Reviews

Coraline/2009/***1/2

Main Stars: Coraline: Dakota Fanning Mother/Other Mother: Teri Hatcher Wybie: Robert Bailey Jr.

They don't make movies like Coraline very often but perhaps that's a good thing. Why? It's simple. If shown too often, stop motion animation would lose its novelty. Only fourteen years ago the spectacle that was Toy Story was released and it received tons of attention and rave reviews not just for its very witty screenplay but also for its rare look. Not one film had looked like that and had a FEATURE LENGTH running time to it until Toy Story was released in 1995 by Pixar. Yes, Pixar had released fully and digitally animated films but they were all within the duration of ten minutes or less.

But now what do we see AT LEAST 5-10 times a year? An animated film. I'm not saying this is bad. It's alright if it's digitally animated by computer as long as the screenplay is very good. Pixar has absolutely no problem with clever screenplays in their animated films. Wall-E was sheer brilliance as was Ratatouille the year before. But I'm still partial to Toy Story more than any other film Pixar released. DreamWorks, however, might need to work a little on those screenplays, excluding their best work, Shrek.

Coraline is based on the graphic novel by Neil Gaiman about a bratty little girl named Coraline (Dakota Fanning) that finds a secret door in the family room/living room of her house that leads into another version or rather alternate version of her life. This alternate version you will find is quite different from her real life. Completely the opposite, in fact. It reminded me so much of the joyous atmosphere of the dead in Tim Burton's Corpse Bride and the completely dull life of the living. What an ingenious contrast.

Coraline is ingenious in itself as well but in a different way. Not only is the animation astounding, the screenplay decent, the originality brilliant, but there is a moral as well. One that's not too hard to find out but also one that is pretty important to keep in mind. The story is different and this moral has been used before.

Coraline is a pessimist, always finding something to complain about; whether it's her life or the situation she's in. Nothing seems to be going her way. Even the boy living nearby, Wybie (Robert Bailey Jr.), annoys her. But, she's curious and adventurous and gets her nose into every little thing. As she's browsing around the house to pass the time she notices a door. It has to lead somewhere. She manages to unlock it after a bitter argument with her mother but nothing's there. This doesn't stop her. Finally, following some mice, she enters this portal if you will. It reminded me of an air duct. She passes through it and arrives in the same house! Only this one is brighter, more colorful, smells of delicious food and features buttons for eyes. Her parents are much more cheerful. In the other world her mother (Teri Hatcher) is boring and so is her father (John Hodgman). The other mother and other father, however (played by the same people), are completely exuberant, almost forcing their smiles. The ringleader you could say is the other mother. There's also other Wybie and all the other neighbors in cheerful versions and if they're not, this is to be fixed.

Coraline loves it! At first. But she is pessimistic and pretty cynical and if something doesn't go her way or someone wants her to do something she doesn't want to do, she'll get ticked off. It's all a gradual process in the other world, kind of making her be like everyone else. Does she follow suit?

The whole button metaphor, or, at least the way I interpreted it, plays a major part in the story and is total genius as is the film as a whole. Like many Tim Burton films, this one has so much originality, vision and quirky characters, it comes to be one of the most entertaining stop motion films I've seen.

Movie written for the screen and directed by Henry Selick.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street/2007/***

Main Stars: Sweeney Todd: Johnny Depp Mrs. Lovett: Helena Bonham Carter Judge Turpin: Alan Rickman

Tim Burton calls it The Sound of Music with blood. Indeed it is. Lots and lots of blood. However, it wasn't the color of real blood: dark, cherry red. It instead had a much brighter red color and it was of thinner volume.

I've never been a fan of sadistic violence. There's absolutely no point to it. But I decided to go and see it and I saw graphic, bloody violence. And it will be that way and there's no turning back. I do not recommend this film to anyone who has that same thought. It is and is supposed to be disturbing and dark. What do you expect from director Tim Burton? He is dark-minded and apparently likes to show sadistic violence to a certain longer extent.

There was one reason why I wanted to see this film. I like Tim Burton. His films are very entertaining and this was entertaining. But I have to admit I hate pointless violence or any violence for that matter because I see it as evil, sadistic and highly immoral. Excuse all the bloodthirsty, sadistic people out there that like to see this type of stuff. Go ahead and see it.

So why did I recommend this film? I found the music, the directing, acting and even some of the macabre humor to be entertaining. Johnny Depp is very versatile and played his part to perfection and so did all the other actors. The acting could have not been better. The entire picture is very impressive, so one should expect from a bloody big budget film like this.

It is a marginal recommendation. The film is dark, evil, and disturbing. It's ghastly. But it is meant to be that way. This is based on a musical by Stephen Sondheim and based on the play by Christopher Bond. Who knows? Maybe Sweeney Todd was a real demon barber and he slit people's throats, had the people grinded, put into meat pies, had people eat them at Lovett's (Carter's) restaurant then have the people that just ate the people come up, get a shave and a haircut (HA) and get recycled.

Doesn't the story sound lovely? Lovely and bloody? Yes. It would actually come across to me as not surprising if I found out Benjamin Barker (changed name to Sweeney Todd when he wanted revenge) was a real person. If this whole thing was made up, then Christopher Bond is one messed up fellow or just highly original.

But hey, there are insane people in the world like Benjamin Barker. But he was sane until he was separated from his love and child by the person (Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman)) he desperately loathed. Was he satisfied? In a way, yes.

If this story was made up then I will say to Christopher Bond that it is highly original. I have never seen anything like it before. If it is real, however, then I will say that God have mercy on Benjamin Barker's soul, who was obviously an insane man clouded from logic thoughts by his vengeful attitude because he loved his wife and child so much and hated Turpin to death.

Johanna (Todd's daughter) was held captive by Turpin and Todd's friend and comrade who came across to London with him loved her. But Turpin held her as his prisoner which made Todd madder at him and, well, proved that he didn't care who he slit. DEMON!

The film is a melancholy tragedy. It is disturbing, dark and sad. I felt a slight pity for all the people that were slit. Because, again, this could all have really happened. It's a horrifying thought really but so is the world.

So if you're expecting a happy musical with jolly moments, happy conflicts, climaxes, and resolutions, then you're on a fool's mission. This film is deep and dark and thrilling and musical at the same time. It is produced well with the Tim Burton style to it.

That's what I saw it for. Tim Burton has an ingenious visual talent, symbolic, and, in this, dark and evil.

I hate violence. I like movies. It evens out to a positive rating. Movies overthrow the violence because movies are escapisms and violence is life. Life is unfair. Violence is unfair. Movies are a different form of life. Something you can soak yourself into for two hours or three and walk out with either a happy, or sad, or angry, or nauseous, or scared, or neutral feeling. I think I felt all those. I like movies. This is a movie. I try not to look at it as a real thing but sometimes you do. And even Sweeney Todd can't stop me there.

Movie directed by Tim Burton.

I Am Legend/2007/***

Main Stars: Robert Neville: Will Smith Anna: Alice Braga

The title is perfect. Basically, the entire film is Robert Neville (Will Smith) and creatures. So he is legend because it says so in the title. When I first heard about this film I seriously didn't have a clue what it was about. And, to tell you the truth, I really didn't know what it was about when I walked into the theater, sat down, and watched. It took practically thirty minutes for me to understand the plot because the majority of the beginning was Will Smith saying perhaps one or two words to his dog and sniping deer. That was about it.

The setting: Manhattan. If you haven't heard anything about the film or read an outline then you most likely wouldn't understand what's going on, just like I didn't. All I knew was that Manhattan had some sort of tragic accident and it resulted in the entire city being evacuated. The special effects were quite convincing in the beginning. Whoever designed what Manhattan would look like without any people occupying it, did an excellent job. Talk about a difficult job. The streets are constantly flooded but not for this.

I liked the beginning because there weren't too many jumping scenes, horrifying images, etc. It was quiet… perhaps too quiet. Because then the true action began with unconvincing CGI creatures that were supposed to look like diseased humans but looked more like zombies. What's the difference, though? They had similar features to humans but their mouths were about triple the size of a normal human. They were also paler, uglier, and greasier than humans and that's about it. Triple-sizing their mouths can only mean one thing. These creatures won't speak; they'll just scream for no reason taking up the entire screen with their mouth, which you see a lot of times in horror films with also nasty creatures and gigantic mouths. How else will they be heard?

Do we need to hear them? No. I preferred if they didn't scream at all so they wouldn't disturb the peace. But once I heard the first bellow I knew the movie was gonna last for quite a while.

It didn't. The movie actually ended rather abruptly just like it started.

So how did these once normal humans turn into these annoying, abnormal humans? Well, a virus spread throughout the vicinity, killing way too many. He was the only one left. He sent out radio messages for about three years without an answer, hoping, just hoping there would be someone to answer to him, someone out there he could help… or perhaps someone who could help him.

He lived an O.K. life. He and his dog lived in a house he once lived in with his wife and kid. Flashbacks demonstrated it throughout the film. Usually when he was sleeping, it would flip to a flashback to show us what was happening and how it happened, and then later it would all become clearer to us.

Most importantly, though, you must watch the beginning scene. All it shows for about a minute is an interview with a doctor (played by Emma Thompson) on TV. Listen to the interview. We soon see Will Smith and his dog three years later.

The movie did flip around a lot so pay attention.

Now obviously there has to be a human that shows up eventually. Yeah. Anna (Alice Braga) and her son Ethan (Charlie Tahan) show. How did they get there, knowing that all bridges were destroyed, all humans were gone, only manikins were in stores, and objects, animals, and creatures are the only sources of life? Perhaps they swam or took a boat. They obviously cared a lot about Neville and wanted to save him. Why did she show up all of the sudden? Divine intervention, perhaps? Francis Lawrence is a good director. I have to credit him the most because there wasn't much of a screenplay. Instead, Neville just fights these "superhumans" and uses his dog as a companion. Lawrence, however, builds the suspense in a way we really like. Smith did a wonderful job. He's a good actor, but maybe this time it wasn't all acting.

Movie directed by Francis Lawrence.

Fred Claus/2007/**1/2

Main Stars: Fred Claus: Vince Vaughn Nick Claus: Paul Giamatti Willie: John Michael Higgins Clyde Northcutt: Kevin Spacey

What a way to start off a new streak of movie reviews by seeing wonderful holiday film Fred Claus. Okay, not so wonderful. It is not a good movie. But it's not a bad one either. It's one of those betweeners you get every once in a while. A slight rarity. The film's premise is actually not bad. I've never heard of Santa having a troublemaker older brother having to visit him for money before. At least the premise isn't formulaic, but what's inside is slightly clichéd, we've seen it before. It's the same stuff in a slightly different wrapping paper this time. Ha! Ugh…

Fred's story actually starts off with his mother giving birth to his brother Nick. Nick Claus. So Fred here is the OLDER brother. Although in the previews or if you've seen it you see that Vince Vaughn (Fred) has black hair and Nick (Paul Giamatti) has crisp white hair. But of course, he's Santa Claus! He's not Fred Claus. So yes, the legendary saint is supposed to have white hair, so the writers of the film had to come up with a reason why he, Nick, the younger sibling has to have white hair when he grows up instead of thick black hair. They whipped up a cheesy idea that his hair grew prematurely white while Fred's stayed black and healthy. When it comes to my dad, it's hair LOSS, not white hair.

Anyway, Fred sees his younger brother just born and accepts him for who he is until his mother (Kathy Bates) starts giving more attention to Nick. Fred becomes jealous of Nick and decides to resent him and his family. Finally, we catch up with him in the present world, the 21st century. The setting: Chicago, Illinois: the greatest city in the U.S.

Fred is a fast-talking, bitter man who's in bad shape right now. His girlfriend (Rachel Weisz) isn't fond of him; he doesn't have a lot of money. So he finally makes a gambling deal with an acquaintance. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the cash to make the deal. But of course he doesn't tell his friend that. So he says he'll have it ready by the 23rd of December. Who does he ask for the money? His brother, of course! What does Nick do? He forces him to come to the North Pole and work at the toy factory, supervise, etc. to EARN the fifty grand that he needs.

The story takes off with tons of sub-plots. But we get the drift. We sit back and watch them while the writers try too hard to make the film funny. It's true. Other scenes however are actually funny, or dramatic or touching. The movie isn't just a comedy. I just thought I'd point that out. It has some dramatic moments. Most of them actually pretty convincing. That was one of the reasons why I sort of liked this film. The film had its moments. However, it's still not good enough for it to be a must-see, and I'm not sure if there is a big reasoning behind that. It's I guess something deep within the film that just doesn't make it good enough.

Fred befriends an elf, Willie, while at the North Pole. They both become friends while working at the toy store. And of course Fred also teaches Willie how to dance so Willie can impress a certain Santa Helper. He's such a great dancer. Brilliant. The scene was weird. Who messes up the fun for Fred and Nick (although it didn't seem like they were having a lot of fun)? Kevin Spacey's character Clyde Northcutt. He's a sort of businessman. He says to Nick that he will shut the whole North Pole operation down because of cost overruns. But there's a certain secret about his character. Something hidden. A hidden mad kid perhaps…

The movie remains consistently watchable throughout. Nothing extremely "edge of your seat", funny, or dramatic. There were slight giggles here and there. I must tell you, however, that I expected the movie to be marginally entertaining. It was… plus a little extra half-star there. The characters played their parts very well. The film is harmless, it makes a point, and it was pretty good.

We've seen this before, writers out there. I just couldn't help but realize that when I saw either the slapstick, or the cute kiddie scenes or even hearing some of the dialogue. There was a really good scene toward the end though that featured a calm version of the song "Silent Night" in the background. That's all I will tell you. It is a good scene, an effective one, something I wish that was true throughout the entire world, but then again so does everyone. Happy Holidays.

Movie directed by David Dobkin.

The Bourne Ultimatum/2007/***

Main Stars: Jason Bourne: Matt Damon Nicky Parsons: Julia Stiles Noah Vosen: David Strathairn Pamela Landy: Joan Allen

If you are one of those people that like to go to a movie theater, get some concessions, sit down, relax and watch a slow-moving film, then don't think about seeing The Bourne Ultimatum at all. Not only will your concessions fall all over the floor, but the concessions you already digested will want to come out. This is an action-packed, seat-vibrating thriller.

My first two sentences were complete dramatizations of what would really happen, but I have to write a review. No critic sits and types: The film is good and leaves. No. They have to not only write what they think of the film and the plot outline, but also write a bunch of fluff sentences to fill in space. I do that as well. Although this movie is good, I don't know if I can think of a bunch of words to describe my opinion and the film itself, so I put in unnecessary sentences like the first two to make it longer. In other words, the film is extremely convoluted (as are all 'Bourne' movies), so I don't think words would be able to completely summarize if it's good or bad and what it's all about. I'll try my best…

Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is close to death again. There… Yeah, there's more. He's still trying to run away, be left alone; but, unfortunately, that can't happen. There is always someone that takes him out of his peace and almost (perhaps) goads him to come out of hiding. This time a newspaper gets him out.

An interesting article by London-based reporter Simon Ross (Paddy Considine) catches his attention about something called "Operation Black Briar", formerly known as "Project Treadstone". If you didn't see the first two films, you will have no clue about any of this.

"Project Treadstone" was some kind of secret CIA plan ("a kill squad, black on black", as described by the great Brian Cox in the second installment) run by the people that had formerly hired Jason Bourne as one of them. You know what I'm talking about if you've seen all the films. The project was created to eliminate Jason Bourne. So now it's back once again, but basically with a different name.

As a result to this article, Jason Bourne wants to arrange a meeting with the reporter, but, unfortunately, is being watched by the coordinator of "Operation Black Briar"- Noah Vosen (David Strathairn). But of course Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), another CIA big shot, has to get involved and basically take over the operation because she also wants information on Bourne.

In the meantime, Bourne continues to have visions about him first being hired by the top dog of the "Project Treadstone" kill squad, Dr. Albert Hirsch (Albert Finney). The vision gets more and more lucid as the movie continues. The first two had the same aspect.

Along with all the goings-on Bourne is teamed up with former logistics coordinator of "Project Treadstone", Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles), and gets into a lot of well-choreographed chase sequences and fights, and almost dies… You know; typical stuff you see every day.

But, regardless of the film's farfetchedness, it's still fun to watch because not only is there a lot of high-voltage nonsense going on, but the characters play their parts so well and believably we can't stop watching.

And I must compliment Paul Greengrass' direction of this film. The second one was as intriguing and thrilling as this one and was also directed by him. He also did United 93 that also had a lot of fast-paced action. He is qualified. He does a very good job with the camera as well. He may not be the director of photography or the photographer, but I can tell he puts his touch into the film.

Once again, this film is not relaxing. It is exhausting. Fast-paced action and choppy shots could get the squeamish dizzy, so I wouldn't recommend it to all the delicate people out there. Even I had trouble focusing on everything and walked out of the theater very tired and didn't feel like writing this review until a week later. Ha.

Movie directed by Paul Greengrass.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix/2007/***

Main Stars: Harry Potter: Daniel Radcliffe Ron Weasley: Rupert Grint Hermione Granger: Emma Watson Dolores Umbridge: Imelda Staunton Sirius Black: Gary Oldman

This adaptation of the very entertaining book proves that movies can never beat the books. Although a good film, it lacks the magic, excitement, and suspense that the books and past movies had. The past Harry Potter films have actually intrigued us a lot with the stories. In this one we seem to observe what happens with moderate interest (which is good!), instead of wanting, extremely eagerly, to know what will happen next. That is my main negative point. Glad I got that out of the way. I seriously hate talking negatively about a Potter film but I did have to let that out. The film still gives us some entertainment, especially by the wonderfully portrayed Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), who gives us so much entertainment just by her brief clearing of her throat: "hem, hem". Staunton has given us a character to laugh at, laugh with, and even to relate with for those of you who are intolerably bureaucratic. The acting is great here by the KIDS, surprisingly. The adults, except Umbridge, seemed a little dull, not really depositing much life into their characters, especially Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). Radcliffe did a wonderful job; Watson and Grint, too. Gary Oldman (playing Sirius Black) didn't have as much life in this chapter as he did in the third. Then again, the book didn't really portray him as lively… But he played his part well, I guess. As for the script, it was good. The script was well written and original, just like the book. The music by British composer Nicholas Hooper was good. His best was Umbridge's theme. Not as good as Patrick Doyle, who should have been up for an Oscar for number four. And, of course, not as good as Williams' score for the first three. If you don't know who I mean, I feel sorry for you. The third was his best achievement for the franchise and actually was up for an Oscar but Williams didn't win. The first was in the same boat. Back to the story… what a convoluted, although well written script. The third 'Pirates' script was convoluted and crappy. This one was convoluted and good. Remember, it wasn't as intriguing as the other four! But when Harry started creating a rebellion, sure, we wanted to see more. I mean, come on. I couldn't be bored by it. That's not possible when it comes to Harry Potter. So I watched and was impressed to see Harry finally get aggravated with all the nonsense going on. I agree with him. There is a lot going on that needs answering quickly, especially the dream he has been having about a certain door at the end of the hallway of a certain building that is certainly going to answer a lot of certain questions. Well something inside the door SHOULD. But does Harry know yet? No, that's too easy. Meanwhile, havoc is reeking at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry by one certain teacher. Umbridge. She is basically making Hogwarts into a bureaucratic school and enjoys doing it. The Ministry of Magic, under the control of Cornelius Fudge, is behind quite a lot of it. There is also a sub-plot about Sirius Black and his evil cousin Bellatrix Lestrange. But that's not near as vital as Umbridge's role but it is slightly important, but I'm not going into any of that. See the movie for yourselves for that. There are also some things that were somewhat vital in the book that the movie didn't even mention! There was something about Ron joining Quidditch. They didn't include that; no Quidditch at all! There was another slightly important aspect about a girl named Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch), who is in this film, and her father's newspaper/magazine articles entitled, I believe, "The Quibbler". None of that was even mentioned except for just showing one scene with her reading it. So, if you haven't read any of the books, you ARE missing some extra detail. Some important and some not. Depends on what you think. As for the duration, it was adequate. I actually wouldn't have minded if they had increased the running time. This is THE shortest Potter film of the series running at 138 minutes; followed by the third (142), the first (152), the fourth (157), and the second (161). I believe they tried too hard to reduce all the unimportant (TO THEM!) scenes and made it shorter than initially planned (the book is 870 pages long!). Whereas, the second film, running at 161 minutes, was longer because they didn't try as hard to reduce it because the book was shorter (341 pages long). It most likely turned out longer than they initially planned. You know what I mean; you know what I'm sayin'? Overall, however, this film is good. Yeah, it had some minor mistakes, a bit too short, dull acting, convolution, etc. But hey… they tried… and whatcha gonna do? No film is perfect, but this one has an imagination and gives you entertainment and escapism for a good 138 minutes. This film is the funniest of the series, also. It is definitely worth the money to spend. You will enjoy it. I guarantee that. Although David Yates' direction could have been slightly better. Okay, I'm done criticizing… Movie directed by David Yates. Oh, by the way, Dumbledore and Voldemort finally fight in this one! It's a rather different conflict, however. You'll know what I mean when you see it

Ratatouille/2007/***1/2

Main Stars: Remy: Patton Oswalt Linguini: Lou Romano Skinner: Ian Holm Colette: Janeane Garofalo Gusteau: Brad Garrett

During and especially after this film I was hungry. The film had very convincing food; I'll give you that. You know why? Because the animation was truly brilliant! So much detail put in… Pixar Animation Studios has started a reputation to now release a Pixar film every summer… and they still convince, compel, enchant, etc. with their brilliant animation, clever scenes and compelling story. It's truly amazing to me how they can release a film every year and still be able to maintain an intrinsic beauty! As for Ratatouille, it filled my expectations more so than I thought. I had read a couple of critics' reviews and they were not mixed. The unanimous was good. One gave it three stars. Another gave it three and a half stars. And finally four stars. So I thought I don't know what to expect. Although the unanimous rating was good, that doesn't mean that that three could have been for animation purposes so it was only mildly recommended. So I told myself to remain sober throughout the entire film regardless of what other people say. And, as a result of NOT expecting it to be great like most Pixar films are, I was very impressed. Good job, Pixar. And mainly, good job, writer and director Brad Bird, whose The Incredibles was also extremely impressive. He showed his unrecognized talent once again! One other thing that spit at me to remain sober throughout the film was the preview for it. The preview didn't make it look very good and I'm actually glad. I think that previews shouldn't spoil films. Some films release the previews that have the funny parts already in them. So, when you see the movie, you don't like it as much as you should have because you have already seen a funny scene! Not for this film. But the previews were good enough to have me checkin' the film out and not to be completely turned away. The basic premise I found interesting and the movie proved that even more. But what is the basic premise? It's actually kind of odd. But there is nothing wrong with oddity, is there? It's what makes the world revolve on its very axis. And something like Ratatouille is something you don't see every day. Good. No clichés. It's about this rat named Remy (Patton Oswalt). He is the more motivated of the rats in the rat colony he is in. His ingenuity in cooking is what motivates him and makes him want to do more. So soon he visits actual Paris, leaving his family and friends behind. He never knew he lived in Paris until he finally was inspired by a future friend and restaurant owner Gusteau (Brad Garrett) and had enough courage to leave the sewer, climb a tall building and be surprised to see the Eifel Tower. How much more revealing can you get that you're in Paris than seeing that? He then awkwardly meets with a young adult looking for a job named Linguini (Lou Romano). Remy then becomes the chef behind the hat. Although continually being spied on by the fastidious head chef Skinner (Ian Holm), he still continues to do well at what he does best and practices and practices with his chef acquaintance. Linguini's personal feelings start to bloom for a Miss Colette (Janeane Garofalo) later on. On worse news, he doesn't seem to have what it takes to be a chef and that gets a little hard on him after a while. Food critics come in and out and continue to rate the restaurant good or bad. Before Linguini was hired, the restaurant had lost a star and then another from the insanely picky, arrogant food critic named Anton Ego (Peter O'Toole). Although a secondary character, Ego is also a vital character in the film that not only proves the moral of the film, but also proves one of the morals of life. And I, as a film critic, need to keep some of the lessons learned in this film myself and learn from my mistakes as well. Maybe I won't learn my mistakes by eating some food but maybe I'll learn by watching an impressive, enjoyable film like this one. Movie directed by Brad Bird.

Spider-Man 3/2007/***

Main Stars: Spider-Man/Peter Parker: Tobey Maguire Mary Jane Watson: Kirsten Dunst New Goblin/Harry Osborn: James Franco Sandman/Flint Marko: Thomas Haden Church Venom/Eddie Brock: Topher Grace

Tobey Maguire returns as Peter Parker/Spider-Man in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3, a breathtaking action thriller. Although not as good as its predecessor, Spider-Man 2, Sam Raimi still gives us another entertaining blockbuster everyone will be talking about for a while. When I walked into the AMC 24 Theater at Veterans in Tampa, Florida, I saw, to my surprise that the theater was not as crowded as I thought it would be. Sure enough, however, when I walked out of the theater after seeing the exhausting film, the entire hallway was packed. The next showing was at 10:00 P.M. The ropes were up and people were waiting in line. I was glad I saw it earlier. Oh, where do I begin? The movie has about a thousand sub-plots (at least), and I actually thought the extra sub-plots made the movie more fun and showed creativity on the screenwriters' part: Sam Raimi, Ivan Raimi (his older brother) and Oscar-winner Alvin Sargent. Sam Raimi, who's also the director, gives us a visually impressive film. Some parts would leave you hanging but would resolve some time later. Plus, there were moments that would not be further elaborated. But that's the reason why they are making yet another "Spider-Man". Spider-Man 4 is due to come out circa 2009. Well, Spidey is in for yet another movie filled with misadventure. He gets beat up constantly… thrown into walls, getting slammed in the head, falling from high levels… Literally, I'm surprised he's still alive. But hey, comic book films are creative and far-fetched and they always will be. There is the major plot with Spidey and his girlfriend Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). Are they going to continue their relationship together? Then there's the major plot with Harry Osborn/New Goblin (James Franco) (son of Old Goblin, played by Willem Dafoe) who wants to kill Spidey for murdering his father. But is revenge the best thing? Then there are the sub-plots with Flint Marko/Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), who is an alleged killer and escaped criminal, who perhaps has killed someone close to Peter. And then there's Eddie Brock/Venom (Topher Grace), an arrogant photographer competitor to Peter. Brock has a girlfriend named Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) who shows up for brief moments in the film. Although her part is small, she actually is an imperative part in the film. She somewhat wavers the relationship between Parker and Watson. The film takes off where Spider-Man 2 landed and goes from there. The action starts almost immediately. He fights New Goblin and that's all I'm saying. Parker is still the photographer for The Daily Bugle and J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) is still the top guy/big cheese/head honcho of the newspaper, funny as ever. Parker, however, will have a tough time with a competitor now. Just watch. The venom that attacks Parker and makes him a darker person appears out of nowhere and is not further detailed. But hey, that's what sequels and sequels and sequels are for- to elaborate on things its predecessors neglected to. That's the beauty of a sequel; however, sequels aren't always entertaining. Spider-Man 2 was a departure for mediocre sequels because it was excellent. It was the best "Spider-Man" movie ever and one of the best superhero films besides Batman Begins and Superman. I thought when Parker became darker was a great part of the film! It was dramatic and funny simultaneously. Can you imagine nerdy Tobey Maguire trying to act cool? Not gonna happen, right? Well, hate to break it to ya, but it did. He bee-bopped down a New York City street and every time he would see a chick he would wink and point and act stupid. But it was comic relief to a previous dark scene and then another dark scene pops out but then the bee-bopping continues, each one less appealing than the previous. So, what's the Sandman's problem? Actually, the way he turned into Sandman was quite well done but that's not the point. According to him, it was family matters. Perhaps that will also be further elaborated in the fourth installment. It might go more in depth into his family history. You never know. But what about Brock? Brock's nickname is Venom! He had to be exposed to the venom somehow right? How he turned into Venom was also quite well done. But, again, that's not the point! He turns into a monstrous creature that looks oddly like Spider-Man and the entire town is shocked and dismayed that someone like Spidey would do this! But it wasn't Spidey! Or perhaps Spidey contributed. Actually he did! Why not see the movie to find out how yourself? Great idea! So, overall, a sticky mess but yet still had some breathtaking action sequences, good acting, directing, clever writing here and there… Spider-Man 3 is a good, dark, messy family film and that… you can take to the web. Movie directed by Sam Raimi.

Bridge to Terabithia/2007/***

Main Stars: Josh Hutcherson AnnaSophia Robb Zooey Deschanel Robert Patrick

I read the book Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson in fifth grade. When I first heard that Bridge to Terabithia was going to be a movie in 2007, I was in fifth grade. I was fifth grade in the years 2003 and 2004. I am now in eighth grade in the year 2007, and the movie has just come out. I took them three years to make the movie? Perhaps they had just started the script when I was in fifth grade. But three years to make a movie still amazes me. The script is by David Patterson and co-written by Jeff Stockwell. David Paterson is the son of Katherine Paterson, the author of the book. You can tell. The film is directed by Gabor Csupo (pronounced "Chew-po"), who was a big hit with creating the Nickelodeon series, "Rugrats", which I loved when I was a little kid and which (I admit it) I still like now (the first two movies now; not the show). The first two movies were clever and movie buffs would recognize a lot of scenes that somewhat satire famous films, like the introduction in Rugrats in Paris satires The Godfather, which was an excellent scene. The third "Rugrats" film was shrill and annoying. I decided to see Bridge to Terabithia for those two reasons: I read it in fifth grade, and Gabor Csupo's accomplishments impressed me. It turns out I liked it. If you saw the previews for the film, then you might think the film is filled with special effects. It's really not. The special effects are the most minor things in this film. The film concentrates more on the characters' creativity and imagination, which is a good thing. I truly would rather see a movie that shows more what humans are like and how they act rather than see a brainless adventure film, where the only adventure is seeing overwhelming special effects pop before your eyes. I seemed to have overrated Roland Emmerich's The Day After Tomorrow by a tad. That concentrated more on special effects than anything. However, I must add that it did have good acting. Then again, when I reviewed the film, I was an immature child. I've grown a little since the beginning of 2005. The main characters, Jesse Aarons (Josh Hutcherson) and Leslie Burke (AnnaSophia Robb), are the two that have similar, creative imaginations. They both get picked on at school and both daydream. As for Leslie, she seems a little more of the adventurous type than Jesse. However, Jesse seems to learn from her to be able to imagine the world of Terabithia. Jesse's father, Jack (Robert Patrick), is the type of father that is non-imaginative and a little rough around the edges. The mother, Nancy (Katrina Cerio), is the type of mother that is a worrier but she doesn't have as big of a part as Jack does. Jesse realizes his dad doesn't seem to understand his creative side, which we, as the audience, can realize too. Leslie's parents are completely different: they are full of happiness and adventure. They are both authors. That may show why Leslie is so creative. Then again, Jesse is creative and neither of his parents seems to have that disposition. So what does that show? It shows that Jesse is unique. And it shows that Leslie is also unique no matter how much she may resemble her parents. It still shows that everyone is slightly different from other people. That was one of the main themes I picked up from the film. Jesse has a crush on the music teacher, Ms. Edmonds (Zooey Deschanel), at his school, who recognizes his talent by taking a peek at his drawings. It just so happens she even takes him to a museum to look at more art painted by famous artists/painters. There is a bully at school who picks on Leslie a lot. Does she learn her mistake and move on no matter what happens at home? This is another main theme in the film. The bully also happens to show up as a different creature in the film which shows her new self. Jesse may think his life is bad but when we see it, his life is excellent and filled with different adventures all the way through. A tragic event happens in the film which lowers his happiness. But as for his imagination, it still blooms on as life goes on. And soon, he would gain joviality as his imagination blooms and he creates a whole new world inside his head. Movie directed by Gabor Csupo.

Freedom Writers/2007/****

Main Stars: Hilary Swank Patrick Dempsey Imelda Staunton April L. Hernandez

Now this film deserves an Oscar. This is a truly moving picture. Wonderful Acting, Wonderful Directing, Wonderful Music, Wonderful Cinematography (I'm using caps to emphasize how good it is for those who don't have common sense). This is truly an Oscar-caliber film. Every minute was entertaining. But this film still does not beat The Untouchables or Vertigo. To tell you the truth, I, at first, did not know this film was based on a true story. Nor did I know that the true story was transferred to a book by the REAL Freedom Writers. Perhaps this picture will show all the people that were like the Freedom Writers were at the start, will now be like the Freedom Writers were at the end. The Freedom Writers were groups of different gang members who were very troubled and uneducated until they actually went to school and paid attention to what the teacher said and respected her. The teacher would actually succumb to their level for a little while and teach in a tactic they desired. Teaching in a "cool" tactic. The true story was an inspiration just like the movie was. The movie obviously followed what the true story was like. And this time… Instead of saying 'Written by Richard LaGravenese'; it said 'Screenplay by Richard LaGravenese', which shows that he took the true story and put it into the script somehow. He may have manipulated it and fictionalized it in a way, but it is obviously mainly based on the Freedom Writers true story. What a wonderful idea to actually transfer the story to a book and then to a film. What would be really going to the extremes would be to come out with a video game on it just like other films in the past have had. Such as, Harry Potter (books, then movies, then video games); Lord of the Rings (books, then movies, then video games); and Star Wars (movies, then books, then video games); and many others. Another thing that I wouldn't have guessed was that this film was produced by Danny DeVito. Than I thought that maybe he's friends with one of the other producers or actors or director/writer Richard LaGravenese. Erin Gruwell (Hilary Swank) is looking for a job to be a teacher at a high school in a bad neighborhood. She wants to teach badly. The controlling bureaucrat Margaret Campbell (Imelda Staunton) was the one that hired her. When Erin saw what kind of class she would be teaching, she got nervous. I wouldn't blame her either. Being surrounded by a bunch of gang members isn't the most comforting thing in the world. Although she has some troubles the first day, she still remains idealistic, coming up with more and more ideas for the kids to shape up from being naughty gang members to brilliant scholars. Well, maybe good students anyway. As for Erin's husband Scott Casey (Patrick Dempsey), he thinks that Erin shouldn't be teaching a group of low-class kids like that. Although they are low class, that doesn't mean they can't improve does it? No. All they need is a little extra teaching. Well, actually a lot of teaching! Their mind sets are all wrong. They think they should remain loyal to their own race, and if one race invades another races territory, punch or kick or gunshot or beat up completely. One that is especially biased is a girl named Eva (she's strict on how you pronounce her name. She WANTS it pronounced the Hispanic way) (played by April L. Hernandez) who sticks to her Hispanic gang group and won't let anyone of a foreign race come in. Erin decided to have the class do a simple process. She would ask the class questions and they would step on a red line in the middle of the classroom if they relate to the question. Questions include if someone has been shot at, have shot at someone, have friends that have been shot and killed, and knows where to get drugs (white guy steps on the line). This brought them closer together. There are other things that happened like violent scenes including fights with other gang members and fights in the classroom. There was a lot of language, but that is predictable in a film like this. Also, there were cruel jokes that gang members did to gang members of opposite races. This still had them angry with each other. To appease the children, Erin has them read The Diary of Anne Frank and see a girl (Anne) having to go into hiding to hide from the Nazi (German) group. This is also relevant to what the gang members were facing. They went into hiding, remaining isolated from other races so they wouldn't be threatened. Unfortunately, hiding doesn't always help. They seem to be inspired by this story. But some still aren't taught the valuable lesson of treating others as you would want to be treated. But do they change and become good people and spread the word of friendship? Well, according to the movie and true story they do. But do they remain good? That we may never find out. Movie directed by Richard LaGravenese.

The Nativity Story/2006/***

Main Stars: Keisha Castle-Hughes Oscar Isaac Shohreh Aghdashloo

To be honest, I didn't know all the detail of the birth of Jesus Christ and what led up to it. This movie filled in the gaps that I had. But when I saw the credits, I saw it was written by Mike Rich. It didn't say 'Screenplay by Mike Rich'; it said 'Written by Mike Rich'. I thought for the moment that his script was BASED on the nativity story. And he fictionalized it a little. Perhaps the gaps that were filled in for me were just his ideas put in the movie. Oh well… I'm sure he intended to make it as close to the story as possible. It was still an interesting and enjoyable film, although the film could have been better. There were a couple flaws here and there. Perhaps one flaw was that the movie was very short. It could have been another hour longer filled in with even more detail and interesting characters. That was one of the best parts of the movie. The characters were interesting, the actors that played them were good, and sometimes some characters were humorous like the three wise men. It was somewhat humorous listening to the eager leader talk. Other times you could feel the character's anger or sadness or concern like Joseph's or Mary's. For example, Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes) came to back to her home town to meet Joseph (Oscar Isaac) there after the visit from the angel Gabriel. Gabriel told her she would conceive a son named Jesus. She was obviously confused since she had no relations with a man. Not yet. But then she was a little less confused when the angel told her Elizabeth (Shohreh Aghdashloo) is also conceiving a son in her old age. And Mary was to conceive a son for nothing is impossible for God. Then he departed from her. When Mary came back to Jerusalem, Joseph saw her arrive, pregnant already. He instantaneously accused her of being with another man and so did her parents, Anne and Joaquim. That scene with the accusations was well-acted because, as I said, you can feel the actor's regret or sadness or concern. Mary told him she was telling the truth: the angel Gabriel came down to her and told her she would conceive a son no matter what. Did they believe her? Maybe. Which means perhaps. Which means you find out. If you are a true Catholic, then the answer is obvious. Then there's King Herod, the greedy, odious king, who's so rich, he's richer than rich. How does he fall into the story? He pops up out of nowhere and declares his superfluous rulings and then departs. In many scenes, you can feel his hatred and you can feel his son's hatred when Herod is talking to him in such a bad way, stating that he killed the two sons he had before his third son. He was telling his third son to shape up when it was time to take his place. Another well-performed scene. As for Mary and Joseph… They and the rest of the citizens of Jerusalem were ordered by King Herod to go on a journey to their ancestors' homes. They traveled and traveled. When they were in Bethlehem, Mary was having some trouble walking because her birth was about to happen. For baby Jesus to be born, she needed to find a place to rest. An old, clueless man told her there was a stable she could go to and that was it. He had no other place for her to rest. She decided that would be the place. What was in the stable? A bunch of sheep. The sheep were moved out of the way for Mary to be set down in the stable. As for the wise men, they followed the Star of David to get to the stable, because the star was shining right on Mary in the stable. They followed the star and were soon there, delivering the gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The camera zoomed out on all of them there. It was a nice scene. The same scene I see in many paintings and drawings. As for Mary and Joseph, they raised Jesus. As for the wise men, they preferred not to go back to King Herod. Movie directed by Catherine Hardwicke.

Akeelah and the Bee/2006/***1/2

Main Stars: Keke Palmer Laurence Fishburne Curtis Armstrong Angela Bassett J.R. Villarreal

Akeelah and the Bee is a fabulous film about how life is for a poor, lonely young eleven-year-old girl named Akeelah (Keke Palmer) who knows she can spell really "good". Why the quotations? Because that's the way they talk in her neighborhood. What I mean is she doesn't live in the nicest, most proper neighborhood which has the most proper vocabulary. But that's what makes this film realistic; showing how people really talk in this neighborhood. There are some people there that you wouldn't want to hang out with, and she even feels that way. Her mother (Angela Bassett) is the typical tough, "you don't mess wit me, girl" mother. She's uptight and doesn't really realize her little girl's talent. She's got too many other things to worry about and we shouldn't blame her. At Akeelah's school, the teacher and principal both realize her innate ability to spell. The principal, Mr. Welch (Curtis Armstrong), suggests she should compete in the school spelling bee (Crenshaw School Spelling Bee). Crenshaw School is also a poor school since it's also in the vicinity of the bad neighborhoods. Mr. Welch suggests a coach to teach Akeelah to spell WELL. Her coach, Dr. Larabee (Laurence Fishburne), is proper in the way he speaks and demands that Akeelah doesn't use that "ghetto girl" talk around him. So she improves a bit and uses proper vocabulary around him. Or at least she tries to hide the talk she uses with her friend. Akeelah and Dr. Larabee have study sessions every week to improve the way she spells. He teaches her big words. He asks where the big words come from. Akeelah responds, "People with big brains!" He replies, "WRONG! They come from small words, and when small words blend together they create bigger words. So, yes, the people that thought of the words had some brains to think of the order to put the small words in, but it's not that hard. If you saw the previews for this film, it STARTS OUT with the school spelling bee, then progresses to the district one, then the state one, and finally the SCRIPPS NATIONAL SPELLING BEE! Akeelah screams, "I WANNA WIN THE NATIONAL SPELLING BEE!" at the top of her lungs to Dr. Larabee. If she really is that gung ho to win, she will do very, very WELL. Has her mother accustomed to it yet? Has she taken a chill pill and noticed how talented her little girl is? Who knows? Unless you've seen the movie of course. So Akeelah is somewhat nervous because she is told by Dr. Larabee to memorize and understand five thousand words to spell for the bee. She, however, gets nervous. How can she understand five thousand words let alone memorize them without Dr. Larabee's assistance? This is strenuous for her. However, this is not like those implausible films where the characters that don't have a clue what they're facing and somehow become victorious over all the other competitors. No, no; this film shows entirely plausible characters and a cliché free story. In other words, the story and wonderful characters are very believable. They are even somewhat humorous at times. For example, Akeelah's competitor, Javier Mendez (J.R. Villarreal), is nice kid who soon becomes her friend let alone competitor. He's an example of a good sport and a humorous friend, and when it comes to the national spelling bee, we feel like we are really there, in the inspiring story about the little eleven-year-old girl living in a bad neighborhood; and becoming the little eleven-year-old famous speller who even caused some good publicity for her school and even pleases her dad who's shining down on her. Plus, the bee includes the REAL spelling announcer (the guy with the glasses and the droning voice that pronounces the words over and over again) from the actual spelling bee that airs every year on ESPN. If you watch it every year, then you know who I'm talking about. If you don't, then you should because it is very entertaining. Movie directed by Doug Atchison.

Rope/1948/***1/2

Main Stars: James Stewart John Dall Farley Granger Joan Chandler

The Master of Suspense: Alfred Hitchcock's Rope is a very entertaining character study, like most of his films is. It concentrates mainly on the two main characters who are the ones who commit such an act of violence. The two- Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger)- are the ones who commit the act with THE ROPE. Basically they kill an innocent guy just know what it feels like. Pleasant, eh? Wehehell, these guys are tasteless, they are. So what? Is that the whole movie right there? No, no, no. The movie is very short having been filmed without cutting away to anything else. It was supposed to all be one shot which was another brilliant plan by Alfred Hitchcock. However, I did somewhat suspect something. I think they did cut away in a few scenes by (when people turned their backs) zooming in on his or her back and then zooming out. That way the screen is dark when the filmmakers are zooming in on someone's dark jacket. Alfred would then say cut and they'd put a new role of film in and then say action again and they would zoom out from where they left off when they cut it. It's all very simple because I've done it many times. But you were supposed to think they did it all in one shot. So how are these sick people supposed to celebrate David's (the character that got killed played by Dick Hogan) first "deathday"? By inviting people of course. They're going to have a party for this person's killing. I think that is THE nicest thing someone has ever done. Oh yeah but what if someone knows he's hidden SOME PLACE and finds out? Then where do you think you're gonna go? Back then it wasn't as harsh but it still was when you committed first-degree murder! What the characters did isn't the best part. The best part is listening to the interesting characters which are interesting in all Hitchcock films. Either they're very loud, or soft-spoken, or nervous all the time or always having something to do. In this there were all sorts. And not just the main characters but the minor ones that just showed up for the party and they all kept asking a certain question I would obviously ask if I didn't know where a CERTAIN person was. The tensions are higher. Phillip gets nervous. However, Brandon (called a sly little devil by Janet Walker (Joan Chandler) who is the main woman character) is not nervous but rather pleased with what he did and how he did it. He thinks the whole thing is gonna work and that NO ONE will find out. The people at the party were actually kinda clueless but still fun to listen to. The one person who was not clueless was Rupert Cadell (James Stewart) who is the spy of the group. Cynically watching and in deep thought about the two professional killer wannabes. I mean who do you think is the one that's more nervous than his partner and is always so uptight? Well that would be Phillip. He kinda makes it obvious with his nervous reactions to what people say and is never having a good time. However sick his partner Brandon is, Brandon shows that he is having fun. I'd say they're both sick because they both committed the murder. However sick this movie might be when you think about it, it was (1) based on a play and (2) it's fiction and (3) it's a Hitchcock film and when it comes to those they're always good no matter what story it depends on. Movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

World Trade Center/2006/****

Main Stars: Nicolas Cage Michael Pena Maria Bello Maggie Gyllenhaal

Director Oliver Stone (writer of Scarface and director of the recent film Alexander) is known to be a director of violence and profanity. Here he departs himself from that and directs this masterpiece filled with emotion and tragedy and also inspiration. Cops are assigned to where they need to go or guard for the day of September 11, 2001. It's just a typical day on the job until a few cops see a shadow of a plane reflected on a near building. That is the start of it all. You would think some of this film would be related to politics. And you would hear people's opinions on this tragedy and whose fault it is. People would most likely blame President Bush because he's the perfect person to blame right? Rumors are he's stupid. Plus, he is the Head of State and who better to blame than the person in charge. He's sitting behind his desk clueless. However, this film did not have any of that which most people are sick of hearing. And that is another reason why this film is so grand. It concentrates on two men- John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Pena)- who saw something other than evil. Something other than what the world saw. They saw that they had a chance to live and a chance to save and do their best to evacuate the people from the Twin Towers. What's inspiring about this film is that even though they are having an extremely hard time building up claustrophobia while under the rubble, they stay with it, they don't give up because they are tough and are built to take hardship. And that is exactly what the real Will and John did; they remained as calm as they could be and instead of panicking too much, they stayed strong. Back at home Will and John's wives obviously start to get nervous. Their husbands are out their breathing in dust and rubble and are stuck in one spot. John McLoughlin's wife Donna (Maria Bello) is the one always to be scared and rarely has any hope. However one of her four children wants to get out there and find dad and bring him back. Will Jimeno's wife Allison (Maggie Gyllenhaal) also is stressed and is pregnant which makes it even worse. It was definitely emotional and also very well done. They flip back and forth between families who don't even recognize each other when crossing each other in the hospital. Then they flip back to the scenes with Will and John trying to occupy them with something while they wait for rescue teams. Some of their conversations were actually a bit humorous and also emotional… Conversing about past things and even envisioning them again and again. When they envision these flashbacks, they feel like getting out of the rubble even more. They need to find something to attract a rescue team so they can be saved. We urgently wait for one to come while we feel exactly what Will and John feel. Misery. I hope what I'm saying isn't discouraging you from seeing the film. The film is excellent (inspiring and not politically charged) but, yes, very emotional. I usually don't cry out loud and need a hanky to store all the moist snot. But I do on the inside and I feel sad when leaving the theater. Because right before the end credits, it tells you all the true events in captions that really did happen on that day and later when two men saw something other than evil and the rest of the people saw hell. Movie directed by Oliver Stone.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby/2006/**1/2

Main Stars: Will Ferrell John C. Reilly Sacha Baron Cohen Gary Cole

Ricky Bobby is no 1st place earner.

Adam McKay (director of the very funny Anchorman and who has a little cameo in this film as a fat racecar driver) returns to direct this lowbrow and disappointing comedy. I did think from the same team that created Anchorman that this film would be a little worse or as good as its previous film but I know it wouldn't have been better. Having seen the previews, I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach that this film wouldn't be that good. It turns out my prediction was correct. I'm not saying this was a bad film. I'm saying it was not a good film. And it wasn't. It was fair to good. The first half of the movie was not funny except for the quote at the very beginning. It was random just like Anchorman but it didn't have the constant laughs like Anchorman did. It had laughs more in the second half when Ricky Bobby (Will Ferrell) kinda loses his driving racecar spirit. His quote is "I wanna go fast!". But when he thought there was no hope left his quote was more like "I wanna give up!". I thought the second half had more GIGGLES than the first half which had maybe one more besides the quote. There were definitely no LAUGH OUT LOUD moments. More frowning at how much they tried rather than succeeded. More laughs came out of Cal Naughton, Jr. (John C. Reilly) than Ricky Bobby. Or as his arch competitor Jean Girard (Sacha Baron Cohen) would say "Ricky Booby". However Ferrell did succeed in a few scenes like pretending he was on fire and running around in his underwear with his flab jiggling. Then there's the father of Ricky Bobby (Gary Cole) who influenced his son to drive like a racecar driver- reckless and fast. Cole was okay. He was nothing special either. When Jean Girard comes in from the French Formula One to be introduced into NASCAR, Ricky Bobby's talents are put to the test. The urgent question that needs to be answered is "Who is better?". Ricky has that "If you're not first, your last!" blood in him from his father and Jean Girard is the assertive and swishy Frenchman that also has only to win blood. But what is his objective for coming to America? To be what? You find out. And his friend Cal who made up this stupid "Shake and Bake" phrase is also in this challenging match against the pompous Girard. He invented it because it rhymes and they're both verbs. And he thinks he is smart because he said it. Is our national hero Ricky Bobby going to be beaten by the gay Frenchman who has a husband? That's kind of unbelievable actually. I mean Ricky Bobby had a foul-mouthed tough father and he also has two foul-mouthed sons who were definitely taught their lesson the granny way. As I said before the movie was random with smiles and some minor laughs in select scenes or as a local critic would call them- sporadic laughs. Will Ferrell was definitely not the main funny star. It was actually more from his friends than him. And people in the theater were laughing like crazy at the dumbest most idiotic jokes. I sat there with a straight face until, as I said before, the second half. It was indeed funnier than the first half. The story was sort of original and extremely random kinda like "Family Guy" except less funny. So a fair to good rating for Will Ferrell's disappointing Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. I had low expectations for this movie to begin with but at least have Will Ferrell as the funniest character! Movie directed by Adam McKay.