monkeys" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail") can't do it, then maybe it can't be done. \nAccording to historical accounts, in the early 19th century, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm spent years traveling and collecting stories of folklore and turning them into the classic fairy tales we all know today, and both moved on to teach at the University of Berlin. The film version includes little if any factual information about the Grimm brothers, and their fairy tales are slightly referenced, with only minor cameos by Little Red Riding Hood, the Big Bad Wolf, the Gingerbread Man, Hansel and Gretel, Rupunzel and a handful of magic beans. \nIn the film version, the cynical, womanizing Will (Damon) and the scholarly dreamer Jacob (Ledger) are con artists traveling to various French-occupied German towns and ridding them of supposed evil spirits, which are nothing more than their cohorts in disguise. The brothers' scam is somehow detected by a French general, Delatombe (Jonathan Pryce), and rather than killing them he sends the duo to investigate a matter of disappearing children in the small town of Marbaden. Comic relief comes in the form of the general's right-hand man Cavaldi (Stormare), who accompanies them to make certain the job gets done. The following events revolve around a series of adventures through an enchanted forest, with little forming in the way of a plot. \nIt is not entirely clear what type of film "Brothers" is attempting to be, whether it be a buddy action pic, a playful comedy or a fantasy flick. The root of this film's problem lies in its story, which is not at all engaging, and even by the end the movie, the plot still makes little sense. Furthermore, should we cheer for these heroic brothers for trying to rescue the kidnapped girls, or should we despise them for tricking unsuspecting towns out of their money?\n"The Brothers Grimm" is a far cry from the popular fairy tales. Whereas the Grimms' stories taught strict morals and life lessons, the film has little in the way of a message. Due to difficulties, director Terry Gilliam actually halted production of "Brothers" for nearly a year to complete his film "Tideland." It promises to be a much more ambitious work.
(09/01/05 4:00am)
As a rule, any movie that headlines Cole Hauser and that guy from ESPN's bad attempt at drama, "Tilt," should be kept at arm's length. But, if you've got a couple hours to kill and you can't find anything better to spend eight bucks on, go see "The Cave." \n"The Cave" is the gripping story of a top-notch cave-diving team led by Jack (Hauser) and his wildcard younger brother Tyler (Eddie Cibrian). They're sent to Romania to explore "the Amazon of underground rivers." Each member of the team has their own special ability: some are able to get a Body Glove logo into any shot necessary, some are able to wear revealing clothing and scale sheer rock faces (thank you, Piper Perabo) and all are able to speak clearly with baseball-sized oxygen pieces in their mouths. Must've taken months of training.\nBut anyway, monsters live in the cave. And when the ceiling collapses behind them and the team is forced to find a new way out, they become a buffet for the monsters. The rest of the movie is formulaic. The first half-hour is driven on some admittedly stunning shots of caverns and submerged tunnels. But after that, you're just waiting for the next person to die.\nThe movie is the directorial debut of Bruce Hunt, who worked on second unit stuff for the Matrix films. To be fair, it's hard to blame him; the film, when not focusing on the plot and instead taking in the scenery, looks good. And the story that combines team of scientists/commandos/whatever vs. giant CGI monster(s) has been beaten into the ground. It's hard to blame the cast, either, because the dialogue is atrocious. At one point, Morris Chestnut's second-in-command actually says "respect the cave." And you have to wonder how many takes it took to get that right before Chestnut stopped laughing. \nBut that's okay, right? It doesn't matter if the story sucks, the lines are lame and the monsters rehashed. At least you'll get to see some ultraviolent death scenes. You'll at least watch a monster truck with teeth eviscerate some tool who hasn't gotten work since "Hart's War." Right? \nWrong, you sociopaths. It's rated PG-13. Everybody gets it in a swirl of bubbles, thrashing water and bad camera angles, and even a plot twist that reveals the monsters aren't as far from humans as they seem can't save the movie in its death throes.\nSo, on second thought, skip "The Cave." If you want to watch a movie about monsters terrorizing people underground, rent "C.H.U.D." instead. It has all the gore for the half the budget, and at least it's got an original name.
(09/01/05 4:00am)
Oh how the British know the makings for a good gangster flick. "Layer Cake" is the directorial debut of film producer Matthew Vaughn, whose previous claims to fame were the Guy Ritchie films "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels," and "Snatch." While "Layer Cake" follows in the footsteps of the former two, combining comedy with gritty gangster violence and language, it is ultimately a more straightforward and mature gangster film, which promises a bright future for Vaughn.\nThe film tells the story of a fairly small-time cocaine dealer, Mr. X, played wonderfully by Daniel Craig ("Road to Perdition," "Enduring Love"). It is apparent from the get-go that X does not consider himself a gangster, but rather a businessman just trying to make it in the world. His plan in the beginning of the movie is to finish his one last job, cash in his million-dollar check and end his days as a drug runner. His plans change.\nAfter Craig is summoned to find a missing girl, the daughter of a very important mob boss Eddie Temple (Michael Gambon), he is drawn into a wild game of confusion where nothing seems to go his way. Along the way he attempts to buy and then sell off one million pills of E, fends off a determined Serbian assassin and even has some time for the woman of his dreams (Sienna Miller).\nAs X slowly gets drawn into the center of the mess that seems to be growing around him, we see how much he wants out, but also how much he wants in. Whether or not "Layer Cake" is a film that proves crime doesn't pay is up to you. \nLike "Snatch," and "Lock, Stock," there are enough twists and turns to warrant future viewings, and there is a certain level of dark British humor mixed in (take for example the imbecile character Duke, played wonderfully by Jamie Foreman). The British dialogue is raw and gritty, with some scenes/characters in need of a subtitle line, and the story (based off a book by the same name) is more interesting than the majority of so called "gangster films" released in the U.S.\nThe DVD surprisingly totes some nice special features that include a handful of deleted scenes, some fun, others not, two alternate endings (both very short and uneventful), a behind-the-scenes featurette about the film and a funny and insightful commentary track by Vaughn and Craig. \n"Layer Cake" had a limited release in the U.S., despite critical acclaim, and should not be missed if you are a fan of the genre. Oftentimes the film mimics "Snatch" other times it is more serious, taking cues from previous British gangster films like "The Long Good Friday" or "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead."\nThe film shows that Daniel Craig has the chops and the style to be the next James Bond (rumors are flying that he is in the pool) and Matthew Vaughn is already making himself known (he was the original choice to direct the next X-Men movie) and will surely be making his way up the Hollywood 'layer cake.'