The Ring Two / *1/2 (2005)

"The Ring Two" isn't so much a sequel to "The Ring" as it is a full-fledged re-analysis of that successful 2002 horror film. This, suffice it to say, is not a compliment. The fundamental flaw essentially comes down to the approach - instead of carrying the pre-established narrative into newer and more challenging territory, as a legitimate sequel might have done, the movie seems more motivated by explanations of past events here rather than developing on them, and the celluloid is filled with so much incessant narrative double-speak that it essentially makes the original story more convoluted than it already was.

Robots / ***1/2 (2005)

With the onslaught of offbeat cartoon casts dominating computer animation, it's just as well that the filmmakers behind "Robots" opted to take a more broad approach by relying on an ensemble of talking machines. Such things aren't shackled by physical delicacy like fish or bugs are, nor do they live by the seeming elasticity of superheroes or toys. But they move, talk and interact without the kind of restraints expected of their counterparts; they have human qualities but rise above their manacles, and occupy a space of the universe that seems just as complex and surreal as the very essence of their own intricate being. Of course, cinema's ongoing fascination with all things machinery - stretching all the way back to a villainous computer mainframe in "2001: A Space Odyssey" - no doubt sets a solid stage of reputation beforehand here, but more promising a prospect is the notion that these types of characters simply seem ideal for the animated canvas. Reality makes them a template for big dreamers, and the gravity-less scope of CGI enhances that prospect into something truly awe-inspiring.

Constantine / ** (2005)

"Constantine" is what you call chaos with skill, a movie in which the production values are top-notch and exude the sheer enthusiasm of a dedicated director, but whose narrative is so inconsistently vague that the audience never has a clue as to what avail they are being utilized. New filmmaker Francis Lawrence, who seems just as much inspired here by the satanic thrillers of Roman Polanski as he is by his own roster of stylish music videos, searches long and hard for the right visual note and finds it - his movie is seeped in a texture that is as polished as one can expect, and he balances it with a stylistic tone that offers good contrast between the foreboding and the hardcore. The bigger mystery lies in knowing what his screenwriters were thinking. What were they motivated by here? Where did all their inspiration go? And did Lawrence ever actually sit down and discuss with them, in any capacity, about where to go with the premise they were given? The result reeks of obvious fragmentation, and one has to wonder if the director was just so excited about the prospect of doing his first feature film that he forgot to cover all the necessary bases beforehand.

Hide and Seek / * (2005)

"Hide and Seek" is the kind of movie that gets made when a filmmaker thinks he or she has come up with a unique narrative ploy to exercise on audiences, an endeavor so wrapped up in flinging around ambiguous insight and suggestion that it more or less directs itself, seemingly convinced that there is enough foundation there to warrant a unique payoff. Alas, anyone who has seen more than two or three thrillers in the recent years could easily crush the confidence shared by these filmmakers; not only do the director and writer fail to recognize obvious formula, but they also fall short of providing it with the right guidance to at least hold one's basic interest. Their picture is a self-indulgent mess; unexciting, shoddy, predicable, tedious and detached, and frankly not all that amusing even on a level of mindless escapism.

The reputation of being a "film critic"

It's always a nice gesture when someone takes the time to read a piece of your written work. There is also a great personal reward in having that work discussed between the writer and the reader; not only does it make you more productive in terms of understanding one another's opinions, it keeps you motivated and focused in the task of producing new articles, particularly when you have the urge to stand back and wonder, "why am I doing this at all?"

In the six-plus years I have written film commentary on the internet, I've heard great input from a lot of sources -- some of it positive, some of it negative, but all of it appreciated. There is no better feeling in this vocation than knowing that your work is being absorbed by some alternate source; you have done something that will occupy a span of a few minutes in someone's day, and perhaps will leave a slight impression (be it a bad one or whatever). In our world time is the essence of everything, after all, and sometimes it is actually too much to ask for people to set aside just a few short moments to take a look at something you've done. By doing so voluntarily, the readers have unknowingly made a great contribution to the one who actually did the work (regardless of the response they may have). It is prospects like that which keep some of us writing for so long.

In Good Company / *** (2005)

"In Good Company" begins with a premise that is probably not very dissimilar from what many of us in the world of journalism have experienced at one point or another. Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid), a reputable advertising editor at the local weekly Sports Magazine, is put into a position of uncertainty when his chain is bought up by a major conglomerate, and established employees begin facing possible lay-offs as the company undergoes major restructuring. Perhaps not so common, though, is how this professional shake-up plays out; rather than being ousted by a corporation that wants to abandon journalistic rituals in order to stroke investors, the movie deprives him of his high-ranking position and turns it over to a 20-something kid, who is a hot figure in the business world but lacks the experience to be in such a place of authority. Naturally, Dan is kept on board as a cushion while all his friends are ousted… but the story doesn't directly confront this conflict until its hero finds out that his new boss is also dating his college-bound daughter. Talk about getting to know your employees better.

Stage Beauty / **** (2004)

To see "Stage Beauty" in its full lively splendor is to see a work of genius revealed on screen. The movie is savage entertainment, written with the kind of panache and wit that is generally absent in most modern period pieces, and executed in a manner that allows little room for mere suggestion but an array of opportunities to be both shocking and unrestrictive with the material. From the perspective of someone who, like yours truly, savors the deliciousness of stories that take place amidst a vibrant and colorful backdrop, it is a triumph of evoking the era - but for those who care less about visuals and concentrate solely on a narrative, it is also one of those rare multi-faceted accomplishments that knows no boundaries when it comes to solid storytelling or sophisticated humor. Like the very characters that fill the celluloid of director Richard Eyre's latest opus, this is the kind of picture that comes with challenges but is not afraid to meet them - or indeed, overcome them - head on.

White Noise / * (2005)

He or she who is able to emerge from "White Noise" with a full perspective on the plot should be regarded as a miracle worker. Here I am, a movie critic writing a review for a movie that I observed with the utmost attention for a full 100 minutes, and I can't even bring myself to come up with the words to describe it - other than saying it wants to be both scary and stimulating. Of course, being an endeavor that lacks any kind of solid framework, it fails miserably on both counts. There is certainly very little doubt that someone, somewhere, high up in the Universal Pictures chain of command saw a promising result from this sort of premise… but what in the world are the filmmakers trying to say with it here? How do they expect their movie to amuse or engage viewers in the slightest if it doesn't take the time to offer necessary insights into enigmatic clues and puzzles?

Kinsey / ***1/2 (2004)

"Let's Talk About Sex."
- Tagline from "Kinsey"

In the case of Alfred Kinsey, though, talking about it was only one step in shattering the walls of taboo that our civilization built around the concept of sexual intercourse throughout the first 50 or 60 years of the 20th century. Looking at it today, what with all the liberated sexual movements dotting our population, the very idea seems absurd. After all, in the middle ages, sex wasn't so much a quandary as it was an casual activity - but with the evolution of cultures and the coming of social status, it was thrown into the corners of a dark room and locked away, never to be spoken of. That the American society in particular treated sex like some kind of illegitimate child well through the modern era is not necessarily something to be proud of, but it was also difficult to step outside of those boundaries, too. Traditions lead to personal ignorance, and that in turn inevitably keeps the traditions established for future generations.

Beyond the Sea / *** (2004)

"Beyond the Sea" maintains the same indirect tradition seen earlier this year in "De Lovely," in which a famous talent seems to stand off in the shadows while his memories manifest in the form of a stage musical. In what can essentially be described as a "This is Your Life" technique, audiences are forced to accept the impression that there are no cameras or scripts around dictating the movement of the narrative in front of them - instead, life itself wants to play out unhindered right in front of our eyes, as if the characters are playing puppeteer with their own recollections so that ordinary instances are made into glossy moments without seeming obviously recreated. Make sense? Of course it doesn't, and such an approach was certainly part of the problem with the recent Cole Porter film biography (among other things). The questions are often too great to be skipped over. What reality are these people in? Are they stuck somewhere between consciousness and dream? And how can anyone remember so vividly the fine details of their own past? The immediate dilemma facing Kevin Spacey, who both directs and stars in this biopic about singer Bobby Darin, is that his source material is required to reference the famed celebrity's untimely death. Therefore, if there is demise here, how can a persona plausibly look back at his life after the fact? What is the ground rule, exactly?

The Aviator / ***1/2 (2004)

Martin Scorsese's passionate love of filmmaking has no doubt made him an ideal candidate for all sorts of new cinematic challenges, and in "The Aviator" he finds himself at the helm of something particularly interesting: a story that blends familiar narrative territory with a seemingly-foreign historical context (at least to him). It is easy to understand, at least, his primary desire; after all, a good portion of his career has centered on the notion that his film's heroes are usually encumbered by enough quirks and personal dilemmas to undermine their sense of importance. As luck would have it, famed billionaire Howard Hughes was exactly that kind of individual in real life - so much so, in fact, that one almost wonders whether the director's past endeavors were just stepping stones on the way to channeling this specific persona. Drive made Hughes a figure of notoriety, no doubt, but fate brings his visage to the fingers of a craftsman whose own fame is a result of dissecting the most flawed and troublesome movie protagonists of our time. He hardly seems out of place with the familiar approach, but the facet of reality gives him a whole new playing field to explore.

National Treasure / *** (2004)

If you can call it entertaining, you're more than justified in calling it good. This, at least, is how someone like yours truly feels when it comes to "National Treasure," a sleeper hit that has endured so much critical backlash since its release in November that one almost feels guilty in disagreeing with the consensus. The audience, on the other hand, seems to have seen a different film than what the paid professionals have: an action vehicle that on one hand is very silly, and on the other is extremely effective in conveying the sheer thrill of its wacky situations (and judging by the box office success, one would also argue that it's probably worth repeat viewings). For fairness sakes (and for the basic fact that I simply enjoyed what I was seeing), I am obliged to leave all points of cynicism out of this review. Few can argue that John Turteltaub's ambitious vehicle is about as unbelievable as a film can get, but if one is able to leave all sense of logic at the door, it's also very hard not to have a darn good time in the process.

Blade Trinity / ** (2004)

"Blade: Trinity" begins with an effective sequence in which a group vampires revive the spirit of Dracula, and then slowly but surely abandons the franchise hip factor and descends into pure banal territory. One would have hoped that this trilogy would go out with a bang, but the gun winds up shooting blanks instead. And that's more of a shock than you might realize, too, because like its predecessors, the picture is engulfed by a premise so seemingly expert that it would be hard to impair its quality otherwise. The first two movies, on the other hand, knew that it took more than just a heap of action shots to shape an intriguing premise into an equally-satisfying payoff; here, director/writer David S. Goyer seems to be more amused by visual energy and less concerned with how he is going to answer crucial questions or when the plot will be allowed to think instead of react. That Goyer is the same writer of the previous "Blade" flicks as well as the brilliant "Dark City" is an issue that few will be able to get past.

Alexander / *1/2 (2004)

"Fortune favors the bold."

Judging by Oliver Stone's "Alexander," it also favors the pretentious. By far the most impressively inane blockbuster to hit the big screen all year, here is a film that reaches so high and far that it's almost a little perplexing as to why it makes such a miserable thud in the end. For a new filmmaker with dreams of cinematic grandeur, such an undertaking would have died even before the footage was done being shot - but for a filmmaker like Stone, who has both made a career out of strokes of brilliance as well as periods of temporary insanity, the product creates the distinct feeling that it is being delivered just for the sake of silencing impatient investors. The director and his cast and crew of talented individuals did not so much make a movie as they made a mess; it lacks both the shape and the skill of a plausible historical epic, and the fact that its scope is so extensive leaves you feeling like a kid who is being pulled away from all the fun rides at the local carnival.

Task of movie reviewing made much easier by absence of Jack Valenti

Just this past week, DVD screening copies of the Focus Features releases "The Door in the Floor" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" wound up on my doorstep. Their arrivals certainly weren't something to jot down on the out-of-the-ordinary note pad or anything (if you were a member of the Online Film Critics Society, you'd know full well that this happens frequently during the latter months of a year), but considering how much hysteria had been caused in the industry over the previous months regarding piracy, they were nonetheless a sight I hadn't expected to see for some time. The first emotion was that of skepticism, but then an epiphany: "Of course! That old poop Jack Valenti is no longer at the head of the table at the Motion Picture Association of America!" Remember what they used to say in those high school comedies about parents always spoiling the fun of an ambitious teenager? Imagine, then, how a party animal would feel knowing that his mom or dad has gone on an extended vacation, leaving him alone in the house.