My Girl is a movie about a young girl who enters womanhood emotionally, physically, and socially–all at the same time. The Girl in question is Vada, played by Anna Chlumsky, who lives through a tumultuous summer of heartache and heartbreak.

Of course, while the movie follows said Girl, it also spends some time with those who are attached to her, which is where the My comes in. Those characters include Dan Akroyd (who plays Vada’s father), Jamie Lee Curtis (who plays Akroyd’s love interest), and McCauley Culkin. All these characters were fine; and I could relate somewhat to McCauley Culkin’s Thomas J character–he’s that “best friend” with a crush on Vada; but he’s just there for support and not explored himself. The movie’s focus is Vada. She’s fine, an interesting and unique young girl with about as much depth as 13 year-old can have, and Chlumsky plays her very well for a young actress. In the end, however, I really didn’t get a whole lot out of my experience.

I’m gonna be straight up honest. I don’t think my meview of this is gonna mean jack crap. Frankly, this is a coming of age story I don’t particularly relate to. It’s about a tweener girl, and that’s not really my bag. My Girl’s not bad–I’m not saying I think it’s bad. I don’t. It’s a decent flic, but I just didn’t really enjoy it or get much of it. Maybe that’s my problem–in fact, I’m pretty sure it is. This seems like a very heartfelt film with an important story and excellent ideas on growing up…I just didn’t get into it. So, even though this wasn’t my deal, I am still gonna give it its due and give My Girl a 4.

Okay, brass tacks. This wasn’t much of a documentary. Of course, Michael Moore’s movies aren’t either, so maybe that’s the point. For all intents and purposes, Michael Moore Hates America is a standard Michael Moore-esque documentary that includes all the same tricks, tools, and tactics that Moore himself uses, while also lifting the current to show them for what they are–at least that is what we’re supposed to think.

The film’s biggest failing for me was director Mike Wilson, who, not unlike Moore puts himself at the center of his film as the “average guy looking out for the truth and common man”. Wilson goes to great lengths to convince the audience that he’s not Moore, despite how much his doing this makes him FEEL like Moore. Like Moore, Wilson is not much of a narrator. Like Moore, his melodramatic opening to the film is a little much to take seriously. Like Moore, he states the obvious, then makes accusations about why the obvious happened. This may have been his intent; and if so, he is very successful, but there is a major, major problem. If I’m watching a movie called, Michael Moore Hates America, I am either (a)watching it to bash it or (b) watching it to validate what I already think. If I’m an “(a)” viewer, than I will be appalled at Wilson’s derivative style. If I am a “(b)” viewer, I hate Moore’s style anyway, so the fact that Wilson uses it is a turn-off.

Sure the movie has high points. Very early, we get excellent comments from noted author, Dinesh Di Souza. Everything said by Penn from Penn & Teller is entertaining, particularly the whole “you’re gonna F8ck it up” segment, with the phrase being intercut with Mike Wilson stuttering during his first interview. Also, Wilson gives people Moore took advantage of get the stage to defend themselves. But these few nuggets of truth or entertainment are culled from a documentary with a two hour running time; which like Moore’s is far too long given the uncharismatic lead.

For all intents and purposes, I really did not care for this flic at all; and that’s very sad considering my outspoken views about Moore. I should have been hooked into this movie from the opening shots and championed it from start to finish. Instead, I found myself saying, “shouldn’t have done that.” or “That doesn’t really prove anything” or “yeah, that might be true, but…”. I was really looking forward to finally catching this flic and sitting back and just enjoying someone saying, “See you’re right. Moore’s full of it, and this is why.” Instead, I got the same feeling I have during a Moore film, one of disgust and utter displeasure. Kudos to Wilson’s, Producer, Christopher Ohlsen–if he was in fact the producer and not a plant to create a sense of honesty. His small bits were interesting.

So, bottom line. I am actually going to give Michael Moore Hates America a sound 2.. Wilson is too much like Moore to criticize the filmmaker, and his use of cartoons, self-aggrandizing focus, and pale attempts at humor are stale and unentertaining. The film makes a few good points; but those of a critical mind already know half of what is said, and tchances are, they know even more (no pun intended). Yes, Moore not only uses but also abuses people. Yes, Moore is a hypocrite and shows signs of clinical narcissism. Yes, Moore is a liar. But frankly, this isn’t the work that convinced me of those things–Michael Moore’s film did it themselves.

Okay. This is one of those conservative, traditional films that alot of people love and cherish. Families can watch it together. It’s safe for children or those who do not like violence and profanity in movies. For those viewers, that’s great. For me, however, it’s not that good. It’s really not. But it is safe. It’s a safe western with a few beautiful shots and a slow but sincere story. I mean, if nothing else, I will give it that. The movie has heart. The filmmakers seem to believe in the story their telling. Despite this, however, I could not become remotely interested in the movie. I tried. I did. The story started out well enough. It featured a boy who lost his father, the problems he has a result of the loss, and the success he achieves thanks to the upbringing of the father who died at the beginning. See, it’s a safe and nice story.

But I really couldn’t get into it. I tried, but it seemed to just go on and on and on. The story seems to meander between a few different thru-lines, none of which are more or less interesting than the others. We have the story of saving the horses. We have the story of the boy and the girl. We have the story of working for the boss. We have the story of the girl and her father. The movie has a few little action scenes or chases. It has its romantic moments. it has its emotional beats. None of them, however, are really that great. It’s a movie that moves like a PBS miniseries or a book, and it’s a little slow–kinda like this meview.

That being said, I’ll wrap this up, The Man from Snowy River is a bland overly long movie that is safe but dull. It’s a movie that I’m sure alot of people love and cherish, and that’s fantastic. Good on them for loving it. It did nothing for me, which is fine–I’m not the person it was made for. But since this is my meview, I gotta give it a 2.

Metal: A Headbanger’s Journey may be one of the best Documentaries I have ever seen. I say this for two reasons. First, it is a “Documentary” in the strictest sense of the world, it documents the history of heavy metal and its current state. Second, the filmmaker, Sam Dunn, truly seems to be exploratory in his quest to tell the “metal” story. He doesn’t seem to be saying, “See, Metal is good. It’s not evil. Come listen.” He’s saying, “I’m a metal fan. Here’s what metal is. Take it or leave it.” Which is pretty much the best way you cna make a case for anything. Sure, it would have been more “even” if the interview talked to tipper Gore or families of children who committed suicide to metal, but that’s not what A Headbanger’s Journey is trying to accomplish. This documentary is simply trying to explain what metal is, so that those who encounter it know what they’re seeing.

Metal has different sides, sub-genres, and a variety of deimensions. It’s not all hell-raising and mayhem, though that’s part of it. It’s not all violence and ruin, though that’s parrt of it too. It’s really music about power–power to be strong and free, if nothing else. It’s reactionary music, like punk, only with a different flavor. The documentary shows us this; and for all intents and purposes, shows us it with honest thoroughness. The movie analyzes sound, culture, fans, relgiion, censorship, and other aspects of the genre, condemning its faults and praising its strengths.

Metal: A Headbanger’s Jounrey is a praiseworthy analysis of the genre well worth a viewing.. It’s a fascinating analysis of its subject, and I wholly recommend it with a warning, it’s as insane, rough, and grotosque as the most extreme bands it examines, so view with caution.

Okay, look. Bottom line here. People may love Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, and that’s fine; but for my money, the movie’s really falls apart really fast and is awful. Once Max leaves Bartertown and joins up with a tribe of kids, the movie was crap to me. I understand that the filmmakers wanted to explore the paternal instincts of lone warrior Mad Max, and I see some clever exploration of the origins of religions and the groundwork of societies; but the movie’s second act is so slow, plodding, and dull that this movie’s many faults far outweigh its merits.

Frankly, Beyond Thunderdome is one of those legendary movies that has a single, fantastic and legendary sequence that CARRIES the movie’s popularity beyond its inital theatrical run. It’s a sad state of things considering how exceptional The Road Warrior, this film’s predecessor, was; but it’s the truth. The sequence in question is the infamous fight in Thunderdome between Mad Max & Blaster, a giant; and it is cool. Not amazing and life-changing, but original and good. Other than that, the movie is flat in every way. Honestly, the “big action sequence” at the end of the film is a B-rate rip-off of the chase in Road Warrior, and the movie kinda alters the character to the point that he has no charisma whatsoever.

All that being said, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome gets a 3. It’s only saving grace is the battle in Thunderdome itself and the events leading up to it. The movie does have that great quote, “Two men enter, one man leaves”; but other than that sequnce it has few if any redeeming qualities or moments. If you love it, more power to you; but I didn’t, and I’m sorry.

Mission Impossible 2 is a problematic motion picture. On the one hand, it hasn’t the brain of its predecessor, and it’s action is as unbelievable as its plot. On the other hand, it’s directed with beautiful style and surrenders itself to the action without reservation. It’s a movie that wants to focus more on the energy and events than the plot which allows them.

What makes it problematic, however, isn’t actually its digression from its predecessor, nor its inherent weaknesses with story and over-the-top sequences. No, the real problem with Mission Impossible 2 is that it’s not really a Mission Impossible type of movie. It’s a James Bond movie. What’s more, it’s pretty much one of the most entertaining Bond movies of all time. Whereas the idea behind Mission: Impossible is the mission itself, the challenge of it, and its global importance, the idea behind Bond is all about the character, it’s about Bond doing what Bond does best and doing it with a devil-may-care, style-over-substance attitude that only works when you’re a superspy. Whereas, M:I is, in concept, about accomplishing the impossible, the Bond franshise is about being the impossible, about a character who is beyond realistic expectations or viable plausibility. M:I is to objectives what Bond is to character.

Now, the probelm caused when looking at M:I-2 is that one isn’t really watching a Mission: Impossible movie. If one has the M:I expectation while watching the second film, it falls completely flat, feels ridiculous, lacks any semblence of intelligence or intrigue, and pretty much fails on every level of entertaining the mind. Then again, if one goes into M:I-2 with the counsel that it is a Bond movie, it’s actually quite entertaining. It’s unbelievable, but in a fun way. It’s over-the-top, but just enough to make it work. I guess, what I am trying to say is that, without adjusted expectation, M:I-2 is a hugely disappointing, brainless mess. After an adjustment, however, it’s a fun ride–though albeit, an out of place one for it’s specific franchise.

After all that, it seems silly to get into the plot; but I’ll give it a quick rundown. The movie follows IMF agent Ethan Hunt on a mission from Spain to Australia as he tracks and thwarts a rogue agent’s nefarious plans to release a virus and make a fortune off of its cure. Yeah, in the world of movie fandom, we call this a “James Bond A-Plot”. The movie is chock full of stylistically shot action sequences full of driector John Woo’s trademarks, such as the identical double-pistols, the heavy use of slow motion, and the presence of birds.

I’ve seen M:I-2 about a 4 times now; and each time, I enjoy it. For me personally, I will give Mission Impossible 2 a solid 5. It’s fantastic action fodder, so long as I remind myself going in, that’s it’s just a Bond picture with Tom Cruise at the helm.

PS - I wonder how Bond fans would have responded to this movie if, instead of M:I-2, it was a stand-alone spy movie about the American CIA agent, Felix Lighter. Food for thought.

Alright, here’s the thing. I love Walking Tall. Yes, That Walking Tall. With the Rock and Johhny KNoxville and Neal McDonough. So, when I saw a preview for another film made by the same production company with a similar, action-oriented premise, I decided to give it a try. That movie, called The Marine, now serves a lesson to me NOT to trust WWE films despite hitting paydirt with Walking Tall.

The Marine follows John Cena, not acting by-the-way, as an honorably discharged marine who, after he gets fired from a rent-a-cop job, goes on vacation with his wife, only to have her taken hostage by Robert Patrick and his gang of jewel thieves. The story is a play-by-play account of Cena’s tracking, fighting, and killing his enemies, leading up to a final battle against Robert Patrick of Terminator 2 fame (a fame which the movie itself jokes about in one of the few gags that works).

Needless to say, The Marine was a huge disappointment for me. The action was pretty fun, but the lull in the movie (which was about 70% of the second act’s running time) dragged on forever and attempts at humor and “building character” fell totally flat. There was even a moment where they made fun of someone being molested at summer camp. It was tasteless and took the movie from a 3 to a 2. That being said, The Marine get a 2 from me.

Men in Black is a superbly told sci-fi summer blockbuster which would probably be one of my favorite films were it not for a single glaring weakness that takes me out of the film so completely every time I watch it, it even inspired a rant (going up tomorrow!)

Basically, Men in Black is the story of a governemnt agency that policies the extra-terrestrial element on earth. Because of them, not only do aliens live peacifully among us, but our planet has evaded countless catastrophes and massacres. They’re great. Tommy Lee Jones plays the seasoned officer. Will Smith is his partner-in-training. Together, they save the world. Awesome.

Men in Black or MiB is a really delightful film. It was made at a time when effects still served the story rather than dictacte it, and the film has a wonderful, tight, well-told story with great characters (less one), interesting visuals, lots of laughs, and some fun action. Will Smith is fresh and fantastic, certainly at his best. As is Tommy Lee Jones, perhaps in his best role in the 90s after The Fugitive and Natural Born Killers. The way in which the story introduces the audience to the world of aliens-on-earth is incredibly well executed via the drafitng of Will Smith in to the Men in Black agency (a tactic copied perfectly in the original Matrix). The story serves well as both a sci-fi, a mystery, a comedy, and an action movie. It is one of those genre transcending movies that just works on every level. So I give Men in Black a 5. A 5? Not a a 7? But a 5? After all that praise? What happened?

Well, let me tell you. Men in Black may be the only movie I’ve ever watched where a single performance ruins the entire experience for me every time I watch it. No slight against Linda Fiorentino as a person, but I really didn’t believe a word she said in this movie. I felt her overacting was distracting and completely pulled me out of the picture. After this last viewing, wherein I really thought about the lines and character she was given, I was very upset. Not only did she have material to work with, but she was the only weak link in an otherwise nearly-perfect sci-fi adventure. I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really wish they would have gotten Helena Bonham Carter or Famke Jensen for that role. Either of those ladies would have been fantastic. Linda Fiorentino, who may be a wonderful person and may be great in other movies, didn’t do it for me here. I’m sorry. The 5 stands.

Certain movies do more than entertain. They truly take you to a new place and fully immerse you in the experience of a new world and the people and places in it. Sometimes, that world is a new planet or dimension. Other times, it is earth at a different point in history. Sometimes, it’s just earth now, in a culture with which one may not be familiar. Whatever the new realm is, few films manage to truly bring it to filmgoers in a way that feels tangible and real. Master and Commando, a sailing epic from director Peter Weir, based on the novel of the same name, is one of these films. At least it was for me.

The story follows the life and times of English Captain “Lucky Jack” Aubrey and his crew as they sail the Pacific and play a deadly game of cat and mouse with a larger, better armed, more heavily armed ship of Napoleon’s French fleet. The story follows not only this main A-plot but also spends time with several side stories, including those of various crewmen. The film spends the bulk of its time allowing us to build symapthy and empathy for Captain Jack and the crew members of the British ship Surprise, so that when the harrowing battle sequence commences at the end, we truly care about not only the broad outcome but the fates of many of the combatats (at least on one side).

I know that Master and Commander could be considered boring to some; and in some ways, it is. That’s the point in a way.The movie explores life at sea, with its close-quarters, long and listless days, and usually-dull existence. The movie takes its time and has faith in its viewers to accept the tedium as a part of the experience. That is a bold gamle and adds a level of authenticity to the experience one might have missed had the movie been heavily trimmed to a 112-minute action flick. I really, really enjoyed Master & Commmander for the experience, and I look forward to voyaging on the high seas with Captain Jack and company again.

So, the first time I saw Mindhunters, I really liked it. The film is basically a CSI-inspired horror movie following a team of profilers who have been taken to a remote island for a training exercise. Of course, the profilers begin to die, one-by-one, and the survivors must discover who is doing the killing. Whether or not profilers would be involved in this type of exercise is irrelevent as we are told very early on that their trainer has “unconvental methods’, which of course allows for anything. How the killer has time and opportunity to lay his elaborate traps is also not a problem, for the characters had a night of sleep prior to the exercise. Also, if characters begin acting odd and out of their usual behavior, it’s all part of their plan to survive. These are the types of things the movie asks the audience to accept. Are you buying it?

Yeah, I’m not either. I don’t know what happened between the first time I saw the flic and now, but I just didn’t enjoy this movie at all this last time I watched it. I don’t know why. Maybe my mindset may have changed. Maybe I’m just more discerning. I’m not sure. I just didn’t enjoy it–less LL Cool J’s performance as a late addition to the team. The movie is directed by Renny Harlin, and it has his usual A-list pacing, tone, and feel to his usual B-grade material. The movie looks fine, and it moves well; but for some reason, I just don’t buy into it anymore. Not sure why, but I just didn’t dig it at all. There are cool moments, and some of it is entertaining; but overall I just couldn’t buy into the movie like I wanted. That being said, I am giving Mindhunters a 3. t’s really nothing great. I can’t even convince myself that it’s good. Well, maybe it’s serviceable. I’d give it a 3.5, but I always round down, so it’s a 3.