'Party' binges on pop culture

If you're not having an epileptic seizure by the end of the credit sequence to Michael Winterbottom's new film, "24 Hour Party People," you're in for a journey through the beginnings of punk and into the birth of the rave scene.\nFueled and filmed by the three staples of any respectable rock star -- drugs, sex and sex on drugs -- "Party People" is the story of Tom Wilson (Steve Coogan) and the Manchester revolution of pop culture. And Winterbottom's portrayal of this period is as addled as its title implies, barging through the evolution of pop and the people it consumed with nothing less than sheer passion. In the end, this unapologetic approach plays out like any whole-hearted drug binge: there are ups and downs.\nIt is 1976 in Manchester, England, and Wilson is a news journalist for Granada TV. But on June 4, at the Lesser Free Trade Hall, his life and the lives of those around him are about to take a drastic turn when a little-known group plays its first gig to a humbling crowd of maybe 40 people. The group is the Sex Pistols, and this is the beginning of the punk movement and the start of a complete overhaul of the face of popular culture worldwide. Wilson can feel it, and he's getting on for the ride. With the help of a few friends, a few illegal substances and a few hookers, Wilson goes on to found Factory Records and create one of the most infamous club scenes in the modern world, rivaling Studio 54.\nWith the movie spanning from 1976 until 1992, Winterbottom isn't trying to give you information on anything. He's placing you directly in the moment, and either you know it or you don't. This is what makes the film both fun and aggravating at times. Perpetually moving through the revolution like a time machine on crank, Winterbottom keeps it fun, keeps it real, and at times, this whacked-out realism is what keeps it overbearing.\nFor the uninitiated in the history of pop culture, you may leave with more of a hangover than a high. This is a film for the music guru; Winterbottom wickedly acknowledges this, and he's saying, "Keep up, if you can." For this reason, I would generally recommend that you wait to rent this wild ride. But for those who think they're ready, well, the engine's running and the door's open.

'Party' binges on pop culture

If you're not having an epileptic seizure by the end of the credit sequence to Michael Winterbottom's new film, "24 Hour Party People," you're in for a journey through the beginnings of punk and into the birth of the rave scene.\nFueled and filmed by the three staples of any respectable rock star -- drugs, sex and sex on drugs -- "Party People" is the story of Tom Wilson (Steve Coogan) and the Manchester revolution of pop culture. And Winterbottom's portrayal of this period is as addled as its title implies, barging through the evolution of pop and the people it consumed with nothing less than sheer passion. In the end, this unapologetic approach plays out like any whole-hearted drug binge: there are ups and downs.\nIt is 1976 in Manchester, England, and Wilson is a news journalist for Granada TV. But on June 4, at the Lesser Free Trade Hall, his life and the lives of those around him are about to take a drastic turn when a little-known group plays its first gig to a humbling crowd of maybe 40 people. The group is the Sex Pistols, and this is the beginning of the punk movement and the start of a complete overhaul of the face of popular culture worldwide. Wilson can feel it, and he's getting on for the ride. With the help of a few friends, a few illegal substances and a few hookers, Wilson goes on to found Factory Records and create one of the most infamous club scenes in the modern world, rivaling Studio 54.\nWith the movie spanning from 1976 until 1992, Winterbottom isn't trying to give you information on anything. He's placing you directly in the moment, and either you know it or you don't. This is what makes the film both fun and aggravating at times. Perpetually moving through the revolution like a time machine on crank, Winterbottom keeps it fun, keeps it real, and at times, this whacked-out realism is what keeps it overbearing.\nFor the uninitiated in the history of pop culture, you may leave with more of a hangover than a high. This is a film for the music guru; Winterbottom wickedly acknowledges this, and he's saying, "Keep up, if you can." For this reason, I would generally recommend that you wait to rent this wild ride. But for those who think they're ready, well, the engine's running and the door's open.

French New Wave goes digital

For those unfamiliar with Eric Rohmer, one of the original French New Wave directors, his new film, The Lady and the Duke, stands out for two reasons. First off, Rohmer proves that only the dead actually die, directing his latest film at the ripe age of 82. Second, Rohmer has proven once again the ingenuity of his obviously still-sharp mind, infusing The Lady and the Duke with a digital twist.\nSet in 18th-century France during the tumultuous French Revolution, Rohmer disowns the costly budgeting of naturalism within a period piece and ops instead for a stylized dream of a composition. Rohmer commissioned artist Jean-Baptiste Marot to paint 37 backdrops for him (done in the style of paintings from that period) and used these, as opposed to big-dollar recreations. From here, Rohmer digitally superimposed the action of the film onto the paintings.\nRohmer's film tells the true story of Scottish aristocrat turned ex-patriot Grace Elliott (Lucy Russell). Grace is introduced in proper Rohmer fashion, sparring over politics with her former lover and now friend, the Duke d'Orleans (Jean-Claude Dreyfus). Both Grace and the Duke are passionate people, with strong and opposing opinions concerning the Revolution that eventually do and must bring tension to the relationship.\nThe performances in this film by Dreyfus and, most notably, Russell, work well off of one another. Russell gives a finely restrained performance of stately stoicism, in comparison to Dreyfus's mealy-mouth rantings and fervently furrowed brow. Rohmer viewed D.W. Griffith's Orphans of the Storm in pre-production to his own film, and the effects can be seen in Rohmer's epic shots of the rioting masses. However, as should be expected with Rohmer, this film is anything but a political thriller, instead thriving on dialogue and being told the narrative's intimate moments.\nComing in at just more than two hours, for those who can sit through the political banter of a foreign film and don't depend on an explosion every four seconds to maintain their attention, Rohmer's film is well worth seeing. The story of one revolution, shot with the technology of a new revolution, The Lady and the Duke is exciting and at times breathtaking in its visual originality and inventiveness. If you have the time and the appreciation, this one's worth the money.

French New Wave goes digital

For those unfamiliar with Eric Rohmer, one of the original French New Wave directors, his new film, The Lady and the Duke, stands out for two reasons. First off, Rohmer proves that only the dead actually die, directing his latest film at the ripe age of 82. Second, Rohmer has proven once again the ingenuity of his obviously still-sharp mind, infusing The Lady and the Duke with a digital twist.\nSet in 18th-century France during the tumultuous French Revolution, Rohmer disowns the costly budgeting of naturalism within a period piece and ops instead for a stylized dream of a composition. Rohmer commissioned artist Jean-Baptiste Marot to paint 37 backdrops for him (done in the style of paintings from that period) and used these, as opposed to big-dollar recreations. From here, Rohmer digitally superimposed the action of the film onto the paintings.\nRohmer's film tells the true story of Scottish aristocrat turned ex-patriot Grace Elliott (Lucy Russell). Grace is introduced in proper Rohmer fashion, sparring over politics with her former lover and now friend, the Duke d'Orleans (Jean-Claude Dreyfus). Both Grace and the Duke are passionate people, with strong and opposing opinions concerning the Revolution that eventually do and must bring tension to the relationship.\nThe performances in this film by Dreyfus and, most notably, Russell, work well off of one another. Russell gives a finely restrained performance of stately stoicism, in comparison to Dreyfus's mealy-mouth rantings and fervently furrowed brow. Rohmer viewed D.W. Griffith's Orphans of the Storm in pre-production to his own film, and the effects can be seen in Rohmer's epic shots of the rioting masses. However, as should be expected with Rohmer, this film is anything but a political thriller, instead thriving on dialogue and being told the narrative's intimate moments.\nComing in at just more than two hours, for those who can sit through the political banter of a foreign film and don't depend on an explosion every four seconds to maintain their attention, Rohmer's film is well worth seeing. The story of one revolution, shot with the technology of a new revolution, The Lady and the Duke is exciting and at times breathtaking in its visual originality and inventiveness. If you have the time and the appreciation, this one's worth the money.

Breillat pushes the envelope

Catherine Breillat, the notorious French bad girl behind the camera, has come back on the scene with a return to her constant themes of sexual psychology and human behavior. Breillat may be remembered by some for penning and directing 1999's controversial "Romance," in which a schoolteacher explores various sexual situations in a search for satisfaction. With her new film, "Fat Girl," she tells the story of two adolescent sisters, Anaïs (Anaïs Reboux), who is 13, and her vixen-nymph sister, Elena (Roxane Mesquida), who is 15. On a "holiday," or vacation, with their family in Southern France, the girls talk about losing their virginity, and Elena is the one who decides to do something about it.\nBreillat's film and its dialogue are often realistic to the point of squeamish discomfort. In long takes we watch as Elena's boyfriend, the elder and manipulative Fernando (Libero De Rienzo), uses every promise, threat and lie to convince Elena that she should "express your love to me" by allowing him to go all the way. Conflict arises in the fact that Elena's sister, the lumpy Anaïs, shares a room with Elena and is torn between jealousy for what her sister has and anger for her sister's naiveté. \nThe controversy surrounding this film stems from the fact that we have very young girls not only talking very frankly about sexuality, but being shown in sexually explicit scenes with full frontal nudity. The film has actually been banned in some parts of the world. What must be understood, however, is that Breillat's film is not using the sex to titillate or attract a wider audience. It's being used to tell a very open and honest story that refuses to look away. In this manner, Breillat can be commended and her film respected for its endeavor into risky areas we tend to not want to look at or listen to.\nYet, in one of the most absurd endings I have ever seen, Breillat leaves her film with such a shockingly violent conclusion that almost the entirety of the film suddenly seems nothing less than a hack job. Her film, and its final images, are not easy to forget and have been tormenting my mind for days and for that, I can say Breillat did her job. But I can only recommend this film for those who are willing to delve into some of the darkest recesses of the heart and the human mind.

Breillat pushes the envelope

Catherine Breillat, the notorious French bad girl behind the camera, has come back on the scene with a return to her constant themes of sexual psychology and human behavior. Breillat may be remembered by some for penning and directing 1999's controversial "Romance," in which a schoolteacher explores various sexual situations in a search for satisfaction. With her new film, "Fat Girl," she tells the story of two adolescent sisters, Anaïs (Anaïs Reboux), who is 13, and her vixen-nymph sister, Elena (Roxane Mesquida), who is 15. On a "holiday," or vacation, with their family in Southern France, the girls talk about losing their virginity, and Elena is the one who decides to do something about it.\nBreillat's film and its dialogue are often realistic to the point of squeamish discomfort. In long takes we watch as Elena's boyfriend, the elder and manipulative Fernando (Libero De Rienzo), uses every promise, threat and lie to convince Elena that she should "express your love to me" by allowing him to go all the way. Conflict arises in the fact that Elena's sister, the lumpy Anaïs, shares a room with Elena and is torn between jealousy for what her sister has and anger for her sister's naiveté. \nThe controversy surrounding this film stems from the fact that we have very young girls not only talking very frankly about sexuality, but being shown in sexually explicit scenes with full frontal nudity. The film has actually been banned in some parts of the world. What must be understood, however, is that Breillat's film is not using the sex to titillate or attract a wider audience. It's being used to tell a very open and honest story that refuses to look away. In this manner, Breillat can be commended and her film respected for its endeavor into risky areas we tend to not want to look at or listen to.\nYet, in one of the most absurd endings I have ever seen, Breillat leaves her film with such a shockingly violent conclusion that almost the entirety of the film suddenly seems nothing less than a hack job. Her film, and its final images, are not easy to forget and have been tormenting my mind for days and for that, I can say Breillat did her job. But I can only recommend this film for those who are willing to delve into some of the darkest recesses of the heart and the human mind.

Soggy script sinks DeNiro's latest flick

Vincent LaMarca (Robert DeNiro) is a man who's lived a hard life. Struggling to overcome his past -- which includes a father executed in Sing-Sing, his own stint with domestic abuse and the abandonment of his only son -- LaMarca became a world-weary Manhattan detective.\nWhen a zealously tattooed pusher washes up on the rocks, foul play leads to decrepit Long Island, and LaMarca's only son, a known junkie, is suspect. Based on Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist Michael McAlary's 1997 article, this is the foundation behind the movie "City by the Sea." Aside from its already-fascinating story, the movie's also got a few golden names attached to it, like DeNiro and Frances McDormand.\nSo how could a movie with this much potential play like a pitiful, made-for-TV piece of schlock? It's because the screenplay for this tanker is flat-lining like Jimmy Hoffa. Whatever Pulitzer-prize-winning punches McAlary managed to pull in his article, Ken Hixon's screenplay adaptation is KO'd by a pitiful pace and simply bad writing. The first act alone is drawn out to dozing proportions, and by the time things get interesting, the majority of the audience will be drooling in its popcorn.\nDirector Michael Caton-Jones hasn't been on the scene since his last failed foray, 1997's "The Jackal." With "City by the Sea," Caton-Jones's direction is predominantly forgettable.\nThe only thing that's going to keep this sunken "City" floating around the box-office for the next couple of weekends are the names DeNiro and McDormand. DeNiro does the best he can with the material he's given, but when he's delivering lines like, "I know you killed my partner, scumbag," it's clear that even this raging bull is stumbling in the ring. McDormand, giving the best performance overall, actually manages to breathe some life into her role as LaMarca's girlfriend, Michelle.\nAt one point, during what had been set up to be a dramatically arresting scene, the audience was left wiping tears from its eyes. This was because we were laughing. Heartily. Don't waste your time or money on this drowning downer until it's on Hoosier Cinema 7. At least then it's free.

Soggy script sinks DeNiro's latest flick

Vincent LaMarca (Robert DeNiro) is a man who's lived a hard life. Struggling to overcome his past -- which includes a father executed in Sing-Sing, his own stint with domestic abuse and the abandonment of his only son -- LaMarca became a world-weary Manhattan detective.\nWhen a zealously tattooed pusher washes up on the rocks, foul play leads to decrepit Long Island, and LaMarca's only son, a known junkie, is suspect. Based on Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist Michael McAlary's 1997 article, this is the foundation behind the movie "City by the Sea." Aside from its already-fascinating story, the movie's also got a few golden names attached to it, like DeNiro and Frances McDormand.\nSo how could a movie with this much potential play like a pitiful, made-for-TV piece of schlock? It's because the screenplay for this tanker is flat-lining like Jimmy Hoffa. Whatever Pulitzer-prize-winning punches McAlary managed to pull in his article, Ken Hixon's screenplay adaptation is KO'd by a pitiful pace and simply bad writing. The first act alone is drawn out to dozing proportions, and by the time things get interesting, the majority of the audience will be drooling in its popcorn.\nDirector Michael Caton-Jones hasn't been on the scene since his last failed foray, 1997's "The Jackal." With "City by the Sea," Caton-Jones's direction is predominantly forgettable.\nThe only thing that's going to keep this sunken "City" floating around the box-office for the next couple of weekends are the names DeNiro and McDormand. DeNiro does the best he can with the material he's given, but when he's delivering lines like, "I know you killed my partner, scumbag," it's clear that even this raging bull is stumbling in the ring. McDormand, giving the best performance overall, actually manages to breathe some life into her role as LaMarca's girlfriend, Michelle.\nAt one point, during what had been set up to be a dramatically arresting scene, the audience was left wiping tears from its eyes. This was because we were laughing. Heartily. Don't waste your time or money on this drowning downer until it's on Hoosier Cinema 7. At least then it's free.

Brilliant 'Bedroom' just a bore on DVD

Before I begin talking about "In the Bedroom" as a DVD, let me address it as a film. Nominated for multiple awards, including five Oscars, new director Todd Field burst on the scene last year with a film that quietly quaked with a seething emotion very rarely captured.\nBased on a short story by Andre Dubus, "In the Bedroom" portrays how one family deals with the death of its teenage son. Field, for his directorial debut, actually took something of a risk, but one that is much-appreciated and that paid off with an Oscar nomination for best picture. \n"In the Bedroom" is one of those rare films that truly dares to tell the majority and most meaningful parts of its story through pictures and pictures alone. No overbearing dialogue, no extraneous score cuing the proper emotions, just these incredibly haunting images that can mean as much or as less to the viewer as he or she is willing to look into them.\nFurthermore, "In the Bedroom" is filled with raw, realistic performances by its entire amazing cast. Tom Wilkinson and Sissy Spacek give arguably the performances of their careers and earn Oscar nominations in the process.\n"In the Bedroom" is a haunting and quietly brilliant film for those who have a finer, more artistic-driven taste for the cinema. "In the Bedroom" as a DVD flat sucks. When the extent of the special features are "available in both English and French," well, I think that pretty much says everything you need to know.\nDevoid of any specials, interviews or even a commentary, whatever brilliance was used to create this film was most definitely not used when designing the marketing strategy for this DVD. From a film lover's point of view, "In the Bedroom" is the kind of movie that looks great in your collection. But for the general public, don't waste the money, and, hopefully, they'll be releasing a special edition of this exceptional film that's actually worthy of the DVD format.

Brilliant 'Bedroom' just a bore on DVD

Before I begin talking about "In the Bedroom" as a DVD, let me address it as a film. Nominated for multiple awards, including five Oscars, new director Todd Field burst on the scene last year with a film that quietly quaked with a seething emotion very rarely captured.\nBased on a short story by Andre Dubus, "In the Bedroom" portrays how one family deals with the death of its teenage son. Field, for his directorial debut, actually took something of a risk, but one that is much-appreciated and that paid off with an Oscar nomination for best picture. \n"In the Bedroom" is one of those rare films that truly dares to tell the majority and most meaningful parts of its story through pictures and pictures alone. No overbearing dialogue, no extraneous score cuing the proper emotions, just these incredibly haunting images that can mean as much or as less to the viewer as he or she is willing to look into them.\nFurthermore, "In the Bedroom" is filled with raw, realistic performances by its entire amazing cast. Tom Wilkinson and Sissy Spacek give arguably the performances of their careers and earn Oscar nominations in the process.\n"In the Bedroom" is a haunting and quietly brilliant film for those who have a finer, more artistic-driven taste for the cinema. "In the Bedroom" as a DVD flat sucks. When the extent of the special features are "available in both English and French," well, I think that pretty much says everything you need to know.\nDevoid of any specials, interviews or even a commentary, whatever brilliance was used to create this film was most definitely not used when designing the marketing strategy for this DVD. From a film lover's point of view, "In the Bedroom" is the kind of movie that looks great in your collection. But for the general public, don't waste the money, and, hopefully, they'll be releasing a special edition of this exceptional film that's actually worthy of the DVD format.

'Count' beats being in a prison forever

The Count of Monte Cristo - PG-13\nStarring: Jim Caviezel, Guy Pearce\nDirected by: Kevin Reynolds\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nThis past weekend, Kevin Reynolds' adaptation of Alexandre Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo" swashbuckled its way across the silver screen, carving out smiles and stealing laughter from audiences. Reynolds has rebounded nicely from his last epic flop, "Waterworld," with a story full of intrigue, excitement, romance and revenge. Set in 19th-century France, the movie sweeps from one lush landscape to the next as we follow the demise of Edmund Dantes and the vengeful rise of the Count of Monte Cristo.\nEdmund Dantes (Jim Caviezel) is leading the simple life of a sailor intent on marrying his gorgeous fiancée, Mercedes (Dagmara Daminczyk). But things soon go very wrong. Dantes is betrayed by his childhood friend, the rather wealthy Fernand Mondego (Guy Pearce). Sent to the Chateau d'If under false charges of treason, Dantes spends the next 13 years of his life being cruelly flogged and engraving "GOD WILL GIVE ME JUSTICE" on the stone walls.\nIt is while enjoying his stay at the chateau that Dantes meets Abbe Faria (Richard Harris), who has accidentally tunneled into Dantes' room in a failed attempt at escape. Faria becomes Dantes' key to revenge, as he teaches Dantes to read, write and master the sword, all the while tunneling towards freedom. Faria also gives Dantes one other crucial thing: the map to the treasure of Monte Cristo. It is from this point on that Dantes is able to begin setting into motion the plan of revenge that he's had 13 years to meticulously plan.\nThis movie is all about sword fighting. It's all about tunneling convicts. It's all about buried treasure, knife-wielding pirates, masquerades in Rome, whispered secrets and undying love. It's all about the good guy spoon-feeding his foes their hearts one bite at a time. In short, this movie is all about simply having fun.\n"The Count of Monte Cristo" is far from being a flawless movie, but that's beside the point. Caviezel turns in one of his best performances since "The Thin Red Line" as the Count. And Pearce becomes one of the most dastardly, slithering fiends to ever creep across the screen. \nKevin Reynolds has managed to make a tribute to the days of Errol Flynn and Douglas Fairbanks with a film that comes straight out of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Don't look for "The Count of Monte Cristo" to be garnering any Oscars at next year's Academy Awards. It's not that kind of a film. But if you're looking for a movie that defines why we have the big screen, a movie that defines entertainment in its purest form, then grab a coke, get some popcorn, and get in line.\n

Fore-SHOUTING vs. foreshadowing

Dragonfly - PG-13\nStarring: Kevin Costner, Kathy Bates\nDirected by: Tom Shadyac\nShowing: Showplace West 12\nIn Tom Shadyac's new supernatural/spiritual thriller, "Dragonfly," the director poses this simple question: What if Robin Williams saw dead people? OK, actually, it's not Robin Williams. It's Kevin Costner. And Costner is really hearing more than seeing. Nonetheless, if you've ever entertained the tantalizing question of what would happen if "The Sixth Sense" was crossed with "Patch Adams," the latter of which Shadyac directed, then this is your movie.\nShadyac's film is about a doctor, played by Costner, who seems to be getting messages from his deceased wife in the form of cryptic, cross-like dragonflies from children who've had near-death experiences. So, we've got a man grieving over his lost loved one, getting creepy messages from kids that come via interpretive insect art. I can think of at least one film released not too long ago ("The Mothman Prophecies" anyone?) that follows this plot line almost identically, and a few others that come spookily close.\nShadyac's movie falters for several reasons: bad writing, a comatose Costner and deadpan direction. The script in this film clunks along. The direction in this film seems to employ every possibly conceivable ghost-story cliché with howling winds that ominously wake the sleeping, dead kids going "Boo!" and a paint-by-number soundtrack accompanying nether-worldly voices.\nFurthermore, apparently Shadyac and his screenwriters confused foreshadowing with fore-SHOUTING! This movie drops clues like anvils on thin ice. By the time we get to the "surprise" ending, anyone who has halfway followed the plot will see that it has the twist potential of Billy Graham at a Beatles concert. It just ain't happenin', folks.\nFinally, we have the gravely miscast Costner. What happened to the guy who made us believe in apparitions of the corn-kind, government conspiracies and dancing with wolves? Costner's films seem to have drowned with "Waterworld" and resuscitation is quickly becoming a non-option. The closest thing we have of a ghost in this film seems to be poor Kevin's career.\nSadly enough, "Dragonfly" had the potential to be a decent film. It's a movie that desperately wants to believe in itself, but in the end, that desperation is too telling. Shadyac's focus feels off center. What could have made a touching spiritual drama about the healing process one doctor needs to go through, turns into a hokey spook-fest with little depth and lots of melodramatic sap. Save this one for a Lifetime Special with that certain someone.\n

'Lantana': A grown-up mystery

Lantana - R\nStarring: Anthony LaPaglia, Geoffrey Rush, Barbara Hershey\nDirected by: Ray Lawrence\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nThe lantana plant is an invasive shrub that often grows in unwanted areas. On its surface, it yields beautiful flowers that range in colors from purple to orange. Beneath these delicate flowers, however, is a tightly woven system of branches. The tagline for Ray Lawrence's new film, which draws its name from the plant, simply states, "Sometimes love isn't enough." Between the "flowery" metaphor of love and the tagline, you have everything you need to know about viewing "Lantana."\nDirector Ray Lawrence ("Bliss") returns to the screen after 16 years with a film that probes the complex relationships, specifically marriage, that bind individuals together. Adapted from Andrew Bovell's play, "Speaking in Tongues," which Bovell co-wrote the screenplay with Lawrence, "Lantana" is the story of Detective Leon Zat (Anthony LaPaglia). Zat is investigating a case revolving around the disappearance and presumed murder of marriage counselor Dr. Valerie Somers (Barbara Hershey). While this plotline drives the film forward, at its core are the crumbling ruins of two marriages: those of Detective Zat and Dr. Somers' own marriage to her stoic husband John Knox (Geoffrey Rush).\nBoth Bovell and Lawrence take a brutal, and sometimes excruciating, look at humanity's greatest mystery, love. \n"Lantana" is geared toward an older audience, an audience that has seen love move past its days of youthful lust and vigor and into something much more intangible and much more abstract. "Lantana" deals with the deceptions we allow ourselves to believe in, the lies that men tell, the passion women yearn for and the secrets that everyone hides.\n"Lantana" also boasts an incredible cast. Anthony LaPaglia gives a powerful and moving performance as Leon Zat, a man who is going numb to the world around him. Likewise, Geoffrey Rush is perfectly cast as the seemingly hollow and embittered husband of Dr. Somers. The women of "Lantana" give performances full of gnawing ache and longing that seeps from their very pores.\n"Lantana" was not without its flaws. Specifically, Dr. Somers' character seems slightly underdeveloped as her actions begin to grow more and more irrational. But this aside, for those who have both the patience and the appreciation for such character-driven films as "In the Bedroom" or "Monster's Ball," "Lantana" is a beautiful film that is well worth your money and time. Sweeping the American Film Institute Awards in every major category, sadly, this film has been overlooked by the Academy. Don't make the same mistake!\n

When a good Gandhi goes bad

Sexy Beast - R\nStarring: Ben Kingsley, Ray Winstone\nDirected by: Jonathan Glazer\n"Sexy Beast" is Jonathan Glazer's feature directorial debut, and he couldn't have asked for a better welcome. Hailed by critics and garnering a long list of nominations and awards, including an Oscar nomination for Ben Kingsley, "Sexy Beast" is well worth owning for the supporting actor's performance alone. Regardless of the fairly dainty Special Features section, Glazer's film is excellently directed, expertly acted and masterfully scripted, making it a nice but overlooked DVD to impress your friends with. "Sexy Beast" is a Guy Ritchie film filtered through the Vegas velvet-smoothness of "Ocean's 11." \nThe screenplay was written by two playwrights, and I wouldn't be surprised if Glazer had some practice in theatrical directing himself. The script and composition of this film are wonderfully woven together. Glazer rarely resorts to fancy camera movements and awkward angles to give his film a razor's edge. Instead, he simply sets up the scene, knowing precisely when to cut and where to cut. He knows how to manipulate silence into a deafening roar, bringing things to a full boil. And the script only gives the audience what is absolutely necessary, letting viewers fill in the blanks. Often, Glazer and his actors have done such an expert job already, those "blanks" are the clearest moments.\nTo watch Kingsley in this film is to watch a man who has mastered his art. The man who personified Gandhi, who made us believe in Schindler, is the same man that will cause your breathing to come to a screeching halt and your skin to crawl with goose bumps at the very mention of his name: Don Logan. As played by Kingsley, he is one of the most vicious, unhappy, profane men in the history of cinema. His acid-laced mouth spews vulgarities like shredded silk. It may be horrible to hear, but it's wickedly wonderful to listen to. You will have little wonder why Kingsley has been nominated and is well deserving of a win at this year's Academy Awards.\nAlong with Kingsley, Ray Winstone and several other actors and actresses give beautiful and complex performances ranging in emotions from true love to sheer terror. Included on the DVD are two trailers, a TV spot and commentary by Kingsley and producer Jeremy Thomas. The commentary adds even more depth to the film, especially with Kingsley's insight. For true film connoisseurs or those who simply want to catch a decent flick, this one is worth your time and your money.\n

Watch this movie and die of boredom

Resident Evil - R\nStarring: Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriguez\nDirected by: Paul W.S. Anderson\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nWith a Wes Craven directed "Alice" being filmed and "Tomb Raider 2" à la Jolie in production, the current pop trend of converting video games into "blockbuster" movies is where the money seems to be. But where the money is, the quality is not. Viewing the trend's track record speaks for itself. And Paul W.S. Anderson's "Resident Evil" is just one more sputtering glitch in the system. From bad acting to a truly scary script, this letdown has the life expectancy of an infant in a zombie ward.\nAnyone who has ever been to a recent movie can recall the dully annoying advertisements and trivia questions that precede the film. With "Resident Evil," this actually serves a purpose. Sometimes these slides contain definitions of various movie terminologies. Tonight, the term was "Stinger: a single, sustained note or series of notes played to provide emphasis for a specific dramatic event." Without stingers, "Resident Evil" is about as frightening as watching an old man gum a popsicle. Every creeping zombie, every gun drawn, every corner turned you can count on the sound of a combusting orchestra to cue you, "This is spooky!" The director probably could have cut down on the budget if he would have just said, "Boo!" during all moments of supposed tension.\nAnd as shamelessly cliché as this seems, the characters and script for this movie are nothing short of hokey. The dialogue in this thing was apparently transcribed straight from a really bad video game. Set in a research facility called The Hive, it is run by a supercomputer referred to as the Red Queen. The Red Queen is holographically represented by a little girl with the ever-creepy British accent, who uses spooky words like "implore," and says things like, "You're all going to die down here!" Which, of course, is followed by a heart-pounding stinger. When asked what the zombies' motivation for munching on flesh is, we are told in a disturbing child's voice, "The need to feed!" Please. The only need here was for something called a rewrite.\nLikewise, Michelle Rodriguez is apparently hell-bent on proving she has more testosterone than "Stone Cold" Steve Austin. With a constant "I-take-bitch-as-a-compliment" smirk smeared across her pugnacious puss, her character's range widely arcs from her first delicate utterance of "Blow me," edgily directed toward a male, to the cold-hearted sympathy of "Poor bastards," on observing a room full of drowned scientists.\nThe only thing brain-dead around here seems to be me for having expected the same guy who brought us such classics as "Mortal Kombat" and "Soldier" to actually deliver something worth my time. Don't bother giving up yours.\n

'High Crimes' guilty of following cliche structure and story

High Crimes - PG-13\nStarring: Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman\nDirected by: Carl Franklin\nShowing: Showplace West 12\nThere's just something about being stormed by the F.B.I., having your husband arrested and finding him charged with nine counts of murder that seems to put a damper on the day. Especially after you've just done a nice round of Christmas shopping. But of course, when the most pressing issue up until this point has been following the ovulation predictor so that you and hubby can "make a baby," well, you just know something of apocalyptic proportions must be in store. Played with the ever-arched eyebrow of Ashley Judd, this is the situation that Claire Kubik, a successful Bay Side lawyer, finds herself thrust into.\nCarl Franklin's latest effort really isn't a bad film. But it's nowhere near great, nor remotely as good as his preceding work on "One False Move" or "Devil in a Blue Dress." Instead, "High Crimes" is guilty of rigorously trying to follow all of the rules. Some of this might have to do with Franklin, but this primarily falls on the shoulders of the writers, who seem to have sacrificed anything original, anything actually worth a story, for simple, pre-set structure.\nBut "High Crimes" still manages some redeemable qualities, which can be attributed to the chemistry between Judd and Morgan Freeman. Judd and Freeman team up for a second time after the far superior "Kiss the Girls." This time, Freeman plays our off-the-wagon, "wild card" lawyer who's there to teach Mrs. Kubik a few things about military justice. As always, Freeman is apparently incapable of giving a bad performance, regardless of the quality of the film. Together, with Judd, the two play off one another nicely and manage to bring some life to an overall flatlining film of formula.\n

'Man' is a Coen masterpiece

Eyes wide open in 'Kandahar'

Eyes wide open in 'Kandahar'

'Man' is a Coen masterpiece