Lady in the Water / *** (PG-13)

Cleveland Heep: Paul Giamatti
Story: Bryce Dallas Howard
Mr. Dury: Jeffrey Wright
Harry Farber: Bob Balaban
Anna Ran: Sarita Choudhury
Young-Soon Choi: Cindy Cheung
Vick Ran: M. Night Shyamalan
Reggie: Freddy Rodriguez
Mrs. Bell: Mary Beth Hurt

Warner Bros. Pictures presents a film written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Running time: 110 min. Rated PG-13 (for some frightening sequences).

Criticism is a delicate art that tends to be delivered in an indelicate manner. It is easy for the critic to feel he is in some way above the subject which he dissects. I am as guilty of this weakness as any. Sometimes it is hard to see the forest for the trees -- or the dogs for the grass, but we’ll get to that later. Critics are just as susceptible to spoiling a film experience with the expectations they bring to it as any other filmgoer.

There is a film critic in writer/director M. Night Shyamalan’s latest dark suspense rumination, “Lady in the Water”, that he deals with as indelicately as he may have felt himself handled at the release of his last film “The Village”. It is too bad the critics seem to be receiving “Lady in the Water” with the same resentment as its predecessor, because they are effectively brushing aside one of the greatest film imaginations to have ever graced the screen.

According to most media reports, the story goes that Shyamalan and Disney (who had a hand in distributing all of his previous films) had a falling out over “creative differences,” during production of “Lady in the Water”, which was based on a bedtime story that the filmmaker had concocted for his daughters. Warner Bros. snatched up the property for distribution and commenced an ad campaign that capitalized on the elements that have brought Shyamalan so much success: darkness, suspense, the monster in the pool and another in the woods. It was hard to see where the creative differences could lie since the trailers looked exactly as one would expect an M. Night Shyamalan film to look.

I figured Warner Bros. was trying to pull a fast one on the audience, making the picture look like a typical Shyamalan film when the director had actually turned in a product of an entirely different nature. I mean, this was supposed to be a story he told his children before they went to bed, so how much of a thriller could it be? Well, I don’t think anybody who sees this film will be going home to tell it to their children before turning out the light and assuring them there is no monster in the closet. The monster is just waiting in there. Shyamalan has convinced me of that.

The bedtime story in question involves a creature called a narf, a nymph-like water being that once shared the world with humans. But as humans developed a more advanced civilization, they forgot about the narfs’ water world. In forgetting the old ways, humans became more violent and turbulent, and the story says the narfs will one day try to reconnect with the humans in order to save them. The prophecy is not without strife, however, as there is a creature called a scrat that will try to prevent the reunion. This tale is laid out in the form of a stick figure animation during the opening credits.

The main action is a realization of the prophesized events in the bedtime story. Shyamalan provides a large cast of characters based around an apartment complex called The Cove. The leading players in this large ensemble are Bryce Dallas Howard (“The Village”) as the narf, who is suitably named Story, and Paul Giamatti (“Sideways”) as The Cove’s superintendent Cleveland Heep. Their story has moments of terror provided by the scrat, a dog beast with green bladed fur that allows it to disappear in a field of grass, but it is more of a fairy tale than a horror flick.

Along with the element of horror, a trademark of Shyamalan’s films that make them so popular is the puzzle element, which I feel is responsible for some of the negative views of his two most recent films. While the puzzle pieces in “The Sixth Sense”, “Unbreakable” and “Signs” were all pretty much presented in the same manner, as flashbacks to remind the audience of elements they might have overlooked that were presented as part of the developing story, in “The Village” the primary puzzle piece was a lie. This lie made the audience feel betrayed by the story. I forgave the lie because it put the audience in the same position as the lead characters.

In “Lady in the Water” the puzzle is of a simpler nature than the previous films. The prophecy mentions humans with special powers that will help the narf in her journey. The trick Story and Cleveland have to face is figuring out just which of the residents of The Cove have these powers. Shyamalan does a masterful job of giving the characters and the audience several different options for each of these special humans, and much of the joy of the film comes from trying to figure out who is who before the characters themselves do.

I’m almost ashamed not to spend more time discussing the wonderful performances that Shyamalan inspires here, especially by Giamatti, who has the difficult task of putting a stutter on his very intelligent character. But Shyamalan’s tarnished reputation as a brilliant filmmaker concerns me more. As with all his other films, it is the mystery of the story that is most important, but it seems audiences are insisting on more. I’ve heard several people make the comment about the film, “Is that it?”

Why is there a need for more? He presents the mystery of who fills which roles in the prophecy and engages the audience to figure it out. Once that is done, the story plays itself out without lingering. This is efficient and unforced. Plus the story he builds his mystery around is filled with so much imagination. What more do people want?

MTV jump cuts and some blood and gore. I suppose. I prefer Shyamalan’s method, except for his treatment of that poor film critic; even though Bob Balaban (“Best In Show”) does such a good job making him a pompous know it all.

“Lady in the Water” and “The Village” certainly are not Shyamalan’s best films. It will be hard for him to match the kid who sees dead people, but I think it is a step in the right direction for him to have abandoned the structure of those first few films. It allows him more freedom to explore his imagination. “Lady in the Water” is clear proof of that. Shyamalan has greater movies in him. I hope his audiences and critics can allow him the freedom to realize those stories as well.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest / *** (PG-13)

Jack Sparrow: Johnny Depp
Will Turner: Orlando Bloom
Elizabeth Swann: Keira Knightley
Davey Jones: Bill Nighy
Gov. Swann: Jonathan Price
Bootstrap Bill: Stellan Skarsgard

Walt Disney Pictures presents a film directed by Gore Verbinski. Written by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio. Running time: 150 min. Rated PG-13 (for intense sequences of adventure violence, including frightening images).

My parents took me to Disney World when I was a little boy and one of my favorite rides was Pirates of the Caribbean. It was one we rode for a second time on our final day there, our “highlights of the park” day.

I also enjoyed the film “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”, released in 2003 when I was no longer such a little boy. I admired it for simply supplying a fun time on a summer night. It had special effects and action sequences, but never seemed to push them ridiculously over the top like so many other summer blockbusters. Its success relied heavily on its interesting and original characters that nodded to the classic pirate lore of the past but breathed their own special air into the genre.

Now comes “Pirates of Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest”, an almost entirely different breed than the first film. “Dead Man’s Chest” is wall-to-wall action from beginning to end. There is hardly a shot in it that hasn’t been tampered with by computer or special effects of some sort. And yet somehow the filmmakers have retained the same spark of originality from the first film, and those wonderful characters make this adventure work, however many tentacles it my bear.

“Dead Man’s Chest” is a much darker film than the first, despite the fact that the original took place mostly at night and a good majority of this one takes the risk of exposing its CGI trickery by placing much of its action in the sunlight. It opens on a rainy scene, the wedding day of the former film’s romantic couple Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley, “Pride & Prejudice”) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom, “Kingdom of Heaven”). But East Indian Trading Company envoy Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander, “Pride & Prejudice”), crashes the wedding, holding death warrants for Will, Elizabeth, Commodore Norrington (Jack Davenport, BBC’s “Coupling”) and the outlandish Capt. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”).

Jack Sparrow is nowhere to be found. He is doing his best to hide himself and his ship, the Black Pearl, from Davey Jones (Bill Nighy, “Underworld: Evolution”). Jack owes a debt to Jones for granting him the Black Pearl for 12 years in exchange for his eternal soul and servitude on Jones’ ship the Flying Dutchman. Of course, once Jones does get a hold of him, Sparrow is quick to point out that because of a mutiny by his first mate Barbossa; he was only Captain of the Black Pearl for two years.

Jones and his crew are one of the more impressive aspects of the picture. It’s obvious the character design team had a good time developing these beings who’ve paid for their immortality by mutating into humanoid forms of various sea creatures. One resembles a hammerhead shark; another has a giant hermit crab for a head. One punished soul has even begun to attach to the hull of the Flying Dutchman like a barnacle. Jones himself has developed the head of a squid with his tentacled beard making up for the lack of fingers on his lobster claw hands.

Of course, the crew of the Flying Dutchman is hardly the only spectacle in this summer sequel.
The film is laced with action sequences from beginning to end. There are sea chases and foot chases. Jack at one point finds himself hailed by island natives as a god that must be eaten to release him from his tormented human form. And there is an extravagant chase and fight sequence involving all four main characters, the crew of the Flying Dutchman, and a giant wheel that qualifies as the most unique obstacle in an action sequence in quite some time. And did I mention the giant sea beast known as the Kraken?

I have neglected delving into the plot because there are some rather surprising developments, especially considering this is fairly mindless adventure fare, but most are best left for the viewer to discover. The surprises do push what should be the lighthearted nature of the film in a grimmer direction, but Depp’s eccentric Jack Sparrow and two holdovers from the mutinous Black Pearl crew keep the darkness from overshadowing the picture with their quirky humor.

I will say the story begun in this film won’t be finished until next summer when “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” hits theaters Memorial Day weekend. This means “Dead Man’s Chest” really requires a bigger commitment from its audience than the first movie did. I am reminded of the second and third installments of “The Matrix” trilogy which requested a commitment level its audience was not willing to make through both films.

Reviewing the first film I wrote: “In a summer of sequels, ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ harkens back to days when movies didn’t have to top each other or themselves. They just had to be fun and allow you to leave the theater with a smile one your face.” “Dead Man’s Chest” not only is an over the top sequel, but is more likely to leave you with a ponderous look than a smile.

The Devil Wears Prada / *** (PG-13)

Andy Sachs: Anne HathawayMiranda Priestly: Meryl StreepEmily: Emily Blunt
Nigel: Stanley TucciNate: Adrian GrenierChristian: Simon Baker
Twentieth Century Fox presents a film directed by David Frankel. Written by Aline Brosch McKenna, based on the novel by Lauren Weisberger. Running time: 106 min. Rated PG-13 (for some sensuality).

It was my wife’s birthday, and she had the pick of the movie. I wasn’t completely averse to seeing “The Devil Wears Prada” — it’s been treated fairly well by most critics. However, I was the third and final man to enter the theater. The rest of the audience was women.

As the opening credits rolled, I realized what an ironic treat this would be for the few heterosexual men who would deign to see it. I was as overjoyed to watch four women in their underwear trying to figure out the best outfit to wear for those credits as Angie was that we were seeing this fashion industry comedy about a lowly secretary whose boss is the queen of mean. The other gift us three men were treated to that evening was a fairly good movie made with wit and intelligence.

Anne Hathaway stars as Andy Sachs, an idealistic journalist who wants to make her mark upon entering “the real world.” With nothing but college credits on her resume, Andy takes a job as an assistant to Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep, “Music of the Heart”), editor-in-chief of Runway, the fashion world’s most influential magazine. Although Andy has little interest in fashion, she sees the job as a doorway to other opportunities.

Andy has no clue what she is getting herself into, as Miranda may be the most demanding and unsympathetic boss that ever breathed. There’s a wonderful montage sequence where Miranda, while slamming her coat and purse on Andy’s desk, barks off a daily list of impossible orders for the frightened assistant. “Get me reservations at that restaurant that got that good review.” “I need tickets to that show I thought I’d like.” Etc. Andy looks on in wild wonder as this demon takes over her life without a care for how difficult she makes it.

Miranda is not the only obstacle Andy must face, however. There is also the first assistant, Emily (Emily Blunt, “Empire” TV mini-series), who previously held Andy’s position. Emily sees her role as sort of a Mini Me version of Miranda and breathes the very air Andy walks in with disgust. Emily never viciously sets Andy up for a fall, however, suggesting that beneath the artificial nature of the world they inhabit, these characters are all feeling individuals just trying to survive.

Andy’s salvation comes in the form of Nigel (Stanley Tucci, “Lucky Number Slevin”), the magazine’s fashion director. Nigel still regards Andy with distain, but is at least willing to see her potential and helps her in her inevitable transformation into a fashion maven.

The biggest problem with the film lies with Andy’s friends, most notably her boyfriend, Nate (Adrian Grenier, HBO’s “Entourage”). Nate and Andy’s other friends accuse her of changing and losing her integrity to this job that she supposedly shouldn’t actually care about. Even though screenwriter Aline Brosch McKenna (“Laws of Attraction”) throws in a possible question of fidelity with a romantic connection between Andy and a famous writer, Christian (Simon Baker, “The Ring Two”), all of these accusations of betrayal never ring true since Andy never really changes from the nice person she started out as. They only feel betrayed by her because the script requires it of them.

But the film overcomes this weakness by not spending much time on it. Wisely, the movie narrows its focus squarely on the two leading performances. Streep and Hathaway carry this material effortlessly. Streep turns in yet another killer performance as this realistic Cruella De Vil. Instead of making Miriam into a caricature of an ice queen, Streep imbues her with thought, and with some help from screenwriter McKenna even gets a few moments with her that allow the audience to glimpse just a flash of humanity.

Hathaway, in direct opposition, is a ray of sunlight from open to close. She’s as loveable as Audrey Hepburn in her most memorable roles. When Hathaway first appeared with her breakout role in “The Princess Diaries” — not a far cry from her role here — I’ll admit I didn’t see anything extraordinary in her. But since her serious turn last year in “Brokeback Mountain”, and now with this delightful performance, I can see her star shining bright for quite a while.

While “The Devil Wears Prada” certainly treads on familiar territory, it has a charm and spunk all its own. It has a lot of pep to it, thanks to the refreshing presence of Anne Hathaway, and avoids succumbing entirely to its story’s clichés. Meryl Streep, as always, lends legitimacy to a character that in lesser hands could easily become a cartoon clown. Director David Frankle (HBO’s “Sex in the City”) never compromises his characters for the sake of laughs, and the result is a surprisingly effective comedy that skewers the fashion industry without ever betraying it.

Superman Returns / **** (PG-13)

Clark Kent/Superman: Brandon Routh
Lex Luthor: Kevin Spacey
Lois Lane: Kate Bosworth
Richard White: James Marsden
Perry White: Frank Langella
Jimmy Olsen: Sam Huntington
Martha Kent: Eva Marie Saint
Kitty Kowalski: Parker Posey

Warner Bros. presents a film directed by Bryan Singer. Written by Michael Dougherty, Dan Harris, and Singer. Based on characters created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Running time: 154 min. Rated PG-13 (for some intense action violence).

Maybe comic books will save Hollywood. Films like “Elektra” or “The Punisher” may not offer much evidence of this, but over the past few years, some of the most popular comic book characters— Spider-Man, Batman, and now Superman— haven proven the superhero genre to be both highly entertaining and capable of great character depth. “Superman Returns” shows us a contemplative Superman, not sure of his place on Earth or in the universe, no mater how much the public accepts him as its hero.

In this sequel, director Bryan Singer (the first two “X-Men” films) pays tribute to 1978’s “Superman”, starring Christopher Reeve. As the film opens, Superman has left Earth to revisit the ruins of his home planet of Krypton. Five years have passed, and the world has moved on. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth, “Beyond the Sea”) is engaged to Richard White (James Marsden, “X-Men”), son of The Daily Planet editor Perry White (Frank Langella, “Good Night, and Good Luck”). The two have a young son.

Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey, “The Usual Suspects”) has managed to weasel his way out of a double life prison sentence thanks to due process and is amassing a huge bankroll swindling old widows out of their family fortunes. Luther, still obsessed with Superman, searches out his Fortress of Solitude to learn the secrets of his nemesis’s home planet.

Spacey obviously relishes his role as the villain. His performance is a little more subtle than Gene Hackman’s blustering in the 1978 film. The character isn’t as rich, but he makes up for it in down right devilishness. He is joined in his evil schemes by Parker Posey (“Blade: Trinity”) as Kitty Kowalski, the not-so-bright assistant. Posey plays well off Spacey, adding a comedic counterbalance to his cool menace.

Newcomer Brandon Routh makes for a fine Superman. He’s not as over the top nerdy as Reeve when playing Clark Kent. Routh’s Superman is more meditative upon his return to Earth than the hero has been in past incarnations. The problems he returns to are more complex than in the past. His girlfriend has moved on to other, less adolescent pursuits, and as a renowned reporter has taken it upon herself to write Superman off for the rest of the world as well.

Superman’s actual return to the public limelight takes place during a spectacular action sequence involving a piggy-backed space shuttle launch. While the action never becomes the point of the picture, there are some wonderful special effects at work here. The flying sequences alone have evolved light years since 1978. Superman truly seems to defy gravity as he flies without breaking the rules of weight and movement.

In many ways, “Superman Returns” is like a remake of that original film. Lex Luther’s plot to destroy a large part of the United States, thus providing himself land ownership riches, remains in tact. Superman’s introductory action sequence again involves an aircraft carrying a helpless Lois Lane. Perry White is still determined that Superman is the only story worth pursuing. Superman and Lois even share another moonlight flight together, although this time it’s not as much about romance as it is about character motivations. Like last year’s “King Kong”, the advances in technology have let the filmmakers broaden their pallet of the action and locations, allowing the film to take on a more epic feel.

Singer obviously loves the 1978 film, and he takes the opportunity to pay tribute to it and other cinematic standards of Superman. Wisely, he and composer John Ottman keep much of John Williams’ ’78 musical themes in tact. One of the few problems with “Batman Begins” was that Batman had no theme music, but John Williams’ Superman score has become almost as well associated with the character as his blue tights and red cape. Singer even presents the opening credits in the same style as the ’78 movie.

Singer also references several iconic Superman images, such as a shot recreating the original “Action Comics” cover art from Superman’s first appearance, and another of Superman catching the Daily Planet globe as it plummets to the street below, invoking the imagery of Atlas carrying the Earth on his shoulders.

Remake or tribute, “Superman Returns” is a film made with sincerity and love. Film critic Robert W. Butler of the Kansas City Star disparages the film as “terribly sincere” in his review of it. I’m not sure when sincerity became terrible. Perhaps it’s a reflection of the changed world in which Superman now finds himself, but Superman has always been a symbol of sincerity. Perhaps the dark times since 9/11 call for a sincere hero. These filmmakers understand what made Superman work almost thirty years ago and couldn’t have done a better job delivering the hero we need today.

Nacho Libre / *** (PG)

Ignacio/Nacho: Jack Black
Esqueleto: Hector Jimenez
Sister Encarnacion: Ana de la Reguera
Chancho: Darius Rose
Ramses: Cesar Gonzales
Emporer: Peter Stromare

Paramount Pictures presents a film directed by Jared Hess. Written by Jared Hess, Jerusha Hess, and Mike White. Running time: 91 min. Rated PG (for some rough action and crude humor including dialogue).

After screening “Nacho Libre” with my wife Angie, she had the impression I was disappointed with the film. I wasn’t, but throughout the entire film I was embarrassed for Ang. I felt bad for her that I had won the evening’s viewing choice because her pick, “The Break Up”, started a half hour later. I couldn’t imagine she was enjoying the march of oddities acting oddly that was “Nacho Libre”, but she surprised me by saying she actually liked it. “It was kind of sweet,” she said. (Of course, she may have been covering to avoid telling me how she really felt.)

“Nacho Libre” is the result of the combined talents of two of the stranger forces and more unlikely successful partnerships in film comedy today — the actor/writer team of Jack Black and Mike White and the director/co-writing team of Jared and Jerusha Hess. Black and White have previously collaborated on two other films, “Orange County” and “School of Rock”, but “Nacho” marks their first joint effort under their Black and White production company. White, as a writer, seems to have an intrinsic understanding of Black as a performer, and writes characters which embrace Black’s unique penchant for the totally bizarre sentimentalist. “Nacho” is the sophomore film of the Hesses, a husband and wife team who found sleeper success with their 2004 cult hit “Napoleon Dynamite”. Both films prove their obsession with loser characters whose sad aspirations reflect the limited worlds they inhabit.

“Nacho Libre” has it own unique charm, but it takes some time for it to reveal itself. Black plays Ignacio, a friar cook in a small Mexican orphanage whose meals leave much to be desired. He tries to add flair to his dishes, which otherwise resemble vomit. Ignacio complains to the monks that he needs money for better food, and indeed, the day old chips he receives from a local restaurant are stolen by the nimble Esqueleto (Hector Jimenez).

There is little in Ignacio’s life to give him pleasure. As a child, he obsessed over the Mexican wrestling stars known as Lucha Libre, or luchador. His passion was squelched by the monks who took him in and still show him little respect. When the beautiful nun Sister Encarnacion (Mexican TV favorite Ana de la Reguera) comes to the orphanage, Ignacio is finally stirred into action and decides to become a luchador under the name Nacho to obtain the funds for worthwhile food.

These opening passages are oddly paced and only slightly peppered with the Hesses’ strange humor. It isn’t until Ignacio enlists the help of Esqueleto as his luchador partner that the film begins to discover its footing. The two find that even losing in the ring can make a luchador popular and well paid.

It’s with their second match that it becomes clear at just what level of absurdity we’re supposed to be taking all this. When Nacho and Esqueleto are assaulted in the ring by two flying little trolls, the movie jumps to a new level of comedy, both encompassing the oddity of the “Napoleon Dynamite” set and embracing Black’s over-the-top ideals.

Black presents his usual brand of insanity, although Ignacio’s ineptitude makes it hard to like him at first. The filmmakers may have abused the stereotypical “Jack Black” persona to a degree; they’ve thrown in a few excuses to have him sing that play like non-sequiturs and telegraph the laughs to the audience.

It’s the character of Esqueleto that truly steals the show, however, with his affable smile and love for a strange corn cob on a stick delicacy. Hector Jimenez has the same unforced appeal as Efren Ramirez, who played Pedro in “Dynamite”. Of course, Ignacio never appreciates Esqueleto as he should.

Just as Angie said, “Nacho Libre” is sweet, and it becomes sweeter as it nears the end, when Ignacio’s reasons for remaining a luchador become less selfish. But there’s no denying that it’s an acquired taste. If one is not a fan of either Jack Black or “Napoleon Dynamite”, it could be unbearable. Even a fan of one but not the other might have trouble with it. I wasn’t caught up in the cult hype of “Dynamite”, but did see its strange appeal. “Nacho Libre” is in some ways bolder and in some ways sillier, but that strange appeal of something different than your average comedy is still there. With a little patience, you might be able to see it.

Cars / ***½ (G)

Featuring the voices of:
Lightning McQueen: Owen Wilson
Doc Hudson: Paul Newman
Sally Carrera: Bonnie Hunt
Mater: Larry the Cable Guy
Ramone: Cheech Marin
Luigi: Tony Shalhoub
The King: Richard Petty
Sarge: Paul Dooley
Filmore: George Carlin
Chick Hicks: Michael Keaton
Mack: John Ratzenberger

Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation present a film directed by John Lasseter. Written by Dan Fogelman, Lasseter, Joe Ranft, Kiel Murray, Phil Lorin, and Jurgen Klubien. Based on a story by Lasseter, Ranft, and Klubien. Running time: 118 min. Rated G.

“Cars” is Pixar Animation Studio’s worst reviewed movie to date, according to Rotten Tomatoes, a national critics’ poll website. This seems like an unfair assessment of the film though, since, at 77% on their “tomatometer”, it’s still been better received than most films in current release. After Pixar’s endless stream of successes starting with 1995’s “Toy Story”, the critics may be wishing for a failure. Saying the movie is “good” seems to be the worst anyone can do.

But “Cars” is better than good. Like all of Pixar’s past efforts, it contains such strict attention to detail, commands such an intelligent delivery of its story, and reveals such universal insight into the imagination of the child in each and every one of us that “Cars” operates on its own stage altogether.

“Cars” takes place in a world populated entirely by cars. Well, there are jet planes and helicopters and vehicles of various types, but the car seems to be the dominant species. Little VW Beetle flies drive around on dusty windows and leave sets of tiny tire tracks. Tractors are this world’s cows, sitting in fields chewing cud until some juvenile truck comes and “tips” them. A harvester combine is the equivalent of a raging bull. And race cars are treated as royalty.

Lightning McQueen (voiced by Owen Wilson, “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou”) is the up and comer on the Piston Cup circuit. As the story opens, Lightning winds up in a spectacular three way tie for the cup, alongside the reigning champion, The King (voiced by NASCAR legend Richard Petty), and long-time runner up Chick Hicks (Michael Keaton, “White Noise”). A tie breaker race is set to be run in a week in California, and it’s believed that the first car to arrive will be The King’s successor for the sponsorship of the circuit’s biggest contributor, Dinoco.

After demeaning his pit crew into quitting, Lightning forces his big rig hauler, Mack (John Ratzenberger, TV’s “Cheers”), to drive through the night. During a particularly clever sequence in a film lined with them, some “Fast and the Furious” style street racers terrorize the drowsy Mack until he inadvertently dumps Lightning in the middle of the desert. Unaware of his cargo’s fate, Mack drives off, leaving Lightning stranded.

Lightning finds his way to Route 66 – the one-time heartline of the country – and the now nearly deserted town of Radiator Springs. Having never been coached in the etiquette of life outside the racing sect, Lightning causes some reckless destruction to this town upon his introduction to it, placing him under the scrutinous eye of the town patriarch Doc Hudson (voiced by Hollywood legend and auto racing enthusiast Paul Newman).

Doc sentences Lightning to repair the damages he caused. The town is populated by a collection of characters from all forms of auto life. There’s the VW hippie bus, Filmore (George Carlin, “Jersey Girl”), the Army Jeep surplus supplier, Sarge (Paul Dooley, “Sixteen Candles”), the hydraulics and paint specialist, Ramone (Cheech Marin, “Spy Kids”), the drive-in gas diner owner, Flo (Jenifer Lewis, Lifetime’s “Strong Medicine”), the Italian tire expert, Luigi (Tony Shalhoub, TV’s “Monk”), the grease monkey tow truck, Tow Mater (Larry the Cable Guy, “The Blue Collar Comedy Tour”), and, of course, as a potential love interest, the attractive Porsche, Sally Carrera (Bonnie Hunt, TV’s “Life with Bonnie”). As is expected, this rogue’s gallery of characters teaches Lightning the importance of friendship and nostalgia.

Despite the rather formulaic nature of the story, director and Pixar guru John Lasseter proves Gene Siskel’s rule that a movie’s success is not measured by what it’s about, but how it is about it. Lasseter is so dedicated to his setting and his characters that never does any of this seem hokey or contrived. He’s created such a complete universe, in such vivid detail, that just to behold the film is to find enjoyment in it.

When I first saw the teaser for this film, I was afraid that Pixar had finally picked a lemon with its talking cars, but the characters are all so solid and the dialogue so clever that you don’t have to be a child to buy this convention. And once again, Pixar provides a film appealing to all ages; we really all love cars, no matter what age we are.

Also be sure to stick around for the credit cookies. The cars reopen the Radiator Springs drive-in movie theater and watch a hilarious retrospective of parallel car universe Pixar classics and Mack presents a humorous observation about one of the voice-over artists. Plus, there’s a tribute to the late Joe Ranft, Pixar's head of story for over a decade.

Tristan + Isolde / **½ (PG-13)

Tristan: James Franco
Isolde: Sophia Myles
Lord Marke: Rufus Sewell
King Donnchadh: David Patrick O’Hara
Melot: Henry Cavill
Wictred: Mark Strong
Bragnae: Bronagh Gallagher

Twentieth Century Fox presents a film by Kevin Reynolds. Written by Dean Georgaris. Running time: 125 min. Rated PG-13 (for intense battle sequences and some sexuality).

In his most recent collection of film reviews, film critic Roger Ebert cites playwright George Bernard Shaw as stating that description itself could be criticism. Ebert then writes, “Sometimes to simply see what is in the movie, through your own eyes, is to comment on it.” I would add that to read the plot of a film can be an even better experience than actually seeing the film itself.

“Tristan + Isolde” seems to be a film from another time in Hollywood. Indeed, the film was originally conceived by Ridley Scott to be the follow-up to his feature debut, “The Duelists”, almost thirty years ago. It comes from a time when films were more romantic, more willing to explore older settings. It comes in the form of a sword and kingdom historical epic, but tells of a romance that could not be. Like the recent films “King Arthur” and Scott’s undervalued “Kingdom of Heaven”, it reinvents early European history to tell a more universal tale. And what a deliciously juicy tale it is.

During the years following Roman occupation of England, the strong forces that were able to drive the Romans out have crumbled and divided the land into separate districts. Meanwhile, Ireland has become a unified tyrannical force that persistently pillages the English provinces in an effort to break any chance of unification. When Lord Aragon (Richard Dillane, TV’s “Hustle”) gathers the lords of the English provinces to sign a treaty uniting them under one king, Lord Marke (Rufus Sewell, “The Legend of Zorro”), they are attacked by the Irish, and Aragon is killed in the presence of his son, Tristan.

Tristan is saved by Lord Marke, who loses his hand in the melee. Marke’s province of Cornwall is attacked at the same time and he loses his wife and son as well. Taking Tristan as a surrogate son, the boy eventually grows to become Marke’s best fighter and military strategist, leaving his nephew Melot (Henry Cavill, “The Count of Monte Cristo”) as second fiddle despite the blood relation.

During a rescue of slaves taken by Irish soldiers, Tristan is wounded by the poisoned sword of Morholt (Graham Mullins). His men take him for dead and give him a royal burial, setting him to sea. He washes up on the Irish coast, where Isolde resuscitates him.

Not knowing that Tristan murdered the man to whom she was unwillingly betrothed by her father, Isolde and Tristan begin to fall in love. She keeps from him the fact that she is the daughter of King Donnchadh (David Patrick O’Hara, “Hotel Rwanda”). When Tristan is well again, she forces him to leave Ireland so her father will not find and kill him. “I want to know that there's more to this life and I can't know that if they kill you. Please! Go.”

Upon Tristan’s return to Cornwall, King Donnchadh offers a truce and, as a calculated move to keep the English provinces divided, a tournament is devised. The winner will be awarded his daughter as a queen to an English throne. The tournament is in favor of Lord Wictred (Mark Strong, “Syriana”), a willing servant to Donnchadh and therefore a man the other lords of England would refuse to unite behind.

Tristan competes in Lord Marke’s stead and wins Isolde. At first, Isolde thinks Tristan has won her for himself, while Tristan is unaware that the prize is his Irish love. Both are pained that she must now marry the man to whom Tristan is bound by duty and love. Marke is a good man to both, making their feelings for each other that must more painful. There is no way this can have a happy ending.

The film’s trailer claims that, “Before Romeo & Juliet, there was Tristan & Isolde”, but the trail of deception and betrayal found here makes Shakespeare’s musings seem like nursery rhymes. This story has so much potential for pain, it’s surprising that the film, although handsomely produced and firmly executed, is not as moving as it should be.
Perhaps the performances by the lead actors are to blame. But I’m not inclined to think so, since

James Franco (“Spider-Man”) and Sophia Myles (“Underworld”), as the titular lovers, each have the zeal and presence to carry off a passionate romance. Perhaps then the fault lies in the direction by Kevin Reynolds, whose lively period pieces in the past have included “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” and “The Count of Monte Cristo”. It’s as if he’s tried to keep this story down to earth, going for a realistic portrayal of the period and choosing politics over melodrama.

There is further depth to the drama that I have not revealed here and it gains steam as it goes along, but the full potential of these characters’ painful circumstance is never completely tapped. Despite its glorious setting and well-drawn production values, “Tristan + Isolde” seems muted. The film is an honorable effort, but the filmmakers’ passion for the material doesn’t seem to match the passion required by the wonderful plot.

X-Men: The Last Stand / *** (PG-13)

Logan/Wolverine: Hugh Jackman
Prof. Charles Xavier: Patrick Stewart
Magneto: Ian McKellen
Ororo Munroe/Storm: Halle Berry
Dr. Jean Grey/Phoenix: Famke Janssen
Dr. Hank McCoy/Beast: Kelsey Grammer
Marie/Rouge: Anna Paquin
Mystique: Rebecca Romijn
Scott Summers/Cyclops: James Marsden
Bobby Drake/Iceman: Shawn Ashmore
Pyro: Aaron Stanford
Juggernaut: Vinnie Jones
Warren Worthington III: Ben Foster
Callisto: Diana Ramirez
Kitty Pride/Shadowcat: Ellen Page

Twentieth Century Fox presents a film directed by Brett Ratner. Written by Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg. Running time: 104 min. Rated PG-13 (for intense sequences of action violence, some sexual content and language).

When I went to see the third installment of the “X-Men” franchise, I fully expected to be writing about its allegorical parallels to our current political hot button issue of illegal immigrants and the necessity for societal tolerance of others. The first two “X-Men” films, like the comic book they’re based on, have delved heavily into the topics of civil rights and tolerance (or lack there of) in this “land of the free.” “X-Men: The Last Stand” is no more shy about wearing its political banner on its sleeve than its predecessors, but it’s much more concerned with just getting down to the nitty gritty of an all out brawl between mutants and man (and other mutants).

In the X-Men universe, there are some people who have “taken the next leap on the evolutionary ladder.” These “mutants” developed super-powers that as unique as personalities, ranging from the ability to heal almost instantly to the ability to control and manipulate metal. Since only a select few have developed these powers, naturally the rest of the human race fears them. The first two films explored the socio-political ramifications presented by this development. Some mutants were shown working for the good of humanity by trying to promote tolerance and harmony between the humans and mutants, while other mutants, bitter from the humans’ fear of them, were shown trying to assert their dominance over the human race.

In “The Last Stand” a medical research facility has developed a “cure” for the mutant gene. Some mutants whose mutations are a little more obvious, such as Beast (Kelsey Grammar, TV’s “Frasier”) and Angel (Ben Foster, “Hostage”), or those who might find life easier to live, like Rogue (Anna Paquin, “The Squid and the Whale”), are not sure where their feelings lie about this cure. Meanwhile, the Brotherhood of Mutants, lead by Magneto (Ian McKellen, “The DaVinci Code”), sees this so-called cure as a call to arms for their kind to take their rightful place as the masters of the human race. The group of mutant heroes known as the X-Men are all that stand between Magneto’s Brotherhood and the fall of mankind.

The X-Men find themselves at a crossroads as the story opens. With mutantism having worked its way into society’s mainstream, their school for gifted young children, founded by their leader Prof. Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart, “Star Trek: The Next Generation”) as a safe haven and mentoring school for unwanted mutants, has become somewhat obsolete – especially if this cure becomes widely accepted. Some of their members are considering the normal life they’ve never been able to have before.

The group is also recovering from the loss of one of their own. In the previous film, Dr. Jean Grey (Famke Janssen, “Hide and Seek”) sacrificed herself for the rest of the team. When the two love interests of the deceased psychic, Cyclops (James Marsden, “The Notebook”) and Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, “Van Helsing”), begin to receive messages from her, things start heating up in some not so good ways.

“The Last Stand” is quite a prophetic title considering some of the surprises the movie has in store for fans of the series. There are some deaths of major characters. (Yes, there’s an ‘s’ at the end of that word.) 20th Century Fox has also promised it would be the final installment, but the box office receipts may rescind that order. And if you stick around for the credit cookies (I did not and had to be informed of what I had missed) it becomes apparent that nothing is final in the X-Men universe.

It is good to see some characters that have stood in the periphery of past installments take larger roles this time around. Storm (Halle Berry, “Catwoman”) takes a more prominent leadership role in Jean’s absence, which is natural considering the character’s formidable ability to control the weather. Pyro (Aaron Stanford, “The Hills Have Eyes”), who started out as a good guy in “X2”, is promoted to Magneto’s number one stooge, inviting a climatic face off with former friend Iceman (Shawn Ashmore, “Terry”). Colossus (Daniel Cudmore, “Alone in the Dark”) and Kitty Pride (Ellen Page, “Hard Candy”) have gone from cameo appearances to frontline X-Men.

As always, the casting for this series is perfect. Grammar is an inspired choice for the highly intellectual mutant Beast. It seems nobody but the former professional footballer Vinnie Jones (“Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels”) could have personified Juggernaut. And Ben Foster makes for a good looking Angel even though his role is so condensed he never even gets a chance to take his mutant name and is only ever known in the film as Warren Worthington III.

I’ve always loved the “X-Men” for its blatant socio-political allegory, but probably what most people find fascinating are the mutant powers and abundance of different characters. Both of these elements are featured prominently in this “last stand.” Director Brett Ratner (“Red Dragon”) does a good job retaining the mood of the previous films and an even better job of pumping the action up to a state of near anarchy by the final battle. This installment has so much action it makes the first seem like an episode of “Masterpiece Theater”. It is very much a success in those terms but seems to lack some of the intensity of meaning of the previous films. Regardless, it remains true to the comic book and should satisfy fans and summer movie goers, as well as leaving a high bar to live up to for the makers of “Wolverine”.

Over the Hedge / *** (PG)

Featuring the voices of:
RJ the raccoon: Bruce Willis
Verne the turtle: Gary Shandling
Hammy the squirrel: Steve Carell
Stella the skunk: Wanda Sykes
Ozzie the possum: William Shatner
Lou the porcupine: Eugene Levy
Penny the porcupine: Catherine O’Hara
Heather the possum: Avril Lavigne
Vincent the bear: Nick Nolte
Tiger the cat: Omid Djalili
Dwayne the Verminator: Thomas Hayden Church
Gladys: Allison Janney

DreamWorks Animation presents a film directed by Tim Johnson and Karey Kirkpatrick. Written by Len Blum, Lorne Cameron, Davey Hoselton and Kirkpatrick. Based upon characters created by Michael Fry and T. Lewis. Running time: 87 min. Rated PG (for some rude humor and mild comic action).

Most movie experiences are enhanced by seeing the film with the large audience for which the film is targeted. Even seeing a schlock horror film can be a good time if the theater’s filled with shrieking teenagers. Such is not always the case, however, as I found out watching DreamWorks Animation’s newest CGI entry “Over the Hedge”. The theater was filled with young kids screaming and crying, hanging off the back of my seat; and, yes, two of them were mine.

This is not to say the children (or I) did not enjoy the film. It was a good comedy with some nice cracks at life in suburbia and how wildlife might interpret some of our more odd human rituals. But it is a shame the cast wasn’t there in the movie theater to poke fun at parents torturing themselves in the darkened room by gathering with their children, stuffing them full of sugar and watching them spin their little heads off.

...But back to the movie. “Over the Hedge”, based on the comic strip by Michael Fry and T. Lewis, tells the story of a rascally raccoon, RJ (voiced by Bruce Willis, “Lucky Number Slevin”), who gets into a bit of trouble when he’s caught stealing the motherload of junk food from a hibernating bear named Vincent (Nick Nolte, “Hotel Rwanda”). Woken a week early from his winter nap in a bad temperament, Vincent gives RJ the week to replace all of the loot or RJ will become his next junk food snack.

Luckily RJ stumbles across a group of woodland animals who have awoken from their winter slumbers to discover a giant hedge in their forest; on the other side of which suburbia has moved in. It’s up to RJ to teach these forest dwellers how to survive in the concrete jungle. Soon, he is showing them the delectable wonders of trash cans, the paranoid highs of energy drinks, the euphoric lows of MSG, along with the gullibility involved in the human fear of nature.

Now, this is the most eclectic assortment of animals I’ve ever seen. Their leader is an innocuous turtle named Verne (Gary Shandling, “What Planet Are You From?”). Hammy is a tightly wound Squirrel (Steve Carell, “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”). There are a father and daughter, Ozzie and Heather (voiced respectively by William Shatner of “Star Trek” fame and pop music star Avril Lavigne), take great pride in their ability to literally “play possum.” Stella (Wanda Sykes, “Monster-in-Law”) the skunk is just dying to perform her own special species power and eventually gets her chance to drop her bomb. A family of porcupine, headed by Lou and Penny (Eugene Levy and Catherine O’Hara respectively, “Best in Show”), provide the group’s familial foundation.

RJ is merely using his new found friends as a resource to dig himself out of the trouble he landed himself in with Vincent. But when the animals eventually anger the head of the neighborhood’s home owners association (Allison Janney, TV’s “The West Wing”) and she hires a pest control expert who refers to himself as The Verminator (Thomas Hayden Church, “Sideways”), RJ finds himself regretting his actions and longing to be a part of their odd family.

While there is little to jump up and down about in this unimposing film, there is also very little with which to find fault. Perhaps some of the voice-over artists are a little out of place in such an innocent environment; overall, however, they seem well cast. Thomas Hayden Church as The Verminator may have been a second choice, as the part seems as if it were written for perennial voice-over actor Patrick Warburton (see New Animation Rule from my “Hoodwinked!” review). The actors’ similar vocal intonation and delivery make Church a worthy fallback. Oh, and as with “The Wild”, William Shatner’s outstanding delivery is vastly under utilized here.

“Over the Hedge” certainly breaks no new ground in the arena of family oriented animation, but it does provide a few good laughs. It makes some pointed jabs at the consumerist culture so prevalent in America. The animals staring in wonder at the size of an SUV as RJ points out that they usually are only able to transport one human, is a particularly sharp barb. The film is good enough to overcome the maddening experience of a Cineplex family matinee screening, and that has to say something about its level of success.

The DaVinci Code / **½ (PG-13)

Robert Langdon: Tom Hanks
Sophie Neveu: Audrey Tautou
Sir Leigh Teabing: Ian McKellen
Bishop Aringarosa: Alfred Molina
Silas: Paul Bettany
Bezu Fache: Jean Reno

Columbia Pictures presents a film directed by Ron Howard. Written by Akiva Goldsman. Based on the novel by Dan Brown. Running time: 148 min. Rated PG-13 (for disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content).

Has Hollywood forgotten how to fashion a good mystery? It seems they – you know those guys who run Hollywood – still know what one looks like, but the art of throwing a true surprise at an audience has gone the way of the dodo. Last week I complained that Ethan Hunt couldn’t figure out who all the bad guys were when it was obvious who had set him up in “Mission: Impossible III”, this week I lost track of all the mysteries I was able to figure out before the main characters in “The DaVinci Code” divined them.

Ron Howard’s new film, based on the best selling book by Dan Brown, has sparked a great deal of controversy over what is really just a fun entertainment. There are a lot of people in it acting badly about a plot that involves the church and secrets kept about Christ, but it is essentially just an Indiana Jones movie in the guise of an adult thinking man’s movie. Don’t think too much though, or you will get ahead of it all.

Tom Hanks (“The Terminal”) portrays Dr. Robert Langdon, an expert in historical symbols, who is implicated in the murder of the curator of the Louvre Museum in Paris, Jacques Sauniere. French actress Audrey Tautou (“Amelie”) is a police codes expert Sophie Neveu, who is more deeply connected to the case than she seems at first. She helps Langdon to escape from the French federal officer Captain Fache (Jean Reno, “The Pink Panther”) so he can help her decipher the messages left behind by Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle, “A Summer Affair”) leading to his real murderers and the conspiracy they are trying keep covered up.

The way Langdon and Neveu are fairly freely able to investigate a series of clues left behind by Sauniere throughout the museum in his own blood before he died, while the police try to find them after their apparent escape is a good example of the improbability factor utilized for the convenience of the heroes for the plot of the story. I’ve been to the Louvre recently and if the curator was able to move around that gigantic museum the way he did in order to place his clues, he could have gotten himself some care before his death and possibly lived. Also Langdon and Neveu’s escape, both the false one they use to through the police off and their eventual escape, are highly dependent on the fact that a great deal of officers are going to leave their posts long enough for the two heroes to do their work and conveniently drive away.

Langdon and Neveu are certainly not like Indiana Jones in any way shape or form. This is not a movie driven my stunts and explosion and special effects, but they do end up becoming treasure hunters of sorts. They find their way to their goals by laying out their clues and thinking them through. Langdon offers a description of himself at one point as a “historical policeman,” but a policeman in the sense that he never looses his head. He approaches his problems with logic. While this type of character doesn’t break the plausibility lines by becoming some scholarly action hero, it is kind of a shame we only get to see Hanks thinking out problems. His acting talents are fairly under-utilized here.

Sir Ian McKellen (“X-Men” trilogy) does get a chance to add some flavor to the characters presented here as a friend of Langdon, who – again conveniently for our heroes – has a lot of money and helps them discover just what it is they are actually looking for and why certain parties might be interested in keeping it a secret. Paul Bettany (“Firewall”) also adds some twisted menace to the proceedings as a religious assassin.

Despite much of the convenience of the plot, the story really is intriguing and offers up some good popcorn thriller fare. A good deal of the movie works as long as you don’t try too hard to get ahead of the heroes. Unfortunately, however, Howard (“Cinderella Man”) seems to be a little too timid in allowing the audience to just soak it in. Throughout the film the director insists on dropping in short flashback sequences that are a little too revealing. It is as if he is afraid the plot is too complicated for the audience to follow, but besides clarifying the ideas proposed by the “controversial” conspiracy theories presented here, the flashbacks also offer clues into the plot’s mysteries. These clues are all too often obvious and steal away most of the surprises to come at the end of the film.

I suppose, since most of the world besides me has already read the book, the surprises have all been spoiled anyway, but there is something to be said for the time when Hollywood respected the intelligence of its audience enough not to spell everything out for them. Most of the fun to be had in a film such as this is not having any clue what-so-ever as to how it is all going to end up. Hollywood has gotten into the habit of spoon feeding its audiences by playing to the biggest ticket buying demographic of young men who mostly enjoy visual stimulus. It is a shame that even a director as gifted as Ron Howard is unable to resist that type of mentality in filmmaking, especially for a production that otherwise does a good job of keeping its thriller elements on a mature adult level.

Hoodwinked! / **½ (PG)

Featuring the voices of:
Red: Anne Hathaway
Granny: Glenn Close
The Wolf: Patrick Warburton
The Woodsman: Jim Belushi
Nicky Flippers: David Ogden Stiers
Boingo: Andy Dick

The Weinstien Co. and Kanbar Animation present a film directed by Cory and Todd Edwards. Written by Cory Edwards, Todd Edwards and Tony Leech. Running time: 80 min. Rated PG (for mild action and thematic elements).

“Hoodwinked!” is a brilliant idea, a brilliant use of the CGI animated format; and at another time, maybe more than ten years ago, may have fooled people into thinking it was pure genius. Unfortunately for it, the spectrum of what CGI animation can bring to movie going audiences has been fairly well explored by this point and the bar has been raised many times over, meaning that the fairytale genre in this format really demands a finer finished product than this “an ‘A’ for effort” homemade project provides.

The brilliant idea encased in yet another CGI animated “children’s” film is the telling of a very well-known children’s tale a la “Rashomon”, from different characters’ points of view. This is a retelling of “Little Red Riding Hood” by the four major characters involved in that story: Red, Granny, The Wolf, and The Woodsman.

The film begins in the midst of the story as we know it, with Red (Anne Hathaway , “The Princess Diaries”) coming to see her grandmother, the Wolf (Patrick Warburton, “Kronk’s New Grove”) has disguised himself as Granny (Glenn Close, “101 Dalmatians”), and upon Red’s discovery of the Wolf’s deception the Woodsman (Jim Belushi, “The Wild”) enters wielding an axe. The police are called in to sort things out. Detective Nicky Flippers (David Ogden Stiers, “Lilo & Stitch”), a frog gifted in dance, questions each of the “suspects” on what lead up these awkward events.

Each character tells a story in which they are trying to do the right thing and somehow become the victim of some mysterious grand scheme, including the Wolf who claims to be an undercover reporter. What the Wolf is trying to uncover, and what the other characters haplessly stumble into, is a plot to steal all the secret recipes from all over the Woods; apparently baked goods are the forest creatures’ primary form of commerce. Each character’s story is different and reveals details about the grand story and informs details about each story told by the other characters.

For the most part it is quite an ingenious idea. The identity of the recipe thief, which I will not reveal here, is a little too obvious to carry the mystery element over the police procedural. The characters, however, are wonderful, and all their tales are very cleverly intertwined with one another. Granny’s tale pushes the envelope a little too far in terms of good plot developments. The filmmakers seem to have run out of ideas by the time they got to her story. There are also some wonderful supporting characters, including a squirrel that is wound a little too tight and steals the show, a singing hillbilly goat, and a rabbit named Boingo, who is Andy Dick (TV’s “Less Than Perfect”) as a rabbit.

Where the film loses its power is in its finishing. While it is witty and clever, the film lacks a sort of refinement. The character rendering seem plastic and expressionless. Red carries the same disinterested look throughout the movie. While CGI animators often choose a stylistic rendering to the characters and environment that is not realistic, this world seems rendered stylistically out of lack of imagination and resources. And while the ideas behind the dialogue are clever and there are a good many chuckles throughout, the script itself seems to play more like a first draft than a finished product. Many of the jokes are good ideas that don’t seem to have been worked out as far as they should have been. Many of those chuckles could have been out right guffaws with the proper punch and delivery.

I believe the reason for this apparent disparity between the great ideas and the mediocre execution comes from the fact that this film never went through any sort of professional development stage. On the DVD the creators, Cory and Todd Edwards, claim to have made the picture for a mere $5000. The Weinstien brothers bought the film to boost their properties as they set out to launch their own studio after their departure from Disney’s Miramax division. While the Weinstiens used their considerable clout to gather a great cast of voice performers to rerecord all the dialogue and probably helped with technical finishing such as editing and color timing, they may have been better off having the Edwards brother remake the entire film with technology beyond what they could buy with their parents’ credit card.

In truth, the limitation of the animation is something that could very easily be overlooked by audiences, since the ideas behind them are so fresh and interesting. And despite the fact that the dialogue is a little flat, it is passable in today’s climate of flash over brains when it comes to acceptable execution of story. But acceptable is something a good movie should strive to rise above, and given the chance of development this idea has the potential to be great. I would like to see the Edwards brothers try it again now that they’ve got their feet in the door.

New rule in animation: It seems it is becoming a new rule in the animated film industry that the voice over artist Patrick Warburton, known in the flesh as Putty from “Seinfeld”, must be employed in every animation project. The use of his voice as one of the primary characters within an animated project automatically raises the final product to a higher level. The rising popularity of his voice is a welcome development.

Mission: Impossible III / *** (PG-13)

Ethan Hunt: Tom Cruise
Owen Davian: Philip Seymour Hoffman
Luther Strickell: Ving Rhames
Declan: Jonathan Rhys Meyers
Julia: Michelle Monaghan
Zhen: Maggie Q
Musgrave: Billy Crudup
Lindsey: Keri Russell
Brassel: Laurence Fishburne

Paramount Pictures presents a film directed by J. J. Abrams. Written by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Abrams. Based on the TV series created by Bruce Geller. Running time: 126 min. Rated PG-13 (for intense sequences of frenetic violence and menace, disturbing images, and some sensuality).

If you look at action heroes throughout the ages of film, you might notice that actors often run funny. Probably the clearest case in point is Harrison Ford, who has done his fair share of it in his films. Tom Cruise has also made much of his career out of running. Beyond the “Mission: Impossible” movies he was running early on in “All the Right Moves” right on up through “War of the Worlds”. The thing about Cruise is that he is good at it. Unlike most actors, he looks good doing it; and he does it a lot in “Mission: Impossible III”.

The good news is that like his running stance, his track record with the “Mission: Impossible” franchise is pretty good. They aren’t the in depth moral dilemma political thrillers of the seventies, but they provide pretty good popcorn crunching fare for those summer blockbuster months. In the latest Impossible Missions Force adventure we find Cruise’s Ethan Hunt once again saving the world from a terrible threat, and we also get the bonus of a look into the private life of a super spy.

The second opening of the film finds Ethan at an engagement bash to his true love Julia, played by Michelle Monaghan (“North Country”). She thinks he works for the Department of Transportation. In spy reality, however, Ethan has retired from field service to become an operative trainer. But, of course, he is willing to come out of his semi-retirement to help rescue one of his former students (Keri Russell, “The Upside of Anger”) from a sadistic arms dealer, who is brokering a deal to sell a possible global threatening virus.

Much has been made of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s turn toward this more commercial oriented film than is typical for him, especially coming off his Oscar win this past year for his performance in “Capote”. He proves he has more than what it takes to be a diabolical villain as the arms dealer Owen Davian. The MPAA claims as reason for the PG-13 rating they awarded the film “intense sequences of frenetic violence and menace.” The “menace” included in this explanation is there entirely because of Hoffman’s performance.

The adjective of “frenetic” attached to the fairly well expected violence of the film can probably be attributed to the non-stop pace of the film established by director J.J. Abrams and his editing team. Abrams, creator of the popular television series “Alias” and “Lost”, was tapped personally by Cruise for his skill at fusing conspiratorial thriller elements with more soap-operatic personal storylines. He delivers both with a raw breakneck quality to the film, which is helped by opening the film with a scene from its climax and flashbacking what lead up to that point.

After the brutal opening sequence, where Hoffman gets a chance to sink his teeth into the audience right off the back, we learn that Hunt has a life outside IMF. While still never really delving into Hunt’s psyche, Abrams does a good job dangling this “real life” of Hunt’s into the fray of the espionage life he is so good at. That real life is as much a secret in the spy world as his spy job is in the real world. Never is that subject of the other life left out of a scene, usually a scene filled with flying bullets and explosions.

Cruise is as solid as he ever is in action mode. As a bonus to being a competent action hero, Cruise always has the extra ability of conveying pain and personal stress just under the surface, as if he is in a heated drama. Even though you know he always manages to pull it off in the end, he makes it easy to imagine that maybe this will be Hunt’s last mission.

The movie does often err on the side of spectacle rather than logic. A sequence involving a death defying leap across a gaping hole in a bridge, when going around would have been both easier and faster, comes to mind. And, although Hunt is obviously a very smart man, he often refuses to think out a situation entirely in order to keep the danger level up in the story. It was easy to figure out who all the bad guys were and Hunt should have been at least 10 steps ahead of me.

Despite a few errors in logic, “M: I III” is for the most part a smartly conceived picture and just the type of summer popcorn fare that I personally am welcoming at this time after spending the winter months ruminating over the heavy volume of independent thinkers that dominated the latter part of 2005. It also is a step above the overabundance of stupidity that has plagued the first half of 2006. Navigating away from the poor quality of the films released so far this year is proving to be the truly impossible mission, but this one isn’t a terrible place to start.

Glory Road/ *** (PG)

Dan Haskins: Josh Lucas
Bobby Joe Hill: Derek Luke
Adolph Rupp: Jon Voight
Jerry Armstrong: Austin Nichols
Harry Flournoy: Mehcad Brooks
Orsten Artis: Alphonso McAuley
Willie “Scoops” Crager: Damaine Radcliff
Nevil Shed: Al Shearer
Willie Worsley: Sam Jones II

Walt Disney presents a film directed by James Gartner. Written by Christopher Cleveland and Bettina Gilois. Running time: 106 min. Rated PG (for racial issues including violence and epithets, and momentary language).

Ever since the surprise breakout success of the Jerry Bruckheimer/Disney production of “Remember the Titans” from a few years back, Disney has been in the business of producing true-life inspirational sports tales with strict formulaic structures the likes of “Miracle” and “The Rookie”. All have been generally good movies if never venturing into the territory of greatness. The latest Disney sports moment is another collaboration with Bruckheimer in the form of a basketball picture – they’re going to run out of sports soon. “Glory Road” tells the story of small time college basketball coach Dan Haskins and how he cobbled together the first ever all black starting line up to win the 1966 NCAA Championship.

Josh Lucas (“Stealth”) portrays Haskins, who comes from humble beginnings. Playing with the audience’s perceptions, first time director James Gartner first shows Haskins courtside badgering his players throughout a game. His chides of how they are all “playing like girls” become more comedic when it is revealed that they are girls. A small southern university, Texas Western, takes a chance hiring Haskins, whose only successes have come coaching high school women’s basketball, to turn around their struggling NCAA men’s basketball program.

When Haskins takes the coaching job he is faced with the task of putting together a winning team without the financial resources or the name recognition to do so. “Texas who?” During scouting sessions where the top white athletes laugh at Haskins presence, he notices that each team seems to have one or two black players that play very well, which no one seems to notice. Soon Haskins has taken to the streets, chasing down young black men that think he’s some crazy white man on a black bashing spree.

There are some very funny scenarios here that probably did not hold the same amount of levity in their reality. One involves Haskins chasing one player home where he finds the opportunity to have the fellow’s mother hear him out for the price of partaking in some of her wonderful apple pie. The mother returns later in the film for some more humor when the player finds himself struggling to keep his grade point average up.

The racial civil rights issues of the story are impossible for the filmmakers to avoid since the whole point of such as story is to honor the civil right achievements of Haskins and his team’s accomplishments under the diverse racial tension of the time. However, as in “Remember the Titans”, the filmmakers have managed to keep the Spike Lee scream down to a dull grumble here that consists primarily of older stuffy white folk holding up a stiff chin at the sight of seven black men standing in the same place together. There is a scene of racial violence that even gets some of the Texas Western white teammates ready to rumble with the locals, but like the filmmakers, coach Haskins steps in before anything really nasty breaks out.

The final passages focus on the team’s extraordinary fight through the playoffs to finally face powerhouse champs Kentucky for the championship. Jon Voight (“National Treasure”) plays the crotchety veteran coach of Kentucky Adolph Rupp. The last couple of games presented in the film are typical sports film fare, but done well enough to keep the audience engaged in the games. I think perhaps Rupp’s seeming acceptance that he is going to lose the title to this black team after they have made a couple of key plays to turn the tide is a little too prophetic for a man in his position with his beliefs at the time, but the players never seem aware of the game’s outcome before the end.

While the racial issues in this film are unavoidable and add a resonant significance to the proceedings, there is really no new territory mined here. “Glory Road” is the solid formula Disney has molded into a profitable movie experience from the inspirational sports story. It will please. It will amuse. It will provide a couple of exciting games that people are or are not aware actually happened.

8th Annual Overlooked Film Festival

Bad Santa (2003) ***
Millions (2005) ****
Junebug (2005) ****
Claire Dolan (1998) **½
Spartan (2004) ****
My Fair Lady (1964) ****
Duane Hopwood (2005) ****
Ripley’s Game (2002) ***½
The Eagle (1929) ***½

Man Push Cart (2006) N/A
Somebodies (2006) N/A
U-Carmen e-Khayelitsha (2005) N/A

For the second year in a row I have missed out on one of my favorite events in the world, Roger Ebert’s Overlooked Film Festival. 2006 marks the 8th year of this delectable film festival. After my first, I promised myself I would never miss another. Well, now I’ve missed two, but thanks to the miracle of Netflix I’ve been able to witness at least the most important part of this year’s festival – the films themselves.

I, of course, have yet to be able to experience those films featured in the festival that have yet to find distribution in US theatrical or DVD releases. This year that includes the minimal budget film “Man Push Cart”, written and directed by an Iranian-American, starring a Pakistani-American about a former Pakistani rock star who now operates a vending cart on the streets of Manhattan. Another Sundance film “Somebodies” is a celebration of African-Americans in Georgia with an unconventional approach that eschews the typical signatures of ethnic films in America and the tendency to try to show black people as role models and simply shows people as people, black or white. Also featured was a new South African adaptation of the Bizet opera “Carmen” in the film “U-Carmen e-Khayelitsha”. It has been my experience with this film festival that these totally under the radar films tend to be the best of the bunch. I managed to see all the films I missed from last year’s festival; I can only hope I get the chance to catch these gems before the year is up.

Of the films I did get to see in the room my wife has come to refer to as my “dungeon getaway” I can only say this year’s seems to have been a truly exceptional festival. While the quality of these overlooked films are always very high, this year’s collection was the best consistency of high quality films I’ve seen yet. They are also all fairly recent films, save the festival opener “My Fair Lady” and the silent feature “The Eagle”, there is no film here older than ten years and most are from just the last couple of years. I present them here in the order I viewed them.

Bad Santa. Truthfully, this film should also go down as one of the ones I missed at this festival. Director Terry Zwigoff returned for his second festival in a row (and I missed ‘em both) to present his unreleased “director’s cut” of this very unconventional Christmas film. I did not see the theatrical cut of this film but did see the “Badder Santa” DVD version, which while longer still did not contain all the material in Zwigoff’s director’s cut. Billy Bob Thornton plays a low level thief who, along with his little person cohort, uses the holidays as an opportunity to bilk shopping malls for money and merchandise posing as a Santa and Elf for the children.

This is a truly black comedy, strictly for adults, where Thornton’s miserable thief is truly the poorest excuse for a human being, and few other characters in the film are any better. When Thornton’s character comes to the rescue of a fat kid who is tormented by peers, it looks as if the film may turn into some redemptive power of children movie, but Thornton’s thief isn’t any better at handling children than he is his own life. The audience is left wondering just how many lives this man can possibly destroy. While I loved this film’s devilishly subversive attitude toward life and the conventions of holiday movies, its released ending betrays the black nature of the comedy by providing a little more happiness than any of these characters deserve. I hope the director’s cut corrects this small misstep.

Millions. So many of today’s “family” films coming out of Hollywood tend to be targeted to the youngest and lowest mindsets. A case in point is Disney’s recent revamping of “The Shaggy Dog”, which does a good job of imagining the easiest way to make a kid laugh by having Tim Allen run around on all fours chasing after cats. “Millions”, on the other hand, is a family film like no other. It tells the story of what happens when two kids discover a bag full of money (stolen money, unbeknownst to them). It imagines the very meticulously thought out process these brothers use to decide just what to do with the money.

Set in Britain on the eve of the national change over to the Euro, there are very little impurities to the characters of these two brothers. The youngest brother consults the saints he has come to learn of in school in his imagination, which provides some comical fantasy segments and explanations to the adults when they discover what the children are up to; and the entire film is a visual cinematic feast compared to your average film, let alone family film.

Even more surprising is the directorial mind this wonderment of cinema comes from. Director Danny Boyle draws from his own cinematic oeuvre of very adult oriented films like “Trainspotting”, “The Beach”, and “28 Days Later” to create this family friendly, yet adult literate tale about the morality of children. “Millions” was Ebert’s choice for this year’s free family matinee, and is perhaps the best choice he’s ever made for this spotlight.

Junebug made a bit of a splash this past awards season because of the wonderfully nuanced and comic characterization created here by actress Amy Adams as a compulsively positive yet not very worldly pregnant sister-in-law. Although Adams deserved all the praise she got and more for her performance, there are many other reasons the film itself can be held on equal grounds with her input. Director Phil Morrison and writer Angus MacLachlan have made “Junebug” very much in the spirit of independent film, with a stronger emphasis on slice-of-life presentation than on plot, but they have filled it with more than the average amount of warmth and humor for a film that also deals with the drama of life.

Embeth Davidtz is a Chicago art dealer who returns with her new husband to his very rural home in North Carolina to meet his family and woo a potential artist for her gallery. While the story of a city dweller displaced into country bumpkin culture is certainly no new territory for a film, “Junebug” is a breath of fresh air in the unpretentious characterizations it provides for its cast. It is unusual that a film can do such a good job making its audience feel good while still providing a serious story that avoids any expectations one can place on it. In fact the most interesting element of this film to me was the way in which as it came too a close I realized I had read too far into where it was going, as so often happens with most people dealing with relatives in life, when it was all much simpler than I had at first assumed.

Claire Dolan, on the other hand, was the disappointment of this year’s collection for me. It seems every festival must have one that just doesn’t live up to the rest, although it is fairly easy to see what Ebert found to appreciate about this unusual thriller. I label the movie a thriller, however many may fail to see what is so thrilling about this story of a call girl who struggles to build a new life for herself. In a more typical treatment of this same tale it would be presented as a thriller as the titular character tries to hide from her business minded pimp after she has stashed away enough money to make her run to another city.

Katrine Cartlidge and Colm Meaney provide wonderful performances in the almost daughter/father relationship they share as prostitute and high class pimp. They have reasonable conversations about their business partnership, but he sees her as a business investment and she knows he’ll never allow her to leave willingly. Vincent D’Onofrio also appears as a potential love interest for Claire, which would also be far more exploited for tension and conflict in a production less interested in character.

While I felt this could have been a highly compelling drama with its focus on character above suspense, the film, unfortunately, moves at far too laconic a pace. Too many passages lingered too long on what choices could lead to, and not enough on what they do. While I admire the fact that the filmmakers chose not to go down the typical path of melodrama, they could have used to pump up the tension level a bit more often to keep the story moving along.

Spartan. Ironic that a potential thriller squandered might be included in the same collection of films as this espionage thriller so expertly executed by such an unlikely director as David Mamet. Mamet has built his career known as a great dialogist and although he has dabbled in the thriller genre a couple of times before, even his works like “The Spanish Prisoner” and “Heist” have been mostly supported by Mamet’s amazing skill at wielding the American language (because his English is so uniquely American). While his skill at the art of speech is still on its strongest display in this picture, “Spartan” is the first film of Mamet’s I’ve seen where his plotting and direction of action exists on just as high a level as his words.

Val Kilmer plays a covert expert brought in by the CIA to find the kidnapped daughter of the President. When he uncovers a white slavery ring involved in the kidnapping the twists and turns start coming and don’t stop until the film’s bloody end. Understanding that this is a film by David Mamet, and therefore does not draw studio heads’ attention as a potential box office smash, I was shocked after seeing it that someone with some sort of studio control at Warner Bros. didn’t see a screening of this and recommend a heavy media push to turn it into a sleeper hit, because there is nothing about this film that wouldn’t please a mainstream audience and draw crowds to the theaters. “Spartan” is a wicked thriller and it would be nice to know a large audience could be exposed to such intelligent dialogue for once, but alas they don’t call it the “Overlooked” for nothing, and most people haven’t been so lucky to see this one.

My Fair Lady. Now “overlooked” is not a word that leaps to mind with this 1964 Best Picture Oscar winning musical, but “My Fair Lady” acts as a splendid reminder of what the American movie going audience has forgotten about in its abandonment of the musical format in film. The failure of last year’s “Rent” at the box office only serves to secure the fate of the musical as a now overlooked genre; but only a musical can deliver such a deliciously abusive relationship as that of the waifish flower girl Eliza Doolittle and the arrogant Professor Henry Higgins, who on a whim wagers he can pass her off as high society with a fellow linguist, and still leave its audience smiling.

It was shocking to witness how vicious these two characters are to each other. Not only is it highly comic, but it is a level of human relationship that can only be seen in the most daring (overlooked) of today’s movies so homogenized by political correctness. The film may have also been slightly ahead of its time for the women’s rights movement which didn’t take full flight in Hollywood until the 80’s with films like “Baby Boom” and “Working Girl”. It does cave into the happy ending in the end, which marks most of its female rights activism moot, but it takes some grand digs at the male dominated society of the story’s and the film’s time periods. I only wish I could have seen it in glorious 70mm, the other overlooked aspect for which Ebert chose it.

Duane Hopwood. Next to the grandeur of a Hollywood musical made in the heyday of their dazzling production values, a digitally shot film with the simplicity of “Duane Hopwood”’s story might never seem to live up to it. Yet what this story of a man’s struggle with his alcoholism lacks in spectacle, it makes up for in emotional power. The surprising thing is not all of that emotional boiling is a downer. Like in “Junebug”, first time writer/director Matt Mulhern has the amazing ability to find the humor of life in the humility of what the titular character of this film has to go through.

Mulhern also knows how to utilize the natural comedic talents of his cast to lighten what can be a big emotional pill to swallow. David Schwimmer’s performance as Duane marks another career defining performance for a comedic actor who tackles the serious subject matter of alcoholism. Most of all, this is a film that seems to be made with love and understanding of its characters and their feelings toward one another and the difficult to control disease of alcoholism. It made for a rough ride emotionally, but was warmed with enough laughter and love to make it a better experience than can be found with most movies.

Ripley’s Game. Patricia Highsmith’s literary murderous con artist Tom Ripley is a difficult nut to crack. His strange cold outlook on life is nearly impossible for the average filmgoer to understand. Put in the hands of a performer who is just a bit off kilter himself, such as the ever engaging John Malkovich, and Ripley begins to make a little more sense.

Like “Spartan”, it is hard to believe that this adaptation of Highsmith’s novel “Ripley’s Game” was able to fly so far under the radar it never even received a U.S. theatrical release. While it is a little less traditional for a thriller than “Spartan”, it is an adaptation of an adventure of a very popular literary character and follows not to long after the higher profile Ripley adaptation “The Talented Mr. Ripley”. It contains much of the unusual plotting of that story, but this film, set in the present day rather than that of the time period of the novel, seems less interested in the setting and mood of Mr. Ripley’s unusual world, as it is in exploring the characters of it three primary players.

The performances by the principal actors elevated this movie to a level beyond what the plotting provides. Malkovich was born to play Ripley, but the performances by Ray Winstone as a former partner of Ripley’s and Dougray Scott as his latest “victim of circumstance” are as equally compelling.

Winstone has provided a great many wonderful supporting roles of late in films like “King Arthur” and “Cold Mountain”, but here he gets a chance to take a controlling interest in the endeavor. There is a scene where his character bumbles his way into a delicate venture of Ripley’s and Winstone’s execution makes it clear that while this man is a bit of a buffoon, this clumsiness is also part of his personal style that allows him to get what he wants out of others.

Scott, on the other hand, is the epitome of a desperate man in way over his head and mostly unaware of it. Watch the glee that percolates under his every action after he has performed Ripley’s initial duty. This is impressive mostly because Scott has tended to play heavies in his career, his most well-known performance being Tom Cruise’s nemesis in “Mission: Impossible II”.

The Eagle. Performances are also the shining force behind the silent classic “The Eagle”. A Rudolph Valentino starring Robin Hood story set in Russia during the rule of Catherine the Great, “The Eagle” proves that the silents weren’t just a stepping stone to the sound era for the spectrum of performance.

In most of the silent films I’ve seen the focus has been either on the technology of film itself and how it allows for illusion or on stunts. The emphasis when film was new was always on the visual, rarely did the emotional enter into what are generally known as the great silents. And when it did, it was always accompanied by a heavy helping of visual gags as well. While the visuals of “The Eagle” are not dull, they are hardly the focal point of this romance between Rudolph Valentino’s character and the daughter of his enemy. There is also a great comedic storyline with Catherine the Great who puts a warrant out for Valentino’s character when he rejects her advances toward him.

The performances are executed with the same aplomb as great dramatic and comedic performances of today, which gives the film a more immediate feel than your average (or even above average) silent. It is easy to see why Valentino was as famous in his day as Tom Cruise is today. I only wish I could have seen his passion complimented by the incredible soundtrack provided live each year at the Overlooked by The Alloy Orchestra.

Duane Hopwood / **** (R)

Duane: David Schwimmer
Linda: Janeane Garofalo
Anthony: Judah Friedlander
Gina: Susan Lynch
Fred: Dick Cavett
Steve: Steve Schirripa

IFC Films presents a film directed and written by Matt Mulhern. Running time: 84 min. Rated R (for language).

It seems the alcoholic’s story brings out the best dramatic product from the most seemingly unlikely performers. There have been several wonderful films made on the subject all revolving around stunning performances by actors who were best known for their comedic output prior to their alcoholic turns. Michael Keaton beat the horrific road to recovery in the movie “Clean and Sober”; and Meg Ryan shed her romantic image to portray a wife that can’t cope with her drinking problem and her family in “When a Man Loves a Woman.” In “Duane Hopwood” former “Friends” star David Schwimmer gets his shot at dramatic legitimacy and delivers perhaps the most satisfyingly complete portrayal of a drunk this critic has ever seen.

Duane is divorced from his wife Linda (Janeane Garofalo, “Stay”); although an opening montage that plays under the credits shows the couple sharing happy moments together and with their two daughters. But Duane’s drinking was obviously a problem and most likely the reason for their divorce. He is a bouncer at an Atlantic City casino, which seems to be the one area of his life his drinking has not severely affected. That doesn’t mean he likes his job, it just seems to be his one line.

One evening Duane is pulled over for drunk driving. The state trooper is a friend of Duane’s and is willing to let it slide if Duane cooperates. That is until he discovers that Duane was taking this 3 a.m. drunken joy ride with one of his daughters asleep in the back seat. “Duane, this changes things,” his friend says to him, and it seems never a truer statement had even been spoken to Duane in his life.

As if estrangement from his family hadn’t been much of an uprooting experience, Duane’s life is truly turned on its head as not only does his problem unexpectedly finally threaten his work situation when he finds himself without a license to drive in the middle of November (riding a bike to work on the New Jersey coast in the midst of winter is a bit conspicuous), but his wife’s lawyer urges her to have Duane’s visitation rights removed.

Now, this all sounds severely depressing, and there are moments in the film where the emotions involved become overwhelming, but the greatest element of this movie is its lighthearted approach to life in general. For every heavy heartbeat in this film there are pathetic comic figure and is wonderfully cast as this very likeable pity case. He has the ability to find the everyday comedy in moments where the character is at his most vulnerable, but he never seems to be playing for the comedy. His sad attempts to bed a bartender friend (Susan Lynch, “Casa de los babys”) who helps him home when it is raining one day are a good case in point.

It is also good to see that Duane and Linda have not forgotten how they once felt about each other. Despite their divorce and the horrific notion of taking Duane’s daughters away from him, they still seem to very much like one another. Duane’s alcoholism isn’t something that just happened to him and turned him into a villain to those who once loved him. The alcoholism is the thing that has taken hold of both (all) of their lives, and they understand it wasn’t something Duane did to them on purpose. Garofalo does a good job conveying that although Linda does not want to take his daughters away from him, it is something she feels she must do for their own and even Duane’s own good.

Writer and director Matt Mulhern is quite gifted in the way he is able to multi-layer all of his character’s actions and emotions. Drawing out the comedy in most of his slice-of-life situations is an ingenious way to make the material easily accessible and even highlights the multi-layered aspect of his characters when the audience realizes they are laughing at a man’s tragedy.

Duane does not have to carry every burden. Anthony (Judah Friedlander, “Date Movie”) is a janitor at the casino who has aspirations of becoming a stand up comedian. At first he comes across as a loser, one of those guys that every place of employment seems to have, a guy who is always spouting theories about everything and everyone just humors to his face but laughs at behind his back. But after Duane humors Anthony into his house as a “roommate” we find that he is the ever understanding friend that anyone needs in order to get through hardships. Anthony’s frankness becomes an asset Duane can count on to call him out when he is in the wrong and the next moment still be there to support him.

Duane also has two neighbors that are the dictionary definition of “characters.” Steve (Steve Schirripa, “Must Love Dogs”) never says a word, yet gives the impression that he wants smack someone out of their ignorance at any moment but is too scared of disrupting some fragile balance. Former talk show host Dick Cavett plays Steve’s roommate Fred. Fred is one of those people who always means well yet can’t help but say too much in any given situation.

“Duane Hopwood” is a tough movie in that by its end, it has put its audience through the emotional wringer, but the journey itself is a smooth ride with welcome friends and good times to be had. It certainly doesn’t present alcoholism as a walk in the park, but it present life as a challenge that can either be crashed into headlong or drunk up and cherished. It is a choice we have all made and regretted at times, but we have no choice in the matter of living itself, only how.

The Wild / ** (G)

Featuring the voices of:
Samson the Lion: Kiefer Sutherland
Benny the Squirrel: Jim Belushi
Bridget the Giraffe: Janeane Garofalo
Larry the Snake: Richard Kind
Nigel the Koala: Eddie Izzard
Ryan the Cub: Greg Cipes
Kazar the Wildebeest: William Shatner
Blag the Wildebeest: Patrick Warburton

Walt Disney Pictures presents a film directed by Steve “Spaz” Williams. Written by Ed Dector, Mark Gibson, Philip Halprin and John J. Strauss. Running time: 94 min. Rated G.

The first comment I ever heard anyone make about this film was that it looked like they probably liked it better the first time they saw it when it was called “Madagascar”. That comment was made the first time I ever saw “The Wild” trailer back in the fall of last year. It may have been me that said it. Unfortunately, it was true.

The primary difference between “Madagascar” – which I enjoyed, but many did not – and “The Wild” is that “Madagascar” was willing to take some risks with its ideas and even designs, while “The Wild” wants to play it safe despite its rather absurd concept. Right down to the realistic rendering of its CGI created animal characters, the creators of “The Wild” don’t seem to understand that zoo animals with aspirations and behavior patterns matching those of human beings is something based more in the abstract than within the realm of reality.

The film opens with a fantasy sequence, which despite its traditional hand-drawn looking rendering turns out to be the most visually stunning sequence of the movie. It is a visualization of a story the hero, Samson (Kiefer Sutherland, TV’s “24”), is telling his son Ryan (Greg Cipes, “Club Dread”) about his life in the wild before becoming the resident lion of the New York Zoo. Samson thinks his stories will inspire Ryan to find his “roar.” The technique back fires, inspiring Ryan to stow away in a storage box headed for the wild, where he can find his voice in the same environment as his dad.

There is an incident before Ryan stows away where he is shamed that acts as a good example of how the filmmakers fail to create a fully realized universe for its characters. At night the Zoo becomes a place where the animals get to live their fun lives after their “work” days. As most of the animals are gathered in the artic environment pen to play games, Ryan and a couple friends decide to go scare the antelope as they might actually do on the African plain. I can’t help but wonder why aren’t the antelope like the rest of the animals joining in on the camaraderie of the after hours activities? Why are they the only animals that continue to act and react like animals when the zoo has closed to visitors?

The answer is… for the convenience of the plot alone. Ryan’s shame in scaring the antelope and causing a stampede within the zoo is the all too contrived catalyst which sends him packing; therefore forcing his father to head out into – first the big city, then the wild – looking for his lost son. Samson is not alone in his adventure. He brings along four friends: an awkward giraffe named Bridget (Janeane Garofalo, “Duane Hopwood”), a moronic snake named Larry (Richard Kind, “The Producers”), a wisecracking squirrel named Benny (Jim Belushi, TV’s “According to Jim”), and an even wisercracking koala named Nigel (Eddie Izzard, “Ocean’s Twelve”). Does any of that sound familiar?

During their journey this haphazard group of animals comes across some sewer crocodiles in the underworld of Manhattan. In a scene that has the potential to be both suspenseful and humorous the filmmakers turn these guido gators into a simple joke of “this way is quicker,” “No, that way is quicker.” Jokes are compromised in order to further the plot, rather than the plot supporting the jokes.

Soon the animals have somehow piloted a tugboat to the titular wild, where upon the fate of Ryan leads them into the den of a clan of wildebeests that have decided to take the throne of “kings of the jungle” by becoming carnivores. Once again the filmmakers squander some of their best resources by not offering the two primary wildebeests more screen time. William Shatner (“The Practice”) chews as much verbal scenery as he can as the insane leader of the carnivorous vegetarians, while Patrick Warburton (“Kronk’s New Groove”) provides his typical voice over gold as the clan’s choreographer. Monty Python’s Eric Idle also provides a humorous wildebeest song. It is too bad they didn’t use this trio for the lead characters.

“The Wild” plays like a string of missed opportunities. I have nothing against Sutherland or the other voice talents utilized here, but other animated features have been able to capitalize upon the comedic talents of its vocal artists in a way that this feature doesn’t (except with its villains). It is as if everyone on this ship was so worried about getting there they forgot to enjoy the journey, and isn’t the journey more important than the destination when you are just trying to be wild?