Gates of Heaven (1978)

Director: Errol Morris

The Lowdown: A documentary chronicling the stories of two different pet cemeteries and those whose lives are affected by them.

My Take:
There are occasionally films that cause one to be a bit befuddled. "Gates of Heaven" is just such a film.  It's an odd documentary that is simultaneously a quirky story about a bizarre profession and a thoughtful, effective drama about how we deal with death.

However, to describe the film as being purely about the pet cemetery business would be misleading. Pet burials are merely a common point of interest that all the film's characters share, and is more than anything a jumping off point for a series of intriguingly quirky but always respectful character studies. For instance, we meet one man who works at one of the pet cemeteries but his real passion is music, he goes on and on about his love of it, his new amp system and we even see him play guitar. Yet while it seems tangential it's still fascinating stuff.

Scenes like this populate the film, but director Errol Morris never allows their weirdness to overtake the film and take it off the central idea: an examination of how these very different people react to the death of a loved one, in this case a pet.  Morris allows the film to tell its own story, simply showing interviews without narration or music to manipulate the material and draw fake emotions from the audience making "Gates of Heaven" an exceptionally authentic experience.

In all, it's hard to sum the film up without giving away everything that makes it such a unique experience. I will, however, say that "Gates of Heaven" is one of the most unique films, documentary or otherwise you will ever see. Its central subject is a bit odd but is also what makes the film accessible, despite touching on the very real and dark topic of losing a beloved family member.

Best Moment: An old woman who recently lost her pet proceeds to go on a tangent for several minutes about her son who never repays the money she owes her, never comes to see her, etc. This is shown uncut, in its entirety and is sad yet surprisingly hilarious because of its excessive length and how extraneous it is to the rest of the film.

In Short: "Gates of Heaven" is a bizarre film that is at once very funny in some strange ways, but also an uncompromising, engaging and sometimes strangely moving look at how human beings react to death.

9 out of 10

The Ladykillers (2004)

Starring: Tom Hanks, Irma P. Hall, J.K. Simmons, Tzi Ma, Ryan Hurst, Marlon Wayans, Stephen Root

Director: Joel and Ethan Coen

The Lowdown: An eccentric professor (Tom Hanks) rents a room from an elderly widow under false pretenses so that he and his equally eccentric crew (J.K. Simmons, Tzi Ma, Ryan Hurst, Marlon Wayans) can proceed to carry out a well planned heist at a nearby riverboat casino. When the widow is suspicious of the crew it is decided she must die. Hi-jinks ensue.

My Take:Anybody who knows me is well aware that I love The Coen Brothers and consider them to be the very best writing/directing team around and await eagerly for each new Coen film to released. Their masterpieces "Fargo", "No Country for Old Men", "The Big Lebowski" and "Miller's Crossing" are amongst my favorite films. Additionally, I consider most of their other films to be on the same level as those greats. Unfortunately, "The Ladykillers" does not make that list and is very much a second tier Coen film.

Perhaps the film's biggest stumbling block is its pacing, the first act, a string of short clips establishing each of the main characters, moves at an incredibly slow pace and is not effective at introducing most of the players. Similarly, their are a number of scenes that could have been trimmed to make the film tighter and arrive to the execution of the heist more quickly. There's also the occasional joke that falls a bit flat, a rarity for the Coens.

That said, a second rate Coen Brothers film is better than the first rate films of many directors and "The Ladykillers" still has a lot to offer fans of the Coen's previous work. First of all, the cinematography from Roger Deakins, the Coen's go to DP, is terrific in its sense of lighting and adds a touch of beauty that blends in surprisingly well with the film's darker sense of humor.

The ensemble cast is also at the top of their game. J.K. Simmons and Tzi Ma are both perfectly cast and make for memorable characters. Even Marlon Wayans salvages a somewhat memorable and, shockingly, not annoying performance. It is also refreshing to see Tom Hanks in his first comedic role in years, and in a villainous role at that. Hanks appears to be having fun and gives the eccentric professor qualities that are simultaneously devilish and buffoonish. Special mention should also go to Irma P. Hall who more than holds her own against Hanks and the others in a terrific turn as the elderly widow.

Best Moment: What ultimately rescues the film is its third act which bumps the flick up to being a minor masterpiece of dark comedy, as the crew's plan goes painfully and hilariously wrong in a climax that nobody can pull off as well as the Coen Brothers.

In Short: While its ultimately a lesser entry in Coen compendium "The Ladykillers" manages to still a be a memorable and often hilarious comedy with a delightfully dark climax, and one of Tom Hank's funniest roles in ages.

7 out of 10

It Came from the Trash Heap: The Wild World of Batwoman (1966)

Note: This is the start of a new feature here focusing specifically on the worst films that I have ever seen, films that despite their best efforts inspire nothing but absolute befuddlement at the idea that anybody thought making them was a good idea. These are all movies that under normal evaluation would receive somewhere between a 1 and 3 out of 10 rating. Enjoy.

Yes this drugged out hooker talking on the phone is the movie's hero. We're in trouble.

Starring: Katherine Victor, George Andre, Steve Brodie, Richard Banks and a cast of dozens of women playing an army of indistinguishable "Batgirls".

Director: Jerry Warren

The Characters:

-Batwoman (Katherine Victor, pictured above):
Basically a lazy attempt at ripping off Batman that ends up looking more like a prostitute whose costume was designed by a designer that was half asleep or just did not care. Batwoman is the leader of some sort Charlie's Angel's type outfit made up of Batgirls who frankly don't really do anything.

-Rat Fink (Richard Banks):
Batwoman's arch nemesis whose costume looks like some sort of luchador/Zorro/businessman combo.

-Professor G. Octavious Neon (George Andre):
An incompetent mad scientist who is incidentally the film's most entertaining character. Dr. Neon is surrounded by various incompetent cronies that seem to push the film's feminist belief that all men are stupid or evil. Oddly, said feminist idealism is undermined by having female characters that dress like hookers and are just as stupid as the male characters.

The "Story":
A female superhero (suspiciously similar to Batman) and her army of airhead Batgirls face off against a mysterious masked villain who wishes to steal a super sonic hearing aid (yes, you heard that right). The rest of the plot as it were is nearly incomprehensible. Supporting character's include an idiotic mad scientist, his Igor wannabe henchman, a man villain that looks like a luchador and one of the more racist portrayals of an Oriental person this side of Audrey Hepburn's neighbor in "Breakfast at Tiffany's".

Why did God let a movie so terrible happen?

With the popularity of the campy 60's "Batman" TV series with Adam West reaching its peak in popularity, many studios were obviously interested in cashing in on its success. The obvious way to do this would be to buy the rights to another superhero or make your own original superhero. Not content with taking the path of least resistance (or the path of common sense) director Jerry Warren decided to simply create an obvious rip off. Warren then wrote a story that is full of padding even in a film that runs a stunningly short 70 minutes.

Saving grace:
Hard to say, after a while even seeing scantily clad women dancing becomes most annoying due to how often the story pauses for these scenes and that the so-called "dancing" causes laughter more than anything else. However, Professor Neon is frequently amusing and the character that's easiest to describe as being memorable, but even he becomes tiresome. So in other words, nothing.

Particularly Awful Scenes:
-The cold open which features two Batgirls swearing in a third and discussing some sort of backstory involving synthetic vampires. Cut to opening credits. The stuff about vampires whet your appetite? Too bad, it's never mentioned again, and we never see these particular Batgirls again..

-After the credits two entirely different Batgirls going about minding their own business witness a robbery that turns into a murder. The film in all its utter "brilliance" decides to leave the rest up to our imagination as this storyline is never mentioned again! This sort of "brilliant" and "unconventional" storytelling flows from the "Wild Wild World of Batwoman" as if it were a fountain of rich storytelling awesomeness.

-This is followed by the first of many, many, many long dance scenes. Rather than keeping these scenes short Warren is content to take his time with this scene  and let you take in this wonderful word so you can truly understand these characters' "hopes and dreams". This all takes the place of more traditional character development techniques like dialogue and acting. Fuckin' brilliant.

-At one point Batwoman and several others hold a seance to summon the spirit of a dead Chinese man. Instead of having said character simply speak English or hiring an actual Chinese speaker Warren again forgoes traditional outdated movie making techniques and simply has the spirit speak in a random combination of "Chings" and "Chongs" and other stereotypically Asian sounding grunts. This is all NEVER mentioned again.

-Similarly, the film's hero Batwoman is never actually seen really doing anything heroic, we're simply supposed to just *believe* that she's awesome.

- At one point two characters stumble into some sort of bizarre villain lair/ lost city matte painting and are attacked by stock footage of mole men from another film. By this point in the film this all seems normal and expected. Oh and surprise this is NEVER MENTIONED AGAIN!

-A huge explosion occurs in a small room killing no one and apparently healing the unfortunate chap that was left holding the bomb of his mentally challenged state.

Most mind numbingly stupid moment:
The climax wherein supervillain Rat Fink is revealed to be none other than.... the scientist who invented the supersonic hearing aid. Why did he decide he needed to steal his own invention? So he could listen to all the phone calls in the world.

No it doesn't make sense. Don't waste your time thinking about it.

Perhaps more shocking than the stupidity of this scene is that I haven't even covered half of the stupid, awful, pointless scenes in this awful mess of a movie.

In Short: "The Wild World of Batwoman" is a remarkably ill conceived B-movie that seems to be a never ending string of scenes with any semblance of story connecting them left on the cutting room floor. Whether or not this was the worst film ever watched by the Mystery Science Theater crew is definitely up to debate but its certainly in the top 5 worst and any MST3K real fan should definitely seek this episode out.

Chaplin (1992)

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Kevin Kline, Anthony Hopkins, Marissa Tomei, Dan Akroyd

Director: Richard Attenborough

The Lowdown: A look at the life of revolutionary silent film star and director Charlie Chaplin (Robert Downey Jr. in an Academy Award nominated role).

My Take:
Charlie Chaplin was one of the most influential and important figures in the history of film. Chaplin was the first person to ever star in, write, direct, write the musical score for and produce his own films. To this day there's not a single filmmaker that can do all those things. Granted John Carpenter has written directed and scored a number of his films and Clint Eastwood has frequently directed and starred in his film and took up scoring them as of late. However, Chaplin was the only one to conquer all of these things and do all of them exceptionally well making classic film after classic film.

Perhaps the biggest question is does the film do the man's legacy justice? The answer is yes and no.

First of all, Robert Downey Jr.'s performance cannot be praised enough and despite any other flaws is reason enough to see this film. Anyone who has ever read extensively about Chaplin or seen any of his films will agree that Downey IS Chaplin in this film. Its one of those remarkable performances where an actor has thrown themselves head first into a performance and disappeared into their character. The fact that Downey so perfectly embodies a real person without resorting to mere mimicry makes it all the more incredible.

That said, in other areas the film's results are a little more mixed in quality. I will say that I think Attenborough's direction was successful overall in getting good performances out of his supporting cast and I enjoyed it whenever the film attempted to emulate the style of Chaplin's own silent films. However, as far as the supporting cast goes Kevin Kline manages to try and bring down most scenes he's in. You never once believe that he is Douglas Fairbanks and more often than not it feels like he's not even trying. Its really a pitiful supporting performance.

Technically the film is also successful with great period costumes and terrific art direction (especially in the behind-the-scenes Hollywood moments). Also, notable is the cinematography from Sven Nykvist, a Swedish DP that made a name for himself as Ingmar Bergman's go to guy for cinematography.

Where the film fails most is probably in its story. With biopics that intend to capture the entire life of a person you usually get a supremely detailed one that's at least 3 hours long or a shorter version that covers most of the highlights and cuts out some of the "less important" bits. "Chaplin" is odd in that it falls somewhere between. At 135 minutes its not really short but because of Chaplin's vast and varied life story that's not nearly enough time to cover all the highlights. As a result, a lot of material is skimmed over. The screenplay hits most of the high and low points of Chaplin's personal life but its alot less successful in covering his filmography. Of Chaplin's classic films only "The Great Dictator's" production is examined in depth and many of Chaplin's films are barely mentioned.

Now I'm not saying I wanted a six hour movie full of scenes of Chaplin shooting scene X for movie A. I merely found it odd that most of his films were not mentioned, in particular I found it curious that "Modern Times", his last silent picture made SEVEN YEARS after the transition to sound, a bold achievement wasn't even mentioned. Perhaps the most notable omission the film makes is that it completely skips over the Chaplin's later talkies. This is probably because none of them were particularly successful in the states and they aren't as popular in general.  However, I think time spent on this period would have given even more insight into why at the end of the film Chaplin feels that American audiences hated him (the film merely relies on the US government asking him to exile himself as reason enough). As a result, the film's final scene, where Chaplin is brought to tears at the surprising (to him) applause he receives before getting his honorary Oscar, all the more moving.

Best Moment: An elderly Chaplin recounts to his biographer an over the top tale of how he went into the studio's costume department and the various components of "The Tramp" (Chaplin's most popular character) were calling out to him. The biographer merely says "Now that's bullshit and you know it". Chaplin's response? "The truth is so... boring."

In Short: While certainly nowhere near the best biopic ever made, "Chaplin" is still an enjoyable and fairly insightful film that's elevated by Robert Downey Jr.'s pitch perfect performance.

8 out of 10

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

Starring: Steve Wiebe, Billy Mitchell, Brian Kuh, Todd Rogers, Walter Day

Director: Seth Gordon

The Lowdown: In this 2007 documentary, recently laid off Redmond, Washington resident Steve Wiebe finds solace in playing Donkey Kong obsessively in an attempt to capture the world record high score. Eventually, Wiebe finds himself right in the middle of the world of competitive gaming and in the midst of a fierce rivalry with Billy Mitchell, the holder of Donkey Kong's high score for the past 25 years.

My Take:
These days so many average joes play video games in their spare time that its hard to believe that gaming was once a nerd subculture as it was in the 80s. Over the past 20 years it has also become exceptionally rare to find anybody making the trek to a local arcade in search of the ever elusive high score. However, as it is in almost anything, there's still a fringe group that obsessive over 80s arcade games, and spend an incalculable amount of time hunched over Pac Man machines and the like trying to capture the high score (and keep it out of the reach of other gamers). "The King of Kong" is a documentary that explores the unusual rivalry between two such people within this tiny subculture. As such, one gets a very detailed look at competitive high score gaming, and the lengths at which people will go to to maintain their world record and ultimately their reputation amongst fellow gamers.

What's fascinating is how for being a real life documentary the story frequently feels like the more offbeat, nerdy cousin to a Hollywood sports film. In Steve Wiebe we have the film's underdog. When the movie starts Wiebe has recently been laid off from his job as an engineer (later in the film he has become a math teacher) and in the interim has been obsessively playing an old Donkey Kong arcade machine that he keeps in his garage. Steve begins to use his knowledge of mathematics to predict patterns in the game and inch ever more closely towards the highest score ever achieved.

This is where the film's other main character, and villain, comes in. Billy Mitchell is a hotshot, world famous competitive gamer with many famous scores including the world's first known perfect Pac Man score, and the world record Donkey Kong score since 1982. For the competitive gaming set Billy Mitchell is a superstar on the same level as Michael Jordan. He's the sort of figure that young competitive gamers idolize and worship to an alarming degree. We learn that Billy Mitchell also works as an official video game referee for Twin Galaxies, the respected "official scorekeeper" for gamers around the world that Guiness consults for its video game scores section in its book of world records.

On top of all that Mitchell also happens to be one of the douchiest villains in a sports movie. Ever. When Steve sends in a tape to Twin Galaxies depicting him beating Mitchell's score, Mitchell sinks to some pretty pathetic tactics.  These include sending two guys to Steve's house to look at the DK machine's circuit board, milking Steve's friendship with controversial gamer Roy Shildt (an enemy of Twin Galaxies who allegedly gave false claims to holding high scores of various arcade games) for all its worth and eventually refusing to even go head to head with Steve at a public arcade tournament. Mitchell makes most sports movie villains look downright likable, he's the sort of character that were he fictional you wouldn't believe anyone could be this big of a douche bag.

In addition to these two main characters the cast is rounded out by a few other eccentric characters:

-Brian Kuh: Mitchell's prodigy and #1 fan. He worships Mitchell so much that he'll do anything to intimidate Steve Wiebe. Brian has also retired from his bank management position at the ripe old age of 30 to pursue competitive gaming full time.

- Doris Self: An 80 year old woman and the worlds oldest competitive gamer, who Mitchell has mentored. Self seeks to maintain her world record score on the game Q-Bert.

-Walter Day: The owner of Twin Galaxies and an aspiring folk singer.

You just can't make up this many unique and memorable characters. That's exactly what makes "The King of Kong" such a fun documentary.

Best Moment: Anytime popular gaming ref and aspiring rock star Walter Day appears on screen you know a scene is about to be stolen.

In Short:

Like some of the very best documentaries "The King of Kong" explores a world and a story that sometimes seems too bizarre to actually be believable. Its a classic underdog story with a nerdy twist and full of eccentric characters, some of whom would make fascinating documentary subjects themselves. Fans of classic arcade games and those looking for a less traditional spin on the typical sports movie story will appreciate this terrifically entertaining and engaging film.

9 out of 10

Blue Valentine (2010)

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Michelle Williams

Director: Derek Cianfrance

The Lowdown: A fly on the wall view of the life of a married couple Dean and Cindy (Gosling, Williams) that alternates between two time periods: the time during which they first fell in love and the two day period over which it all seems to fall apart.

My Take:
There are tons of movies that come out  every year that try oh-so-hard to be real and relate-able, and touch audiences. Its very rare that any of these films actually manage to strike a chord with their audience, and there are even fewer that are actually downright moving.

Blue Valentine is such a picture. Derek Cianfrance has crafted a superb second feature that indicates that given the right funding and the right actors, as he was in this case, he could easily go on to be an indie force to be reckoned with. The unique way in which he tells his story, filming each time period with a different camera, gives them each their own distinct look as if they are scenes from two different films.

This brilliant visualization beautifully mirrors the lead performances from Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. The two characters embodied by them seem to be entirely different people in each period because of how much these two must have transformed in the interim. It's this obvious transformation that makes the flashbacks all the more heartbreaking. These flashbacks seem to occasionally give us relief from the more intense and dark present storyline; on the contrary, it makes the past  a dark layer of sadness because we as an audience know something that the couple does not. We know even before the first flashback that the relationship is doomed.

The present storyline however has no delusions of happiness. No, this is long after the honeymoon has already past and this couple's love is practically on its last leg. As Dean and Cindy slowly begin to realize the hopelessness of rekindling the romance, the film becomes increasingly more difficult to watch. As these characters' inhibitions fall to the wayside Gosling and Williams easily slide into the darker, nastier side of their personalities. At the same time, no matter how awful the things these characters say to each other are it's impossible to hate either one of them. The flashbacks do have a hand in this yes, but it's ultimately Williams and Gosling's acting that manages to give them both a sad humanity that's hard not to sympathize with.

Similarly, the film itself casts neither as the "bad guy" in the marriage, it takes no dramatic shortcuts to ensure the marriage's dissolution, there are no affairs or deep dark secrets. Its simply a case of a relationship that simply has no life left in it because two flawed people who once loved each other so deeply simply can not do it anymore. Its the very idea that a relationship can die over time as easily as it began that makes "Blue Valentine" such an uncomfortable film for some. You don't want to, but you can see bits and pieces of yourself in these characters. Its exactly because of that authentic human element that "Blue Valentine" sucks you in and doesn't let go.

Best Moment: The final scene is a tour de force of terrific acting and pitch perfect editing that exquisitely juxtaposes two crucial moments and builds to a heartbreaking conclusion.

In Short: It's a sad, often brutally honest and unflinchingly real film, but "Blue Valentine" is driven by a terrific screenplay and perfect performances that make this incredibly raw and human drama one of the top 5 films of 2010.

10 out of 10

Synecdoche, New York (2008)

Starring: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Tom Noonan, Samantha Morton, Michelle Williams, Hope Davis, Dianne Wiest

Director: Charlie Kaufman (in his directorial debut, also screenwriter)

The Lowdown: Caden Cotard (Hoffman), a perpetually paranoid theater director, unexpectedly receives a MacArthur genius grant not long after his wife (Keener) leaves him. Cotard subsequently decides to use the genius grant to fund his magnum opus: he buys a gigantic warehouse which he uses to house a gigantic world to create an accurate depiction of his own life. What results is a seemingly lifespan encompassing work that begins to include a play within a play, within a play, within a play within the film. This also includes actors playing the actors playing the people in Caden's life and so on and so forth.


The Good: First of all, it must be said that anybody familiar with Charlie Kaufman and the films he has written knows to expect something weird whenever his name is attached to a project. This is after all a man whose screenplays have included films about a portal into John Malkovich's brain and the weirdest love triangle ever (Being John Malkovich), a procedure through which people can have ex-lovers erased from their memory (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) and a film featuring Kaufman himself and an imaginary twin brother as its lead characters (Adaptation).

To be frank however, Synecdoche, New York may very well be the weirdest and most ambitious film of Charlie Kaufman's career.

The story moves beyond post-modern and into an expansive, decades spanning story of recursive reality that houses loads of supporting characters as we journey through the life of Caden Cotard (wonderfully played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, one of the best working actors of the past five years). As such, it is very difficult to sum up the story, but here are some highlights without spoiling anything plot-wise:

- The film seemingly drifts freely and without warning between dream and reality.
- Likewise, time jumps occur without warning and often in nontraditional ways.
-There's a house that's perpetually on fire for approximately 30 years worth of story time.
-Caden's magnum opus is staged inside a gigantic warehouse that, as it depicts his life, seemingly develops into its on society via the play within a play within a play which progresses to the point of warehouses within the warehouse within the warehouse.
- Caden is a paranoid and neurotic protagonist that would make Woody Allen proud.
- On first viewing the film is exceptionally confusing and jarring for the uninitiated, myself included.

The above may sound like it borders on the Avant-garde and the impenetrably weird. However, while some of the weirder films released in recent years have been unwatchable and unrelatable even after multiple viewings (I'm talking to you Inland Empire) on its very first viewing Synecdoche , New York is still an entertaining if confusing film. And to even those who are initially bewildered by the film's weirdness on first glance, I urge you to give it a second viewing like I did. Having experienced it once already I was less surprised by the bizarre presentation of the film the second time around and saw it in a whole new light. I realized that what I had seen was a simultaneously dark, hilarious, touching and ambitious film that was raw and uncompromising in a way few American films are these days. The cast is similarly full of a variety of great performances from Tom Noonan as Caden's stalker, Dianne Wiest as one of the actress in his opus, Hope Davis as his therapist and Michelle Williams, Catherine Keener, Samantha Morton and Emily Watson as the cavalcade of lovers that progressively enter and leave his life.

Of course, the film's greatest draw other than Kaufman's vision is Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance. Hoffman easily bounces back and forth between Caden's paranoia and vulnerability, as well as his gigantic ego, and never once makes it seem unlikely for these aspects to coexist.

In the end, Synecdoche, New York is a beautiful, heartbreaking, hilarious and original look at life, death and everything in between that has a lot to offer anyone willing to be patient with its complex narrative and its quirks.



The Bad: While I personally loved the film, I will still warn that its not immediately accessible and definitely not for everyone. Many will be put off by its often grim outlook on life and its often dark sense of humor. While its often funny some of the film's lines about such topics about how we are all "hurtling towards death" will be enough to turn off some people right away.


Best Line: "We're all hurtling towards death, yet here we are for the moment, alive. Each of us knowing we're going to die, each of us secretly believing we won't."

In Short: Synecdoche, New York is one of the most beautiful and unique films of the last decade. While on first viewing it may seem inaccessible, if one gives it a second chance the film proves to be a rewarding and moving film about life and death that is universal.

10 out of 10

The Fifth Element (1997)

Cast: Bruce Willis, Mila Jovovich, Ian Holm, Chris Tucker and Gary Oldman

Director: Luc Besson

The Lowdown: A young woman (Mila Jovovich) who is "the perfect being" needed to stop a great evil falls into the hands of an unwitting cab driver named Dallas Corbyn (Willis) who for the sake of plot convenience is also a former special forces major. Upon learning said girl's significance Dallas is roped into a web of intriguing involving a priest (Ian Holm), some old special forces buddies, ugly aliens and an evil, wealthy tycoon (Oldman). Chris Tucker.

The Good: For starters, anybody that's ever seen an action film directed by Luc Besson (i.e. The Professional, Unleashed, etc.)  can vouch that the man knows his way around a wide array of action sequences. "The Fifth Element" carries on Besson's tradition of well constructed popcorn flicks that are mind blowing from a technical standpoint. As such, for the action fan there's a wide variety of action sequences. Futuristic car chases, martial arts and exploding space ships the size of planets: "The Fifth Element" has just about any kind of action sequence you could imagine.

In addition, "Element" takes place in a visually appealing, goofy futuristic society, complete with all the flying cars and absurd gadgets you could asks for. Similarly, the absurd costumes worn by the characters makes the film feel like the big budget realization of a movie some kid came up with whilst playing with a wide assortment of obscure 1980s sci-fi action figures found discarded in a budget bin at Wal-Mart. After this the figures were subsequently used to model the clothing style of characters in the film.

"Element" also has a great deal of wacky humor that would be right at home in a more violent Loony Tunes cartoon (one starring Bruce Willis as Bugs Bunny). As a result, the film has a looseness that makes it feel like a big budget B-movie and gives it what tvtropes.org defines as narm charm. On top of all that Element benefits from having proven thespians like Gary Oldman and Ian Holm in supporting roles.

Also, there's a scene late in the film, that I won't ruin, that's a perfect textbook example of juxtaposition at its finest.

The Bad: All the above elements would make one think "The Fifth Element" has chances of being one of those cases of "so bad its good". Unfortunately, the film can't quite decide what it wants to do with its self, it tries oh so hard to be simultaneously a goofy film and also take itself seriously. This is ultimately what weighs the film down and keeps from being more than average. If all the focus had been put into making a compelling sci-fi action flick or into making a goofy near parody of one it would have been a better film. Unfortunately its too much for one film to do both.

Another thing that does not help matters is the acting of some of the film's performers. I'm looking at you Mila Jovovich and Chris Tucker. Jovovich's "perfect being" character is nearly impossible to empathize with because she's just so damn wooden and is ultimately just there to look pretty. Her performance is at least tolerable though. Chris Tucker on the other hand starts out funny but ends up becoming more an more annoying with each passing second of screen time. To make matters worse for most of the second half Tucker is the film's designated comic relief. As such, what should have been a minor role becomes a major supporting role that one appreciates less and less as the film wears on.

Finally, its pacing that keeps "Element" from meeting its full potential. 127 minutes is simply too long for the film's thin storyline by a good 30 minutes or so.

Best Line: General Munro: Three reasons. One - as a member of the elite special forces unit of the Federated Army, you are expert in the use of all major weapons & space craft needed for this mission. Two - of all the members of your unit, you were the most highly decorated.
Dallas: ...and the third one?
General Munro: Of all the members of your unit, you're the only one left alive.

In Short: While it succeeds from a technical standpoint "The Fifth Element" is too indecisive about what kind of film it wants to be. Ultimately, this along with a few bad casting and pacing decisions keeps the film from being even a memorable blockbuster.

5 out of 10

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

Starring: Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Kevin Spacey, Alan Arkin, Jonathan Pryce and Alec Baldwin

Director: James Foley

The Low Down: Shelley Levene (Lemmon), Dave Moss (Harris), George Aranow (Arkin) and Ricky Roma (Pacino, in an Oscar nominated role) are salesmen at real estate firm. With the exception of Ricky, sales have been low as of late and one night a hotshot executive (Alec Baldwin) initiates a sales contest with one catch: the winner gets a Cadillac along with a set of prime sales leads, the salesman in last place loses their job. Based on a Pulitzer winning play, the film chronicles the actions of the salesmen over the next several hours into the next morning.Kevin Spacey costars as Williamson, the office manager who all four salesman passionately dislike.

The Good: As with most play to film adaptations the quality of Glengarry Glen Ross is dependent on how good the dialogue is, and the cast selected to bring that dialogue to life on the silver screen. Usually, if the play is being adapted in the first place chances are the dialogue is somewhat worthwhile. In the case of Glengarry Glen Ross, calling the dialogue somewhat worthwhile is the understatement of the year. David Mamet's (who adapted his own play) dialogue perfectly embodies the fears and desperation of men who have essentially been pushed into a corner and turned into savage animals by the American dream. Yet despite all the awful things these characters say and sometimes do in their moments of desperation, Mamet still manages to make most of them sympathetic guys you could see yourself being friends with.

Casting however, tends to be a bit more of a wild card in these cases. Luckily, reading the cast list is akin to reading a list of who's who in great acting and includes some of the best actors of the past 25 years. As such the film is one of those ensemble pieces where it would almost feel like a sin to single out anybody over anybody else. Unfortunately, I'm feeling a bit sinful today and for the sake of brevity I'll simply say Ed Harris, Alan Arkin and Kevin Spacey all play their parts to perfection and deserve analysis themselves but then this review would turn into a novel. First of all there's Al Pacino,  back when he could give an A plus performance in his sleep, carefully juggling the charisma and sleaziness that makes Ricky Roma so memorable. He embodies the sort of salesman you want to get away from as quickly as possible because you know the longer you stay the more likely it is he'll charm you into buying something you can't possibly afford. On the other side of the spectrum is Alec Baldwin in a one scene role, not in the original play and  added to the film specifically for him; as Blake, a wealthy company executive sent to motivate the salesmen, Baldwin gives a performance full of anger and capably spouts the sort of bile that would put the fear of God in anyone and make them fear for their jobs. Anybody whose ever had to deal with an angry boss will know the sort of person I'm talking about. As I said, Baldwin's only in one scene but it's a turning point that sets the tone for the rest of the movie and it makes an impression for sure.

The film however, belongs to Jack Lemmon's sad, sympathetic and ultimately tragic performance that drives the story. His performance as Shelley is the heart to the rest of the casts frenetic nervous system. Simply put, without him the film would be a violently flailing shell without any real life. Shelley does embody some of the sleazy salesmanship tactics that are at work in some of the other characters, but with Lemmon's sad and world weary performance its hard to not like Shelley even after some of the depths he sinks to before the film's conclusion. It's easily the most incredible performance in a movie full of them and one of Jack Lemmon's best.

The Bad: As is the case with some stage to screen adaptations there are a couple scenes that lack interesting visuals but these moments are few and far between thanks to scenes with great lighting and ominous rainfall in the film's first half.

Best Line: "Fuck you! That's my name! You know why mister? You drove a Hyundai to get here. I drove an eighty thousand dollar BMW. THAT'S my name!"

In Short: Glengarry Glen Ross is a must see for fans of anyone in its cast and dialogue driven flicks that are overflowing with the sort of stuff that great movie quotes are made of. Its subject matter might be less than pleasant, but in these hard economic times where the threat of unemployment looms it's the sort of movie that any person at the bottom level of a company can relate to.

10 out of 10