I don't think I've ever written a restaurant review before, but since I'm waiting for Dobbs to change the oil in my car, and this was the first place I found within walking distance with a free wi-fi connection, here we go.

This is the first and only location of Sammy Scott's, at Olive & Mason in Creve Coeur. They aspire to be a chain, however, if the employee conversations I overheard are any indication. You have to admire their entrepreneurial spirit -- they opened a sandwich shop six doors down from an established Jimmy John's. Risky, but hey, maybe they have what it takes. The proof is in the pudding, er, sandwich.

I ordered the Cuban, which was very good, although a little small for the price: $5.50. It's about half the size of a $5 Subway footlong. For $2 more, you get to choose from a fairly long list of sides, and a drink. I went with potato salad and lemonade. Plus a freshly baked chocolate chip cookie, that was delicious and almost as big as the sandwich. Total damage: $10. They are proud to tell you that they bake their own bread and roast their own meats in the store. They also serve breakfast before 10am.

Overall, a good meal. If you're in the Creve Coeur area, you should check them out.

I just watched Sci-Fi Channel's miniseries The Lost Room for the second time, and I have to say that it is really very good. It originally aired in 2006, but I didn't watch it the first time until 2007. At the time, I was in between seasons of LOST, and found the two shows to be similar in a lot of ways. The mythology of both shows is dense, sprawling, and very intriguing. But I was ultimately frustrated with how The Lost Room ended, believing that they could have done a better job answering the questions raised.

Having watched it again, knowing that those questions are not answered, I can say that I appreciated the intricacies of the plot, and the character development a lot more, and I enjoyed the show much more the second time. It is my hope that one day I'll be able to revisit LOST again, and find a new appreciation for it as well. Although, I'll probably have to wait until I retire before I have 120 hours to waste watching TV. But the point of this post is to let people know about The Lost Room and encourage you to watch it. It is only six hours, and I will save you the frustration by telling you up front that they never reunite the objects. Go ahead and watch it, immerse yourself in the world that the writers created, and enjoy the ride!

I was disappointed with the Lost finale. There, I said it. It wasn't very good. Actually, it was good -- just like every other episode of the show, it was well acted and well made -- it just wasn't very satisfying. But there are a ton of people who are in denial about that. They are raving about the deeper philosophical meaning embedded in the show and how the finale was not only deeply meaningful but the only ending that fit. Well, I call bullshit. People who say that are just embarrassed to admit that they, like the rest of us, wasted 120 hours watching the show.

Perhaps that is too strong. I don't feel like the time was wasted, necessarily. I was entertained by the show, after all, and the story is still intriguing. But I feel like I've felt in the past when a show has been canceled prematurely and didn't get a chance to tie up all of the loose ends. This is especially frustrating since producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse deliberately called their own end to the show, limiting it to six seasons, claiming that they had to determine the pacing to tell the story they wanted to tell. Very well. You may have told a story, but you didn't answer the questions -- and that was your only job in the eyes of most fans. The questions were as confounding as they were incessant. The questions piled up season after season, like the mountains on the island. The questions were the yarn of the entire tapestry of Lost. And in the end, they are left dangling at the bottom of an impressive, but nonetheless incomplete, masterpiece. Why wouldn't you leave yourself enough time to properly answer the questions?

I not only committed 120 hours of my life to watching the TV show, but I also indulged the producers for untold hours listening to their podcasts. The podcasts were entertaining in their own right. "Darlton," as Damon and Carlton came to be called by podcast devotees, would spend a good portion of the show answering questions emailed to them. Sometimes the answers even shed light on the direction the show was taking, or would take in the future. On more than one occasion they refuted claims by fans that the island represented a kind of purgatory, and that everyone on the island was already dead. They assured their listeners that this was not the case, and that they had a much better explanation for the island's strangeness. This is especially frustrating since this appears to be exactly what they ended up doing with the show. Everyone was dead and trapped in the island's purgatory until they could find a way to collectively "let go" and move on.

I am left to believe that, despite their claims to the contrary, the roadmap for the show was not laid out in any great detail from Season 1, and that they were ashamed to admit that those fans who guessed purgatory way back in Season 1 were right on. Rather than rewarding those astute observers, they strung us all along promising us a grandiose mythology that could only come from the mind of a genius (or several geniuses), each season growing ever more implausible until somewhere around the end of Season 5 they realized that they had painted themselves into a corner. With no remaining path forward, they fell back to the only solution that ever made any sense and punted.

Lost had great potential, but like The Matrix trilogy, it just never lived up to it. Maybe one day after I retire, I'll go back and watch the entire series again and find some new appreciation for its genius. In the meantime, I'm just disappointed.

Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl make a pretty good team in the new romantic comedy Killers (whose plot seems strikingly similar to the Cruise-Diaz vehicle Knight and Day that opens later this month -- just sayin'), although I will say that the on-screen chemistry seemed to be lacking, when compared to Heigl's previous pairings with the likes of Gerard Butler (The Ugly Truth) and Seth Rogen (Knocked Up), so I guess I'll have to blame Kutcher for that.

As a comedy, the movie has its moments. Former Marine, and former Daily Show correspondent, Rob Riggle lights up the screen in a supporting role not unlike his scene-stealing cameo in last year's The Hangover. And The Mustache That Wet A Thousand Panties makes an appearance, as Tom Selleck returns to the big screen with a solid supporting role as the over-protective father, deadpanning his disappointment with Kutcher as a son-in-law. Overall, this movie is formulaic, predictable, and a bit implausible in places, but still entertaining.

My favorite show on NPR is Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, and we attended the live taping of Saturday's show. The panelists were Charlie Pierce, Roxanne Roberts, and Mo Rocca. I think Mo is tied with Paula Poundstone as my favorite panelist. The show was very good, and it was interesting to see all of the things that go into making the show. The show was taped at Powell Hall in front of an audience of about two thousand. Besides the panelists, the host Peter Sagal, and announcer Carl Kasell, there were a handful of producers on the stage, monitoring the recordings and passing notes to the participants. Following the show, there was a brief period of re-takes to rerecord portions of the show that did not have the best audio quality.

At the end of the show, an audience member was selected at random to come up on stage and answer a quiz question -- this segment was not recorded as part of the radio show. The woman selected identified herself as a school teacher, and her question was in regard to train stations in Japan. She wasn't sure of the answer, but an audience member in the front row was from Japan and gave her the answer. To everyone's astonishment, the teacher spoke fluent Japanese, and had a brief conversation with this person. Peter Sagal's reaction to this exchange was hilarious. Needless to say, she gave the correct answer.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Avatar will soon be the biggest-grossing movie of all time -- and even if it doesn't, it probably deserves to be. Living up to most, if not all, of the hype surrounding it, the film is visually stunning, and the story is compelling, if a bit formulaic. Director James Cameron has spent literally decades developing this project, and it is obvious that this is the work of someone with great attention to detail. The technology behind the production is simply staggering, and is likely to change how movies are made for decades to come -- not just the 3-D gimmickry, but the innovative motion capture techniques he has created. The CG graphics are impressive, but like any good movie, they support and enhance the story, they don't detract from it.

Many have criticized the movie for being too political, as it draws obvious parallels between the war portrayed in the movie and the current war in Iraq. The anti-imperialist message is undeniable, of course, but the movie succeeds at delivering that message without coming across as preachy, which is not an easy task for any storyteller. Most notable for me is that the story is also surprisingly spiritual, invoking our own indigenous Native Americans in describing the people and cultures of the fictitious world of Pandora. That spirituality ultimately plays an active role in the story's outcome, and is not just an afterthought.

Overall, Avatar is exquisitely made eye candy that is also emotionally satisfying. I would recommend it.

I've been lucky enough to take in a couple of great Christmas-time shows this season and I wanted to pass along my reviews. First, a couple of weeks ago, I went to see A Christmas Story at the Repertory Theater of St. Louis. If you're a fan of this iconic 80s Christmas movie, then you will love this live version. All the best scenes are recreated to great comedic effect, and that the extensive narration from the film is delivered live by an actor on stage is the most impressive part -- that is a lot of monologues to memorize.

Last night we went to see Irving Berlin's White Christmas at the Fabulous Fox. This was a great show too. Outstanding musical numbers and dance routines, fabulous period costumes, and a talented ensemble cast. This one is highly recommended as well.

A few years ago some folks started asking the question, What Would Jesus Drive? I'm not sure how seriously the question was supposed to be taken, as it was part of a campaign to demonize SUVs and the gas-guzzling ways of the people who drive them, but author Richard Gasaway has recently offered his answer to this question, and I don't think it matters what kind of car it is, as long as it is powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

His book, An Inconvenient Purpose, approaches the environmental movement from the unique perspective of Christians seeking to act as stewards of God's creation. He calls for the perceived conflict on this issue between left and right to be ignored in favor of doing what is right for the planet and what is right in God's eyes, regardless of one's political affiliation. I think this is an important point, and one that does not receive much attention. The debate is always framed in the media as left versus right, and those on the right, who have not taken the time to educate themselves, assume (wrongly) that because Al Gore advocates it, it must be wrong.

The author does a great job in this book of appealing to this demographic, and laying out a case for stewardship that transcends politics. He covers all aspects of the movement, from pursuing alternative energy sources, to lessening our dependence on foreign energy for national security reasons, to the environmental impact of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. But he keeps coming back to hydrogen as the clean solution to our dirty addiction to oil -- and that cleanliness is next to godliness.

My readers know that I frequently cover alternative energies, and that I'm a fan of electric cars. So, I may not share the author's conviction that hydrogen fuel cells are the absolute best solution, but I found this point from the book to be very good:

People talk of the inefficiency in creating hydrogen, and all the energy that must be expended to generate hydrogen molecules. However, people don't think twice about the inefficiency of creating electricity from start to finish. The electricity arriving at the normal house outlet often contains only a third of the energy content that orginated in the coal from which it started. Factor in the incandescent bulb inefficiencies of a typical house lamp plugged into that outlet and you're at about five percent.

That is something to consider when criticizing an alternative energy -- remove the beam from thine own eye before casting out the mote from thy brother's eye. An Inconvenient Purpose carves out a well-defined niche for Christians in the environmental movement, and acknowledges their obligation to participate, it tackles the complicated issues involved in very accessible layman's terms, all while offering an optimistic view of the future and the path we should all be following.

It's been almost two years since we last saw her at Touhill, and she's won a second Emmy since then for her show My Life on the D-List. This is my third time seeing her live, and I always walk out with my cheeks feeling sore from smiling for two hours straight.

She began her show this weekend at the Fabulous Fox by moonwalking onto the stage, in a tribute to Michael Jackson, and then proceeded to ask the audience, in a conspiratorial voice, if it was too soon to dish about the King of Pop. Of course the audience demanded that she continue, because that's what Kathy Griffin fans come to hear. She did not disappoint, and put on a very entertaining show. As her popularity continues to rise, I dare say she is in danger of being promoted off the D-list.

I don't go to the movies much (there are three reasons for this), and even when I do, I rarely take the time to write reviews of them anymore (I have people who do that for me). But every now and then a movie comes along that I just have to comment on.

The Hangover is easily the funniest movie I've seen in a long time. Even funnier than Wedding Crashers, and that was pretty damn funny. The story is a bit derivative, but the comedy is fresh and well-written, and the raunch is kept to a minimum. It's just constantly funny throughout the whole movie. Mike Tyson's cameos are comedy gold (I heard he did his scenes in one take), and the rest of the cast is superb (especially Ed Helms). If you are looking for something to keep you laughing for two hours, this is it.

They never do explain where the chicken came from, however.

I read recently that Pixar is 10 for 10 -- their last ten releases have opened number one at the box office, and their new offering Up is no exception. Noah took me to see this movie for Father's Day, and I enjoyed it, although I was a bit surprised by it. The trend in animated movies for kids is to sprinkle just enough humor for the adults into the mix that they enjoy it too, so that they have a reason to come back for the next one. I'm trying not to be too cynical about that, but you cannot ignore the fact that the kids aren't the ones paying for the tickets.

I think this trend may have been taken too far. That is, these are no longer kids movies with a few adult themes, they are adult movies with flashy graphics for the kids. The entire first act of Up is essentially a flashback, with very limited dialogue, telling the poignant back story of Carl, the hapless curmudgeon who turns his house into a makeshift dirigible, and his wife Ellie. The story is touching and overall very sad, and I'm not afraid to admit I shed a tear watching it. Pixar does fine work. Last year's WALL-E was very similar in its liberal use of adult themes and limited dialogue. It was also very good, and deserved the Oscar it won for best animated film.

But I believe it is increasingly becoming a stretch to call these kids movies. Someone could remake Schindler's List as an animated film, with enough eye candy to hold a kid's attention for ninety minutes, but that doesn't make it a children's movie. I'm not trying to be critical of Pixar's stories, just their marketing. Pixar makes great movies, they just aren't always what they seem.

We bought the Cars - Mater-National game for our Wii mainly because it is my son Noah's favorite movie and I thought he'd enjoy watching the game as much as watching the movie. I was not wrong. He loves it.

But I must confess that I like it too, and it's a very well executed game. The graphics are extremely well done, the story that guides you throughout is imaginative and well-written, and the game play itself is very good. The cars handle in a realistic way (for the most part) and the controls are intuitive.

I especially like the fact that certain areas of the game become unlocked after you achieve certain milestones and that results in barricades with "Road Closed" signs disappearing from roads in the game, allowing you to explore new areas of the map. I also like that time progresses as you go through phases of the game, so sometimes you are driving during the day, and sometimes at night. Overall it's a great game and I would strongly recommend it, even if you don't have kids!

It's only been a week since the season finale of my favorite show LOST, but I'm already having withdrawals. Season 4 was the best one so far, in my opinion, and I'm hooked all over again. It was touch and go there for a while. The show's producers made some poor decisions concerning the pacing of the show (starting with Season 2's preoccupation with "the hatch"), and have alienated a lot of their fans as a result, myself included. I was ready to write the show off after Season 3, so it's good that Season 4 was so strong (despite being interrupted by the writer's strike) or I would no longer be watching.

I'm still dismayed by their decision to deliver the final 48 episodes as three seasons of 16 episodes instead of the customary two seasons of 24 episodes. Decisions like this make it painfully obvious to viewers that TV is not entertainment, it's a business. Decisions are made to maximize profits, not to maximize the audience's satisfaction. I have a coworker who is a fan of the show, but only watches a season once it is released on DVD so that he can control the pace. I admire his discipline. I'm not sure I could do that.

By the way, if you are a fan of the show, but can't manage to remember the myriad of details and characters (and who could, unless you're some kind of freak?), be sure to check out the Lostpedia wiki. It is a fan reference without peer.

A while back, I wrote about how movie franchises rarely make it to the fourth installment, and that there's a reason for that. The latest offering in the Indiana Jones series is a painful reminder of why this is usually true. It would be easy to blame George Lucas, and, in reality, he is mostly to blame. He really tried to do too much in this movie. Like a quantum physicist struggling to find the Theory of Everything, this movie attempts to weave every crackpot conspiracy theory on the Internet, from alien autopsies at Roswell to the Nazca lines, into a coherent story that features the crystal skulls as its centerpiece.

As an audience member, I am willing to suspend my disbelief at some implausible hokum if it furthers the plot in some way. But what exactly was the point of showing Indiana surviving a nuclear weapons test in the Nevada desert, apart from offering yet another showcase for the CG talents of Lucas's crew at ILM? And this was in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, so it was all downhill from there. This movie is a cross between National Treasure and The X-Files. And not in a good way.

Like his Star Wars prequels before it, Lucas forgot everything that made the original Raiders of the Lost Ark such a classic, and went off in some entirely new direction, and buried the characters we know and love in a CG-laden reality that is anything but real. I can't believe Spielberg agreed to direct this mess. Do yourself a favor, and forget this movie was made. Go rent Raiders and Last Crusade (skip Temple of Doom) instead. It won't cost you as much, and you'll enjoy it much more.

There certainly was a lot of hype surrounding this film, and J.J. Abrams has a lot riding on it since it is the first foray into the big-screen world for his Bad Robot production company. If this movie doesn't do well, it could be bad news for his much-anticipated Star Trek movie due out this Christmas.

Overall, I would have to say that I cannot shake my feelings of disappointment over this movie. My expectations were not high going into it. I'm a fan of Lost -- one of Abrams's TV productions -- so I know he's capable of intriguing stories and great special effects. But I also knew that it was all filmed in "documentary style" with handheld camcorders, so I was anticipating needing a sick bag by the end of it, a la Blair Witch.

I'm happy to report that the jerky camera work was tolerable, however, the pacing of the movie is a bit awkward. The obligatory character development at the beginning is tedious, and once the action begins it stops and starts instead of steadily building to a final payoff.

There are many worthwhile scenes captured in this movie. Scary glimpses of the monster, eery views of a deserted metropolis, but they do not flow easily into one another, and the film lacks a certain cohesiveness as a result, almost as if it was designed with commercial breaks in mind.

Although the approach for recording the events is somewhat unique, the idea behind the story is not new, and the end is not terribly gratifying, so I would have to say that J.J.'s first film is simply average. Hopefully he can do better in the future, or he's going to have to stick to television.

I've never been a fan of The Wizard of Oz but Wicked is not only a clever re-imagination of the L. Frank Baum classic, but it also very funny and entertaining. There are, of course, plenty of references to the original, and they are done in such a way that if you are a fan of Oz you will view them as an homage, and if you're not a fan, they work equally well as satire.

I can see why this musical has become so popular -- the characters are already familiar to most, but they appear in new and parallel scenes to the original story, with imaginative sets and catchy but witty songs. And where the original told a morally ambiguous tale fit for consumption by children, Wicked tells the familiar tale of a misfit's (the Wicked Witch of the West) quest to fit in with her childhood peers and the consequences as an adult when she does not.

Wicked is currently playing here in St. Louis at the Fabulous Fox through Jan 6.

Welcome Kathy Griffin fans! I'm not exactly sure why, but ever since I wrote my review of her performance a year ago, she is the number one search term that brings people to my web site. Well, we just saw her again tonight at the Touhill Performing Arts Center at UMSL, so I guess I can expect my site traffic to double now.

It was a great show, and she said that since she was taping her new Bravo special tomorrow night she was trying out some of her new material on the St. Louis audience. We are a hometown audience for Kathy's assistant Tom, so she has a special connection to us, which she poked fun at with references to her visit to Meramec Caverns.

She also lampooned the $90,000 spent by the Miracle Theater in Pidgeon Forge, Tennessee, on a full-page ad in USA Today denouncing her and her Emmy acceptance speech. As she pointed out, she is glad that money was spent wisely, and not wasted feeding the homeless, or something.

Fans of her show will no doubt remember her bombing during a fundraiser in front of a jewelry makers convention. She told a outrageous story about that gig that never made it to television because it was deemed "to horrible" by Bravo producers.

She also ripped on Fox's Bill O'Reilly and his sexual harrassment lawsuit. She encouraged the audience to go home and Google for "Bill O'Reilly" and "loofah" and promised us that we would be glad we did.

Fantastic show. Kathy is such a great live performer and her self-deprecating humor and irreverance for everything make her a star in the business, even if she is only D-list.

Few movie franchises make it to the fourth installment, and there's a reason for that. By the fourth one they've typically run out of steam. Notable exceptions to this rule are Lethal Weapon 4 and this movie. The original Die Hard (1988) was a seminal movie, defining a genre of wise-cracking, unkillable, near-super-human-cop movies. So it's surprising to see that, after almost twenty years of imitators, this movie still feels fresh.

This movie goes back to its roots in the original for several humorous references (yet another agent Johnson of the FBI) as well as plot construction. The story is decidedly contemporary (dealing with terrorism and making plenty of references to DHS) so it's quite interesting that there are so many parallels between it and the original -- terrorists, hackers and the FBI all figure prominently in both films.

Speaking of hackers, as I predicted, Justin Long is still turning out great performances. He seems uniquely qualified to play the geek who is still cool and engaging (although I don't think he comes anywhere near a Mac in this film). And the venerable Kevin Smith turns in a stellar cameo as the Hacker King.

Despite some remarkable battles with plausibility (the whole scene with the F-35 comes to mind), this is a great movie. Full of all the thrills and one-liners of previous installments, and Bruce Willis is still delivering the goods after almost twenty years.

My expectations for this one might have been higher than usual since I thought The 40-Year-Old Virgin was so good. While writer/director Judd Apatow has disappointed in the past -- that Ron Burgundy movie is simply unwatchable -- he delivers in this movie. For any thirty-something that has gone through the joys and travails of having a baby, there are plenty of references in this movie that will strike very close to home.

Oh, and keep an eye on Kristen Wiig. She is a scene-stealer in this film, her brilliant character work on SNL is reminiscent of Gilda Radner, and I predict her career is about to blow up.

It's probably been terribly over-hyped, although it's still a good movie. I would say that some of the CG fight scenes lose their focus because of the camera spinning around the action instead of trying to capture it. Bruce Campbell's cameo as a maitre d' is pretty entertaining. The movie seems to drag a little in spots (it is about two and a half hours long, after all) but that may be due to the frenetic pace of the rest of it, so those spots just seem slow by comparison. Overall, if you are a fan of the franchise, I would recommend it, otherwise, wait for video.

It didn't suck. I had set my expectations pretty low (as I do with all comic book-based movies), and it exceeded them. Nicholas Cage's performance is solid, and the special effects are top drawer. The mythology/back story that is explained is intriguing, if superficial. The plot is predictable, but at least it has one, which is saying a lot in Hollywood these days. Overall, I'd give it a B- which means see it in the theater if there is nothing else you want to see, otherwise, wait for video.

Never has so much been spent on so little to entertain so few. The budget for this film was certainly epic, so it's a shame the comedy was so lackluster. No expense was seemingly spared on the CG effects, or the sets and wardrobe, but it was still a disappointing outing from the same group who brought us the laughs with the Scary Movie franchise. Perhaps they tried to reach too far, skewering everything from last year's Nacho Libre (which I recognized from the trailer, since I would never actually pay to see that) to The DaVinci Code. The only notable scenes in the whole movie are Darrell Hammond's spot-on parody of Johnny Depp's Pirates of the Carribean character: Capt Jack Swallows -- but don't waste your money on this one. Wait for video. Actually, no, don't bother.

The acting is superb, and DeNiro's direction is spot on, but don't go see this movie if you are in need of a nap. Drink some caffiene and be prepared to pay attention. I think I was just lucky, and noticed the right details, otherwise the whole thing might seem like a parade of random scenes. Despite the convoluted plot, there is a worthwhile message in this film. Although the message I took may not be the one intended, it is this: the excesses of our government allow agencies like the CIA to be even more dangerous than they would be otherwise.

I wonder if tourism will increase at the Skull and Bones Society's Deer Island after being glamorized in this movie? I have nothing against secret societies, indeed, they are often necessary to keep a runaway government in check. But when the members of these societies are also the same people wielding power within the government, the dangers are simply multiplied.

Some say the intent of this movie is to draw parallels between the Mafia and the CIA, but this is not a novel concept for those of us who long ago stopped viewing our government as a collection of benevolent heroes. Only the most naive among us will find this revelation at all shocking.

So Daniel Craig's not as bad as everyone said he was going to be. I'm by no means a fan of the 007 franchise, but I enjoy a good action movie, and this one certainly delivers. I have to wonder how many stuntmen were killed while filming the opening scene. It's the cusomary chase scene, but this one isn't in cars or rocket boats, it's on foot. But don't think that it is any less suspenseful or spectacular -- this one is almost worth the price of admission by itself. Craig does a more than admirable job, and while he may not have the sex appeal of Sean Connery back in the day, he is no less suave than a Pierce Brosnan, or a Timothy Dalton, but somehow more believable in the role. It suits him well. I predict a successful run of sequels for the new Mr. Bond.

If you're a Monty Python fan, you simply cannot miss Spamalot (currently playing a month-long engagement at the Fabulous Fox). The plot follows that of the original Holy Grail pretty closely, but throws in a few gags from other favorite Python movies. And did I mention it's a musical?

Eric Idle misses no opportunity to skewer Andrew Lloyd Weber, and lampoons Weber's sappy sweet formula in a brilliantly funny parody of the sewer scene from Phantom of the Opera. It then pokes fun at itself, bemoaning the fact that they are doomed to failure due to their lack of Jews in "You Won't Succeed On Broadway."

The finale is even more satisfying than the movie (with its clumsy ending that suggested the budget simply ran out), with the resolution of the quest for the grail, a wedding, and everyone living happily ever after.

We saw Kathy Griffin tonight at the new Touhill Performing Arts Center at UMSL, and she was her usual hilarious self. And to the audience's surprise, she did almost two hours of material, including a very funny story about Andy Dick. If you haven't caught My Life on the D List on Bravo, you've missed some very funny (and Emmy-nominated!) television.

Despite it being Election Eve, she resisted the urge to focus on political humor. Politics aren't really her shtick, she prefers to dish about celebrities she works with or comes into contact with living in Hollywood. But when she does wade into the political waters, her satire is just as biting as any other that she does.

This was my first time at the Touhill center, and I was impressed. I can tell UMSL spent a pretty penny building the place, but it is a very good venue. The acoustics are great, and although it probably seats over 2000 people, it still has that intimate small theater feel. Since I bought my tickets online, I'm sure they'll be spamming me with announcements about upcoming events there. I might have to check'em out, though.

[Update 10/19/07] We went to see her a second time.

This movie was pleasantly surprising. It doesn't suffer from traileritis, as I had been expecting. Although some of the jokes have been recycled from college movies of the past (such as the granddaddy of them all, Animal House), it didn't stop it from being entertaining. It even has some heartwarming moments towards the end. Justin Long (of PC/Mac commercial fame) does an admirable job carrying this movie. Count on seeing more of him in the future.

This movie lived up to the high standards set by the first one, however, it is a bit on the long side. I found myself squirming in my seat the last 20-30 minutes. Perhaps my attitude was different since I knew going into it that the next installment has already been filmed and I wasn't expecting the story to be resolved. But I will say that the ending is not as abrupt as, say, Back to the Future II.

Johnny Depp is once again great as Captain Jack Sparrow, although since his character is well-known now, his quirkiness is perhaps not as endearing as it was in the first film. The story is satisfying, if a bit hard to follow, due to the *outrageous* accents of some of the key characters, and the CG is not too overpowering. If you were a fan of the first, you'll most likely enjoy this one too.

Will Vince Vaughn ever tire of the flat, stereotypical characters that he plays? I'll admit the man has a gift, but I'd just like to see him extend his range a bit.

He and Jennifer Aniston have good on-screen chemistry, but not great. And certainly not worth all of the buzz surrounding this latest Hollywood power-couple. I would have thought the media would have learned their lesson with "Bennifer," but in the end they're all a bunch of whores and they'll hype anything if there's a ratings point to be had.

The movie is funny, but not on par with some of Vaughn's other work (namely Wedding Crashers, which I just watched again on DVD). And Aniston holds her own, but I'm sure it's hard for her to turn in a noticeable performance with Vaughn's over-the-top ad-libbing sucking up all the oxygen on the set.

And how weird is it that Vince Vaughn and Vince D'Onofrio actually look like brothers?

There is no such thing as bad publicity. I'm surprised that the Catholic Church didn't learn that lesson in 1988 when they turned The Last Temptation of Christ from a mediocre film at best into a certified media sensation. Denouncing a film as heresy is good for guaranteeing it at least another $20 million at the box office.

I heard all of the poor reviews coming out of Cannes too. But they're *French* for crying out loud! They already *hate* all things American, they're fiercely proud of their Catholic heritage, and one of the bad guys in this film (at least for the first half anyway) is a Frenchman! How Ron Howard thought he'd get a decent review out of Cannes, I have no idea.

Despite all of the negativity, this is a good movie. If you enjoyed the book, you'll definitely enjoy the movie. If you haven't read the book, there is plenty of action and suspense to keep you occupied, but you may be frustrated by all of the puzzles being solved before your eyes. You may want to wait for DVD so you can pause it and unscramble "so dark the con of man" for yourself.

I've never been a big fan of Tom Cruise -- his movie career peaked with Top Gun, in my opinion -- and his recent exploits and the surrounding media blitz have done little to endear him to me and many other moviegoers who were on the fence about him. Cruise is tolerable in this role, and this movie is good for its genre, although just a tad preoccupied with gadgets. And NBC's recently deceased series Heist did the whole false-bottom-in-the-car-over-the-manhole thing a *lot* better.

I'm not a huge fan of Antonio Banderas, and as I sit here trying to think of the last movie I saw him in, I'm coming up blank. But no matter. He's good in this one. I vaguely recall the cry of collective surprise during the media blitz for Evita that he actually had a singing voice. Well, guess what? He can dance too.

He's no Patrick Swayze (Dirty Dancing, One Last Dance), but he's not as stiff as Richard Gere either (Chicago, Shall We Dance). (Damn I see a lot of dancing movies!) He's good in his role, and while it is based on a real-life person, the story is a bit formulaic, although still entertaining.

If you are a fan of dancing movies, this one won't disappoint.

This is a powerful film. Sadly, too few people will see it. And of the ones who do, not enough of them will see the deeper message contained within it. That message manages to surface once or twice in between the glitz and the action, mostly embodied in the dialogue of the main character V. His line that "people shouldn't fear their governments; governments should fear the people," while paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson ("When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."), is arguably the central message of the movie.

I think most people upon hearing this message would probably agree with it, as long as they don't spend too much time thinking about it, but when they realize the full implications they would view it as being too impolite. Too revolutionary.

But as V also says, near the end of the movie, ideas are bulletproof. Our country was founded on the idea that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that the rights of the individual are supreme. That idea is certainly bulletproof. It sparked the last revolution, and it will no doubt spark the next.

This movie was as good as any interspecial love story can be, I suppose. I didn't feel that it lived up to the hype I had been hearing from friends and colleagues who had seen it, and I had a hard time suspending my disbelief where Fay Wray's reciprocal feelings for the ape were concerned.

It did make me curious to see the original 1933 film, to which this is reportedly Peter Jackson's homage, but I probably wouldn't be able to tolerate the special effects of the day. Jack Black turns in a respectable performance, but few comics have the talent to make the leap to drama and still keep their careers. We'll see if he has what it takes.

"Finding your path" is the message behind this movie. Well, that, and "letting your freak flag fly." In the end, it's a love story, but not the kind you would expect. Or maybe it is since it deals with just about every kind of love imaginable -- familial love, homosexual love, fraternal love, and, most importantly, love of convenience and how destructive it can be. An endless string of hilarious and awkward moments center around Sarah Jessica Parker's character, as she visits her boyfriend's family for Christmas. She undergoes a vital transformation as a result of the culture clash, and leaves her mark on the family as well. While the ending is somewhat sad, it is an endearing story and well-written and superbly acted by the ensemble cast.

This movie is simply magnificent. From the fantastical creatures that inhabit the world of Narnia (C.S. Lewis borrows heavily from just about every culture's mythology on Earch, from cyclopes to the phoenix), right down to each CG-hair in Aslan's coat (that makes the lion in Jumanji look like 1st graders did it). The CG overall is impressive, although just slightly inferior to Lord of the Rings in quality (some of the creatures' movements lack that natural fluidity). The pacing of the film is just the tiniest bit tedious, but the story is every bit as compelling and the battle scenes are as visually stunning as LOTR, if not as dark and gritty. The swordplay is not as meticulously choreographed, as in Peter's final battle with the Witch they aren't so much fighting as simply posing with their weapons, but this is a minor criticism. In general, this is a great film and should do well this Christmas season as a family-friendly children's movie, replete with strong Christian symbology.

I still remember being awakened by the phone the evening of January 16, 1991 and hearing my father's voice say, "Jerry, they're bombing Baghdad." When you're five years into a six-year enlistment in the Marine Corps, finding out that you're suddenly at war is not the greatest news. Despite my non-deployable status as a member of the Landing Force Training Command Atlantic (LFTCLant), a Marine can never be sure what his next set of orders will contain. My initial apprehension about being sent to an active combat zone was soon replaced with feelings of helplessness, and later uselessness, as I watched my friends in the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (with whom I shared a barracks) leave for Operation Desert Storm. So in some small way I can completely relate to Anthony Swofford's feelings of frustration and futility.

This is a fantastic film with a number of different, but important, messages all competing for screen time. From the absurd morality of arguing over who should get to kill an officer of the Republican Guard, to the complex ethos of a bus-load of Marines welcomed home by a Vietnam vet who received no homecoming parade of his own.

It brought back a number of memories for me, although I never regretted my decision to join, so there were a number of negative aspects of Swofford's perspective that I could not share. But whether you love or hate the Corps, it is a great source of comedy and drama, and it was great to see "the Suck" as a co-star of this war movie for my generation.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? This is latin for "who watches the watchers?" A question that is explored to some degree in this movie. A great number of people in this post-9/11 world derive some bit of comfort from the knowledge that randomly placed Sky Marshalls exist on flights in and out of the United States. But what happens when the system that is intended to protect us, turns against us? What happens when the watchers become corrupted? And while much of this movie tests the bounds of credibility (like the notion that Airbus's A380 will ever be commercially viable), it still posits an interesting and entertaining answer to the question.

This is the perfect "chick flick." Extremely formulaic, but yet extremely satisfying in the end. The story is fairly novel as well, which is always a breath of fresh air. Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo have good on-screen chemistry, and both did a superb job with both the comedy (physical, in some cases) and the more dramatic aspects of their respective roles. But without a doubt, Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite) is the scene-stealer in this film. This is one of the better movies of the year.

This is a powerful movie, but it does get rather preachy towards the end, and despite Ian Holm's admonishment to Nicolas Cage's character to "pick a side," this film does not. It is thought provoking in the way that guns are portrayed throughout the world in many different scenarios. However, on a philosophical level, it is intellectual cowardice to present the two sides (or more) of the gun debate and then avoid illustrating why one side is morally right and the rest are morally wrong. This could have been a much better film if it had, indeed, picked a side.

I'm a big fan of Steve Carrell. Loved him on The Daily Show. I also like Paul Rudd. But, Anchorman being the unwatchable mess that it is, I was a little apprehensive about this re-pairing of two of its stars. But they pulled this one off. It's very entertaining. The story is predictable, but has an undeniable appeal for thirtysomethings, whether you are still a virgin or not. Like just about every Hollywood movie, it suffers from traileritis -- too much plot and too many punchlines are thrown away in the trailer -- but there are still enough gems in this one to make it worth seeing.

Let's be honest. There are only two reasons to see this movie: Jessica Simpson. But you know how when you really like a movie or a TV show as a kid, and then you see it again as an adult and it totally sucks? I think that may be the case with me and dem Duke boys. I haven't watched the TV series in at least 15 years, maybe 20. But I suspect that if I did, I wouldn't be able to tolerate it. And I also suspect that this movie stuck pretty close to the original series, in that respect. It's pretty hard to tolerate. Even Jessica couldn't save it.

Thoroughly enjoyable. I haven't laughed that hard at a movie in a long time. Few movies are this laugh-out-loud hilarious. I'll have to see it again to catch all of the lines drowned out by the audience's laughter. For once, they didn't give away every punchline in the trailer, I guess because this was a genuinely funny movie with plenty of laughs to spare. Vince Vaughn is a comedic genius, and has good chemistry with Owen Wilson. The comedy is tad bit raunchy in places, but doesn't disappoint, and don't visit IMDB and spoil the surprise cameo in this movie -- you'll be glad you didn't.

The scariest scenes of this already not-that-scary movie were ruined for me since I had seen half of them during Jennifer Connelly's media blitz (Letterman, Conan, The View, Regis & Kelly) last week. But apart from that, the enormous holes in the story were the biggest disappointment. Half of the characters in this film were introduced and developed for no apparent reason because they had no bearing on the outcome of the story. There were clearly parts to this story that were missing -- must I wait for the DVD's alternate endings for this movie to make any sense?

Not having read the original book, nor having heard the radio play from 1938, nor having seen the original film from 1953, I had no preconceived notions regarding what this movie was going to be about. I knew the basic storyline -- Mars Attacks (only with fewer cameos) -- but I was completely ignorant of the details. But damned if Spielberg didn't manage to screw this one up bad enough that even *I* noticed! Between the plot holes big enough to drive a truck through (Alien ships buried on Earth for millions of years? Grandma's house unscathed amid the rubble of what was once Boston?) and the awkward pacing of the film's finale, one is left to wonder if a veteran director like Spielberg was actually at the helm the entire time, or if he handed it off to an apprentice while he went on vacation.

Take what are widely regarded as the two most beautiful people on the planet (Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie), give them some guns, and a fairly contrived story, mix well, and what do you get? A cross between War of the Roses and a James Bond flick. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't guarantee a good movie, either. This one was somewhat disappointing. There wasn't enough humor to call this movie a comedy, but the action isn't enough by itself to carry a movie (when will Hollywood realize that?). Vince Vaughn was one notable bright spot in the film, but isn't he tired of playing the same stereotypical unhappily-married guy, or grizzled divorcee? I mean he's good at it, but seriously, Vince, it might be time to find a new agent.

Overall, this movie was better than Episodes I & II. I think George Lucas has redeemed himself to some extent. With all six movies now entered into our collective consciousness, it becomes obvious that Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader is actually the central character to the story -- and not Luke Skywalker as was previously apparent from the original trilogy. Within that context, I'm a little disappointed that the source of his torment is something as mundane as a boy's yearning for his mother. It seems a figure as enigmatic as Vader would be substantially more complex. But I guess not. I also have to take issue with Obi-Wan's behavior in the final moments of this film. It was in no way consistent with his character. I understand why it had to be that way, but it seems that with a little more effort the story could have been constructed in such a way that Obi-Wan was forced to make the choice that he did, rather than in the awkward and contrived fashion that it was presented.

Besides being very funny, The Producers musical (now playing at the Fabulous Fox theater in St. Louis) is visually stunning thanks to some very innovative sets and lighting -- far more sophisticated than anything one would expect from the man who also brought you Robin Hood: Men in Tights. The costumes are fabulous too, flaunted by an enormous cast adept at the quick-change. The story is vintage Mel Brooks, showcasing his life-long preoccupation with all things Nazi (Springtime for Hitler is comedy gold), jewish, big-breasted and homosexual. Go see this show if you have the chance!

One must really have a sense of the absurd to appreciate the humor of Douglas Adams. If you are like me, the HHGTTG series is among your favorite books, and so you have rather high expectations for the film version. This movie delivered. From the opening musical number (yes, I said musical -- it's a hoot), to the final engagement of the Infinite Improbability Drive (leaving an ephemeral image of the author on the screen as the credits begin to roll) that launches you into what must certainly be a sequel, this movie meets all of the expectations of those familiar with the story, and still manages to deliver all the unexpected moments that make a movie like this so much fun.

The movie is called Sin City -- emphasis on the word 'sin.' So much emphasis, in fact, that ordinary, everyday sins (like murder and adultery) weren't enough for director Robert Rodriguez. He and co-director Frank Miller had to resort to exploring some of society's most forbidden taboo sins, such as cannibalism and child molestation. Couple this with the fact that there isn't a single character in the film that you, the audience member, can relate to (unless you're a prostitute, thug, or a crooked cop), and all of the computer-generated cinematographical tricks in the world cannot save your film. The movie is well-made and well-acted (let's be honest, the comic-book feel that was achieved is indeed groundbreaking), but Frank Miller's stories are not ones that need to be told, in graphic novels, or any other media for that matter. Without a protagonist, his tales have very little value at all. Skip this one.

Vin Diesel is following in Ah-nuld's footsteps, as he makes the leap into comedy. His performance is passable, if implausible. The entire story is quite unbelievable, but the characters keep you engaged, and it is a cute film overall. Vin should probably stick to the action/adventure genre, but hey, it's his career.

This movie is entertaining. Tommy Lee Jones is perfectly cast as the gruff Ranger with a heart. If you're going to see this movie because you like Cedric the Entertainer, save your money and just download the trailer a few more times -- all of his scenes are in it. There was plenty of eye candy, though -- Monica Keena and Kelli Garner may be the four best reasons to see this movie.

The CG is, of course, stunning -- there doesn't seem to be much difference in quality anymore these days from movie to movie. I didn't think this movie was as original as Ice Age and the humor wasn't as sophisticated (there *were* a lot of kids in the theater). Robin Williams seemed to trying too hard (if that's possible for him?) in his vocal performance. Overall it was an average film -- probably best to wait for video.

Will Smith does a good job of playing the straight man to Kevin James, although through the magic of flashbacks he does get to cut up a little bit. This is definitely a chick flick, but it is very entertaining, and thankfully not *all* the funny parts are in the trailer, so there are a couple of surprises.

I had my doubts about whether or not Debra Messing could carry a film by herself. I was impressed. She did an excellent job, and there was good chemistry between her and Dermot Mulroney. The plot is derivative, but the characters are deep enough that you don't really mind too much. It is typical Hollywood formula all the way, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Leonardo DiCaprio is brilliant once again in his portrayal of the reclusive and enigmatic Howard Hughes. I've never considered myself a fan of DiCaprio, but I must admit his talent is hard to dismiss. Strong performances in this film, and Catch Me If You Can immediately come to mind. I believe some artistic license was taken with the details in this movie -- it has always been my impression that the eccentricities that Hughes became famous for did not begin manifesting themselves until late in his life, but this movie portrays him as being tormented by them in his early 40s. I'm not sure how accurate that is, historically, but the rest of the film is fantastic.

Thoroughly enjoyable yet ultimately disappointing. I cant figure out why Paul Weitz would feel the need to tease his audience so much. An interesting story combined with brilliant acting keeps the audience enthralled for almost two hours and then, without remorse, denies us the satisfaction of the formulaic Hollywood ending that we crave so badly. The ending was so obvious, and telegraphed from such a great distance, I'm quite sure he actually filmed it, but then during a bad day in the editing suite decided to play a cruel joke on his audience and left it instead as an extra on the DVD. I feel so betrayed.

Yes, Kevin Spacey has been in something of a slump recently. But Hollywood had better take notice: Mr. Spacey is back with a vengeance. Few people in Hollywood are talented enough to simultaneously act and direct -- it is a very short list. But the list becomes even shorter when you ask for those capable of writing, directing, acting, singing and dancing in their own movie. Beyond the Sea is an entertaining, semi-biographical, musical fantasy about the intriguing life of Bobby Darin, but it also a showcase for the very talented Mr. Spacey. If you are a fan of either Darin or Spacey (or both, like me), you must see this movie.

I was the tiniest bit disappointed with this movie. Ocean's Eleven was a tough act to follow, though. I don't think the sequel was quite as entertaining as the first. That is not to say that this is a bad movie, but there were not as many times in this one that things were laugh out loud funny. And the cool smugness of the main characters (Clooney and Pitt) was balanced well in the first one by the rest of the crew. In this movie, however, they all seemed to exhibit the same arrogance (presumably because they pulled off the first job) and that was a bit much to take. It's still a good movie and the story is certainly well crafted, if a bit hard to follow in places. I enjoyed it, but I wish I had enjoyed it more.

Is Nicholas Cage the new Harrison Ford? This film certainly had that Indiana Jones feel, within a concrete jungle instead. What a ride. Fast paced and suspenseful, this is another winning collaboration between Jerry Bruckheimer and Disney. No one is going to get nominated for Best Actor (a la Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Carribean) for this one, but it is a very fun and intriguing movie. The writers did a good job of blending history, mythology and urban legends, although I was a bit disappointed that Oak Island was overlooked as one of the locales. This is a swashbuckler for the tinfoil-hat crowd. Go see this movie!

A very entertaining movie overall, with the sophisticated humor that we've all come to expect from Pixar, and a unique story about aging superheroes longing to relive their glory days. I felt it was a little slow in reaching its pace, but the end more than made up for it. It is not as laugh-out-loud funny as some of Pixar's other offerings (Toy Story, Finding Nemo), but still appealing.

The trailer for this movie just screams "chick flick" and I'm no fan of Jennifer Lopez, but thankfully, she doesn't have a major role. Between this one, You Got Served and Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights, I can't remember a year that saw this many dance movies released since 1984 and Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo! I like dance movies, and I liked this one especially. It is a romantic movie, but the it isn't *about* romance -- there is a compelling story at the bottom of it about an average father (Richard Gere) who knows there is something missing from his life, but is embarrassed to tell his wife that he isn't as happy as he thinks he should be. The dancing is top notch and Lisa Ann Walter steals the show as Bobbie.

This one wasn't as good as I was hoping it would be -- your average episode of South Park has more biting satire. As expected, the music was hilarious (especially the Montage song), though probably not Oscar-caliber -- although I didn't believe "Blame Canada" was Oscar-caliber either, so who knows. The marionette work and the "special effects" were certainly intriguing, and it is obvious that an awful lot of work went into making this film, but in the end I found myself wishing that they had spent more time following their penchant for subtle intellectual humor, and less time on the crude locker-room humor. Note to Parker & Stone: curse words are a seasoning, and too much salt spoils the soup. I'll rank this one behind Baseketball, South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut, and Cannibal: The Musical. It had its moments, but it just wasn't up to par.

Jimmy Fallon probably doesn't have what it takes to carry a movie. Chris Kattan has discovered this about himself as well, along with a long list of SNL alumni. Queen Latifah turns in a respectable, if unoriginal, performance. She is playing the same urban black woman to the white straight man that she played in Bringin' Down the House, although this movie doesn't rely as heavily on culture clash for laughs -- it delivers on other comedy fronts as well (Patton Oswalt's "Friendster" line is classic!). The action sequences are great, but overall, this movie is very average.

Are they tap-dancers? Are they percussionists? Are they comedians? They are all three combined. The eight men and women in the traveling Stomp show we saw at the Fabulous Fox are truly some of the most talented performers in the world. Despite the simple premise of what they do -- banging out rhythms on pots and pans -- the set is visually stunning and the performances are simply astonishing.

The presentation is very reminiscent of Blue Man Group although I think BMG's tableaus are somewhat more clever. Stomp's advantage over BMG is the sheer energy that they put into the performances. It is hard to believe that they are able to keep up the frenetic pace for two hours.

If you get a chance to see this show, you should definitely check it out. It is really something to see.

This is a decent movie but you've seen it all before. In fact, you've even seen Will Smith act out the same part before. This movie is Independence Day with robots instead of aliens. It's still a decent movie and the CG is top notch, but one is left to wonder how much better it could have been had they followed Asimov's original story a little more closely. I mean it's a classic for a reason, right? (This was the second in the double feature at the drive-in.)

I thought this movie was at least as good as Alien. The actors and actresses are little more than plot devices, and the story is fairly contrived, but it is still interesting. I won't spoil the end, but I will say that they left it *wide* open for a sequel. This one isn't going to win any Oscars, but hey, it's a monster movie, what do you want? We saw it as part of a double feature at the drive-in, which is always a great place to see these kinds of movies.

M. Night Shyamalan has redeemed himself somewhat in my eyes. The Village is an intriguing tale, and well-told. Moreso than his two previous offerings, Unbreakable and Signs, though still not on par with his supernatural tour de force The Sixth Sense. There is a twist in this movie, as audiences have come to expect from Shyamalan, but I wasn't prepared for its philosophically profound implications. I left the theater wondering if the story told could have ever really happened, or, indeed, if it could be happening somewhere right now.

It is not often that Hollywood manages to crank out a sequel that is worth watching. It is even less frequent that a sequel is better than its predecessor, but I think we have a case of that with Spiderman 2. It manages to keep that comic-book feel, and stay interesting, while ratcheting up the action a notch or two. I'm also not as dismayed by Tobey Maguire in the lead since I've seen him do it once already, and I think he does any even better job in this movie exploring the namesake character. The villian is more interesting in this one as well.

I liked this movie overall. Michael Moore spins an interesting tale. But I agree with Moore's critics that his movies are, shall we say, "factually challenged" and therefore utterly fail as documentaries. I have read the critiques of Bowling for Columbine and his practice of taking clips out of context in order to support his position. There is already a fair amount of evidence that he is guilty of the same thing with 9/11. Moore is a talented propagandist. For this reason, I wish he would simply admit it and return his Oscar, because, come on Mike, we all know that movie didn't qualify as a documentary.

A fantastic movie. Top notch. A compelling twist on the shopworn "forbidden love" and "love triangle" storylines. The romanticism abounds in the WWII period flashbacks that tell most of the story. The two main characters are very real and evocative, and I found myself wondering later what kind of life they had following their courtship. Perhaps Nicholas Sparks will find time one day to explore this further. In the meantime, I guess I'll just have to settle for reading his sequel entitled The Wedding. Go see this movie.

This movie was okay. It was silly. Silly to the point of being stupid in places, and not all that funny overall. Despite the ensemble cast, it didn't seem that the ensemble ever quite reached its potential. I would be interested to see the original from 1975 to see if it shared the remake's identity crisis. Is it a psychological thriller, or is it a dark comedy? In either case, I'd be willing to forgive some of the silly shortcomings of this most recent film, if they were at least meant to be an homage to the original. I just don't know.

An enjoyable film. The special effects were excellent, with two notable exceptions. The CG wolves were a bit weak (reminiscent of the animals in Jumanji), and I wish that until Hollywood has mastered the art of adding post-production cold-weather breath, directors would refrain from using it in their movies -- it's just lame. The movie fails as an environmental cautionary tale since most of the story is outside the realm of scientific possiblity, and as a result the president's concluding monologue comes off a bit preachy.

I've heard some critics complain that this movie suffers because it was stripped of the gods that figure so heavily into Homer's Iliad, on which the film is based. I never missed'em. In fact, the characters are left to pick up the slack, and they do just fine. Brad Pitt's Achilles is a certified bad-ass, and his non-conformist, free-agent politics are appealing. His preoccupation with his own legacy is a bit overwrought, especially given his divine lineage (which is all but ignored in the film), and seems incongruent with his character's bloodthirstiness. This movie is an epic in every sense of word. The battle scenes are immense and the vistas are dramatic and sweeping, both complimented well by the CG special effects. An excellent film.

This is definitely a fun movie. The story relies heavily on gadgets -- which can often ruin a film (witness Wild Wild West) -- but it thankfully doesn't insult the audience's intelligence by trying to explain how it is possible that the the titular character carries a gas-powered automatic weapon in the 1880's. It is also fun to see just how many movies this one borrows from or pays homage to. Some scenes seem to be lifted directly out of the James Bond or Indiana Jones franchises, and the premise of the story itself is recycled from innumerable films like Men In Black or this year's Hellboy. This shouldn't stop you from seeing it, however. Check your brain at the door and enjoy the ride.

I appreciated the irony of the multiplex showing The Passion of the Christ and Hellboy in adjacent theaters. I'm not sure if it was the movie itself that was guilty of it, or if the original comic book was to blame, but the Hellboy concept is largely plagiarized from Men In Black. Replace 'J' and 'K' with 'Red' and 'Blue' and you have virtually the same story -- even the demons appear to come from outer space. Having said that, this *is* a fun movie. Ron Perlman was born to play this role (and I'm sure the sequel is already in the works), and turns in a memorable performance, borrowing his blue-collar shtick from the frazzled scientists in Ghostbusters. Go see this movie.

It's a cute movie. Sappy, even. If you're in the mood for that sort of thing. Perhaps if I were a bigger fan of Jennifer Garner, I might have liked it more, as she does an above average acting job in it. It does have a great 80s soundtrack, if nothing else, with one memorable scene recalling those halcyon days of yesteryear when Michael Jackson was still a black man and the choreography from Thriller was amazingly cool.

Excellent movie, although it seemed to drag in a few places. The content is somewhat controversial, with many critics accusing Disney of rewriting history. In particular, the capture and execution of Davy Crockett is somewhat dubious, being based on alleged eye-witness accounts that were subsequently proven to be forgeries. The story is compelling, but its pace does not fit the typical Hollywood formula, and the audience is left feeling somewhat dissatisfied by Houston's victory over Santa Anna, after witnessing the brutal defeat at the Alamo. It is a well-made movie and well-acted, if somewhat historically inaccurate.

Were it not for the eventual cameo by Jason Lee and Matt Damon, one could easily forget that one was watching a Kevin Smith movie. This is a warm and funny film about the relationship between a young girl and her widowed father. Has Smith gone Hollywood? Has he gone mainstream? I have to say I was more than a little disappointed that the obligatory cameo by "Jay and Silent Bob" was missing from this one (perhaps it's a deleted scene on the DVD?). Ben Affleck actually acts in this one, George Carlin is brilliant, and the supporting cast is excellent (especially Stephen Root -- fire your agent, Stephen, you're not working as often as you should be). So what if it's a chick flick? Go see this movie.

In the grand tradition of the Coen brothers, they have turned in another magnificently quirky comedy. Although they have yet to top their masterpiece, 1987's Raising Arizona, this one is certainly a jewel in the Coen brothers' crown. Tom Hanks's performance alone is worth the price of admission, with Marlon Wayans being notable as well.

Does every movie out of Hollywood these days have to have a "twist"? This movie is very suspenseful, if perhaps a bit predictable. Although I didn't see the surprise ending in this one coming, it was fairly obvious early on who was *not* the killer. Angelina Jolie does a good job in this one, reminding her fans that she can actually act when she wants to, instead of just phoning it in like she has done in past roles (Tomb Raider comes to mind). Ethan Hawke is good too.

What a fun movie! With comparable dancing, an equally kick-ass soundtrack, and all of the cheese of the original Dirty Dancing, this was a very entertaining movie. It had a similar vibe, but wasn't so identical as to feel formulaic. Patrick Swayze has a cameo in a couple of scenes, reprising his role as Johnny Castle, dance instructor to the rich and beautiful (although Swayze isn't as beautiful as he once was). And newcomers Romola Garai and Diego Luna do an amazing job of fooling the audience into thinking they were child dance prodigies (neither had danced before this movie). If you are feeling nostalgic for the first one, go see this movie and have the time of your life all over again.

It's not the fact that I got sick to my stomach halfway through this movie and had to leave that leads me to not recommend it to others (although that might be a good enough reason for many to avoid it!). Rather, it is Mel Gibson's artistic license that soured me. Perhaps it's not fair for me to judge, having only seen half of the movie. But there are some really screwy things in the first half that didn't make immediate sense to me, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have even if I had stuck around. From Jesus' bizarre encounter with a snake in the Garden of Gethsemane, to that weird baby-demon thing during the scourging scene -- I'm left wondering if Gibson had access to some lost Gospel unknown to the rest of us. I guess I just can't handle gory *and* weird. Pick one, Mel, but not both!

The only thing depressing about this movie is Kurt Russel's wardrobe. This is definitely a feel-good movie, and we are in desperate need of some of those after enduring a spate of depressing films in recent months. Despite knowing how the story ends before seeing the movie, it was no less entertaining (much like Titanic). Kurt Russell is fantastic in his role, and does a very good job with the Minnesoooo-ta accent. Even though the cast is comprised mostly of unknowns (selected primarily for their hockey-playing skills), they all do an excellent job.

Well, the trifecta of depressing movies is complete. Sean Penn and Tim Robbins both turn in excellent performances in their respective roles, but I'm beginning to wonder if Hollywood has forgotten how to make happy endings. The movie's setting, story, and its commentary on vigilantism all borrow heavily from 1996's Sleepers (right down to the ubiquitous presence of Kevin Bacon), which I think, in the end, is a much better movie. The Oscar buzz surrounding the acting in this one is understandable, but if you are looking for a even more powerful story, and more interesting characters, rent Sleepers.

If you enjoy feeling like you need therapy, by all means, go see this film. Cold Mountain was positively cheery by comparison. The story is compelling, however. It is essentially two overlapping Greek tragedies, with the protagonist in each serving as the other's antagonist. The result is that you find yourself rooting for both sides (here's a hint: neither side wins). But despite superb acting by two Academy Award winners, Jennifer Connelly and Ben Kingsley, I can't bring myself to recommend that anyone see this movie because it is just so incredibly sad.