TOTALLY BAKED

Written by Fumo Verde

Totally Baked is a hybrid, a mix between a movie and a documentary or as they call it a “Pot-U-mentary” which makes even harder to follow for non-stoned people. Director Lee Abbott blatantly comes out by trying to disprove the lies that have been embedded in our society since the late ‘20s and early ‘30s. The film’s main story centers on a high school debate reunion (you had to be high to even come up with that), but it cuts back and forth between stand-up comics, sketches, and what at times feels like real people who smoke pot discussing how it has affected their lives.

As stoners, new stuff coming at us on the screen is cool and trippy. Was I high when I watched this? What are you high? Come on, my pen name translates into "I smoke green." But even with the generous puffs I was taking of the bud, the movie only got some jaded laughs from me. I, like all of you who fire up the sweet herb, already know the facts, so this story was preaching to the choir. Let me break it down so we all don’t get confused and forget where the lighter is.

The captain of the debate team has his old high school team over, but just before the party starts, two medical marijuana activists take refuge from the law and hold the team hostage. Enter the captain’s ex-wife with smoking hot teenage daughter in tow. The ex is having a conniption because she found a roach in the girl’s purse. She then lights up a cig, and facts appear on the screen telling the deaths caused by cigarettes each year. She then takes a swig of scotch and again the screen fills with facts about alcohol-related deaths. As this part of this story goes on, the “activists” get the debate team stoned off their asses, so eventually the captain has to talk seriously about weed to his smoking-hot teenage daughter, a thing most parents never seem to get right.

In plain stoner truth, the storyline was weak, but the way over-the-top acting was crucial to make the stereotypes palatable. The smoking-hot daughter, played a normal character; everyone else in the film part was way outside. The documentary parts gave me a chuckle or two. William Atherton, who I love as Jerry Hathaway in Real Genius, plays the CEO of Fun Onions. His performance was the best in this whole flick. He made me laugh, and the idea of telling people that smoking pot keeps you from becoming gay was rich.

I understand and highly agree with Abbott, but this film won’t change the current situation on the laws regarding pot and it won’t be seen by anyone but stoners. Slowly things are changing, and as the narrator, who could only be seen by the stoned people in the movie, and us of course, said it best, as the next generation gradually takes over the laws will change.

This movie is a sidebar to what we all recognize as a futile effort to keep people from doing what they want to do. I applaud the cast and crew and Mr. Abbott for taking a shot at what we see as hypocrisy against the chemical Delta 9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, but even smoking bowls of Train Wreck couldn’t make this movie any better. I bet if I were sober it would have really sucked. The extras, oh yeah, there wasn’t anything good at all. If you find it in the 99-cent bin in your local CVS, then maybe, but you would have to be pretty baked to get it and think it was cool. If it comes on cable and you got time to blow, go for it, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD (Blu Ray)

Written by El Fangorio

Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), is one evil S.O.B. His quick rise from poor prospector to oil baron has left many a casualty in his wake. He is the type of man who will exploit a child (newcomer Dillon Freasier), claiming him to be his son, to get families to trust him. And once this child becomes a burden, he will move along and find another face to use. He will take advantage of your generosity, trust, and lack of knowledge and when it comes time for payback, he will still drive you into the dirt. He will admit to wrongdoing only to gain back trust, and then when the time is right, he will remind you how foolish you were to believe him.

Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) is a preacher man but is no less corrupt than Plainview. He also has dollar signs in his eyes and when Plainview comes to offer his “help”, he jumps at the chance to make a profit. Under the guise of building a church, his demands for riches far exceed his needs and his delusions of grandeur blur the line between divine intervention and personal gain. He will use his faith to gain support but if given the opportunity to fatten his pockets with a non-believer, he will denounce it without hardly any hesitation.

It is when these two men converge that we are given the timeless epic struggle of Evil against Evil; Money vs. Religion; Oil vs God. No different now than it was over a hundred years ago when this film takes place, the themes at hand are played out with The Good being caught in the crossfire.

An exercise in filmmaking gone by, There Will Be Blood’s deliberate pacing reminded us that it wasn’t that long ago that films weren’t edited with a Cuisinart. Like Kubrick’s before him, Paul Thomas Anderson’s camera lingers on scenes for minutes on end before cutting away, leaving its imagery burned into your memory. His precise mastering of light evokes the past works of Zsigmond, Almendros, and Willis. And like Scorsese, he still accomplishes originality while channeling the masters. The church construction from McCabe and Mrs. Miller, the nocturnal blaze from Days of Heaven, even the bucket spill from Carrie is on hand for those keen enough to notice. It opens like 2001, with its dissolve into landscape and when the titular promise is finally fulfilled, we are reminded of the same film and early man’s first attack with the animal bone.

When There Will Be Blood was released on standard DVD back in April, it made many a reviewer’s top pick for best transfer to date. It set the bar for image resolution which was no easy feat considering the elements used during the filming. It was released as two different editions, a film-only single-disc edition and a Special Collector’s edition with a second disc of special features. Many special collectors were disappointed to find that the second disc consisted of only an hour of supplements, 30 minutes of which being a B&W vintage documentary on oil. The rest of the goods consisted of a slideshow, two trailers, and three deleted scenes. That’s it. As SD consumers await the inevitable release of a quadruple-disc edition (and this film warrants one), will the Blu-ray camp get it right the first time out? And can the already near-perfect image even be improved on? It’s a mixed answer of no (sigh) and YES (!!!).

Ring the double-D alert; we have here a 'demo disc.' This is the one you pop in the player when you want to show off the "miracle of Blu-ray" to friends and neighbors. Hell, this one makes you want to show strangers too. They say that great high definition sometimes results in the image appearing to come off the screen, like 3-D without the aid of special glasses. There are multiple instances in which the film achieves this.

As early as the opening scene of Plainview’s excavating a near-pitch mine, the sparks caused by his pickaxe almost look dangerous. Candlelit faces, surrounded by total darkness, appear to hover like ghosts and you almost feel guilty for not helping out with some of the ropes that seemingly float up and down the screen.

The sound is also an improvement in that, unlike its standard counterpart, it comes uncompressed via 5.1 Dolby TrueHD. This might not be as obvious in its many dialogue scenes but it does play a big factor in some of the louder scenes. Oil gushers cause many a jump while Jonny Greenwood’s shrieking strings jangle the nerves appropriately. And when the film is silent, it is true silence without the hiss that comes with compressed audio.

As for the special features, they are the exact same as the standard release. No joke. 50 gigs of memory available on a Blu-ray disc and they fill it with less than a gig of material. One good thing is that, except for the slideshow, all of the supplements are presented in high-def, something we will soon be taking for granted but for now, really does make a difference when viewing special features on HD systems. And the special features themselves really aren’t that bad as all of it is beneficial to the viewer.

First off is the 1923 documentary, The Story of Petroleum. This B&W silent film, created as a promotional tool for the U.S. Bureau of Mines, chronicles the oil business during the 1920s. It’s a pretty interesting piece and I would even recommend viewing it before the film as it helps put the film in its proper context. Also serving as a reference piece is the slideshow, here titled 15 Minutes. Set to the score of the film, these various elements include vintage photographs, postcards, maps, and newspaper clippings that aided in researching the film. Images are followed by the actual scenes from the film that they inspired, proving once again the depth at which Anderson will go to achieve authenticity. The three deleted scenes, unlike most you see on other releases, are actually quite good. Had they been left in the film, you would even recall them as somewhat key scenes. Rounding out the supps is the film’s teaser and theatrical trailer.

Given the price of this Blu-ray release, there isn’t going to be many laymen that see justifying a double-dip. Supplements, though presented here in HD, are usually the deciding factor for most consumers. However, the improvement in picture quality is more than enough reason for me to recommend it because after all, isn’t image the reason you have Blu-ray? Add to this the fact that Mr. Anderson has a tendency to produce more definitive editions of his films more than a year after their initial release, and you’ve got more than enough justification to go the Blu-ray route.

THE HAPPENING

Written by Hombre Divertido

After the underappreciated and misunderstood Lady in the Water, writer and director M. Night Shyamalan attempts to return to the simple intensity of his successful Signs, but fails to include any of the elements that lead to said success.

In The Happening, something in the air is causing masses of seemingly normal people to commit suicide. Though the film is full of disturbing imagery that certainly would appeal to the fans of horror movies, it lacks too many other qualities of a good scary movie.

Primarily, no reason is given for us to care about the stars. In fact, exactly the opposite. Our lead characters, if anything, are annoying. Mark Wahlberg plays a high school science teacher who you want to believe early on will figure all this out and solve the problem, but that is not the case. Our hero leads his wife (a horribly miscast Zooey Deschanel) his best friend and fellow teacher (John Leguizamo), and the friends’ daughter (The under-utilized Ashlyn Sanchez) out of the city, cuz that is what you do in all of these movies, except Signs. Hello? M. Night? Signs was good, The Happening isn’t. Let’s learn from this.

The problem is that there is absolutely no character development in this film, and subsequently no attachment to the characters by the audience. Instead, a problem in the marriage of Wahlberg and Deschanel is contrived in an amazingly ridiculous fashion, which doesn’t matter because no one in the audience would ever believe the two of them to be married anyway. In the case of Leguizamo and his daughter; the wife and mother, whom we never meet, is unable to make the same train out of the city, and the uncertainty of her survival is somehow supposed to endear the characters to us.

At only eighty-nine minutes, a substantial amount of time dedicated to properly developing the characters could easily have been added to this film. What was the rush M. Night? Remember in Signs when you invested much of the runtime to introducing us to the family? Did you just feel that you gave us too much story in Lady in the Water, so you thought that you would go the other way in The Happening? Wrong turn.

Also lacking are the subtle “whistling past the graveyard” comedic elements so prevalent in Shyamalan's previous endeavors. The comedy in The Happening, like so many other aspects of this film, simply feels forced. The actors are not able to pull off the scenes involving the subtle comedy due to what appears to be a combination of a poor script and lack of skill.

The one shining star in this dull (M.) Night is Betty Buckley. She gives a nice albeit brief performance as the owner of the country house that serves as refuge for some of the survivors, and she is actually one of the scariest parts of the film. Why? Cuz we learn more about her and her motivation in the brief time she is on camera than all the other characters combined!

Recommendation: As this film bears some similarities to Signs, both versions of War of the Worlds (1953 and 2005), and the recent awful television production of The Andromeda Strain, you would be much better off spending your time and money on Signs, and the 1953 version of War of the Worlds. Note and appreciate the character development in both.

CLOVERFIELD (BLU-RAY)

Written by El Fangorio

I was two months late catching Cloverfield in the theater. In Michigan, it had already ended its run, but thanks to a trip to Chicago, I was able to catch it in its last week there at a busy downtown Cinema. There were probably nine people total in our particular theater, and as the film unspooled, I wondered how many would be left by the end, as I’d heard of so many people walking out due to the hand-held camera technique (known now as The Blair Witch Effect).

About 20 minutes in, after the first moments of suspense started to build, my mates and I noticed a couple a few rows ahead get up. Thinking they were leaving due to the shaky-cam effect, we were surprised to see they were just moving down a few rows to the non-stadium seating below. I didn’t pay much attention to them until my friend pointed out that the woman had moved onto her boyfriend’s lap, her feet on the seat ahead of her. Awesome! It was the sign of a great, scary film - so I thought.

Little did I know this couple would embark on some of the most hardcore sex one could ever witness in public (without paying). Because the action onscreen had me in such a state of suspense, dread, and terror, I missed all of it. I didn’t even notice them. We are talking multiple positions, legs in the air, heads-a-bobbin, the whole 69 yards. I know this because one of my friend’s did the opposite and missed all of Cloverfield. I can’t help but talk about this whenever I bring up this film. On the one hand, because it’s probably my only chance of witnessing a crazy-ass spectacle like that, but on a more important note, because it was truly a testament to how effective that film was for me.

For those who don’t already know the plot of the film (and I strongly urge you to stop reading after this paragraph as there be mucho spoilers ahead), a bunch of 20-somethings in NYC throw a going away party for their bud the eve before his departing for Japan. It is this same night that a giant monster rises out of the harbor to wreak havoc on the city and it’s inhabitants.

Since one of the attendees has decided to document the party with their camcorder, we are there to experience the first sign of the monster’s presence, that being a massive rumbling sound. Of course everyone fears that it is another terrorist attack. As they all rush to the balcony to see what’s going on, they witness multiple explosions resulting in buildings crashing down exactly like 9/11.

It isn’t until the Statue of Liberty’s gigantic head comes hurling through the air and crashing down the street that people start to realize that this could be something far worse than a terrorist attack. We soon realize it is worse, and as the rest of panic-stricken Manhattan tries to evacuate the island, five of our heroes attempt to rescue a friend that is trapped in the heart of the action, all the while documenting it with that camera. For the entire film, we see the action unfold as it happens, via this lone camcorder.

I’m well aware that this film has its detractors, but I seriously wonder if they even got it. I don’t think they let themselves experience it as intended by the filmmakers. Almost everyone, while describing the theory of using the first-person method, states, “It’s so you feel like you are there”. Though that it is a result of the process, I don’t think it’s the filmmaker’s intention. If that were indeed the desired affect, then why would the filmmakers even acknowledge the character shooting it? That is to say, why not film the entire thing as if the camera were your eyes?

Instead, like The Blair Witch, the first words on the screen tell us that we are watching discovered footage of something horrible, ‘discovered’ being the key word, because it indicates that it was found by itself, without ownership. How else could it get from these kids to the government unless they handed it over to them, resulting in changing the term from ‘discovered’ to ‘donated’ or ‘with permission from’? No, this much overlooked introduction indicates “these guys are dead now.” It is this sense of dread from the very beginning that we should be feeling, knowing that we are about to actually see how they died as it happened.

I think this misconception is also what causes people to suffer from motion sickness. Since they believe it’s being shot this way so that we feel like we are there, then they are going to process it accordingly, and wish their “eyes” would go where they want (though I’m pretty sure if you were being attacked by Cloverfield, you would not be standing still either).

When you watch somebody’s home movies, would you do the same thing? Would you assume that the amateur filming it was making an attempt to have you feel like you are him? Hell, no. He is documenting. Otherwise we’d be busting out dolly tracks to smooth out that walk over to the new car you’re showing off. Trust me, if all of a sudden, in the middle of this home movie where you were showing off your new car, a big fucking monster popped out, you would not be calm about it. This is exactly what Cloverfield is, though: a home movie where all of a sudden, out of nowhere, a gigantic creature comes charging into the scenery.

For the easily nauseated, quit watching the film like it’s one of those IMAX A Flight Over the Swiss Alps where you look straight ahead and feel like you are actually flying over those damn Swiss Alps. This is a movie, and people who don’t care about anything happening on the screen unless it’s in the center (full-screen idiots, I’m looking in your direction), are going to make the mistake, and start getting sick.

Does this film translate to Blu-ray? Yes and No. Yes, in the sense that it looks even better than standard DVD (and it sure as hell does) and probably even better than in the theater. You can see the creature more clearly and the destruction of the city looks even more realistic, which is quite the feat considering most Blu-ray expose CGI for what it is: fake.

This improvement in total clarity, though, and all around professionalism sort of defeats the purpose of making this film look like it was shot by an amateur with a camcorder that anyone could own. Even some of the grain that was apparent in both the theatrical and DVD versions is missing, which in any other type of film would be an improvement, but here sort of takes away it’s intended gritty realism - but hey, who cares? So long as we can see that awesome monster better, it could be shot in 3-D and I’ll still suspend my disbelief long enough to ‘feel’ this film.

As for sound, it’s the same double-edge sword. Whereas we’ve already accepted the fact going into the film, that there is no way that this tiny amateur camcorder can record sound like this, it’s not such an obstacle to get over. After watching the standard DVD and thinking that the monster’s attacks weren’t nearly loud enough (certainly not as loud as it was in the theater), Blu-ray has corrected that with its TRU HD sound system. This is definitely one to pop in to demonstrate the sound that only Blu-ray is capable of. Shit will fall off the walls if you turn it up loud enough and Grandpa Simpson may even pipe in with a “Turn…it…down!” It’s that powerful. It should be since the loudness of sound plays a huge part in unsettling you (much like that of the aliens in the recent War of the Worlds).

As for extras, it’s unfortunately the same as the standard DVD release, though there is one feature exclusive to Blu-Ray that some will find either cool or stupid. I found it to pretty damn cool. Though this still includes an ample amount of supplements, I say “unfortunate” because you just know that this film is going to get re-released with even more supplements in the future (which appears to be standard procedure).

This practice is justified with standard DVD when a single disc becomes a double disc because of the amount of information that will fit on a standard disc. With Blu-ray, though, we all know that you can fit up to six times the amount of information of a single standard DVD, so why not give it all to us now - especially considering the price difference between the two formats. On the plus side, all of the features were originally filmed in HD, so here we have them in perfect clarity and in a film that relies heavily on digital imagery. This is a major improvement.

Document 01.18.08: The Making of Cloverfield and Cloverfield Visual Effects are two of the longer supplements on the disc, running approximately 30 minutes each. While Document includes interviews with JJ Abrams, the cast, and the director, Visual Effects focuses more on the technical aspects of the film. Both are above average features as they give a lot of information that viewers can benefit from.

The shorter extras are also worth viewing. I saw it! It’s Alive! It’s Huge! is easily the coolest feature on the disc as it not only gives you a better look at the somewhat elusive creature, but it also explains why it acts the way it does. Knowing that the creature is basically a frightened baby going through abandonment issues really makes you look at it’s behavior in a whole new way.

The alternate endings and deleted scenes, per usual, are justified as being omitted, though I do recommend viewing the alternate endings with the commentary as it explains what little was changed. There are also some bloopers on hand with Cloverfun. Add to this an informative commentary by its creator, JJ Abrams, and you have a decent amount of supplements that should satisfy most customers.

As for the exclusive feature titled Special Investigation Mode, you get the option of viewing the film along with a government affiliated GPS tracking device on the side of the screen, informing you of where the creature is, the heroes are, and the location of the incoming military. You also get little blurbs of ‘live’ information (as opposed to film trivia) from the government, including character statistics and analysis of the events unfolding. It’s a lot like watching a DVD with pop-up trivia, only here the information (which is ultimately fictional) is played out as real. It’s supplements like this that justify the extra price of Blu-ray as it’s something that couldn’t have fit on any standard DVD single disc release.

It’s pretty much a no-brainer for this release whether you’re a fan of the film or just a fan of the format. The suspension of disbelief needed was already established in both its theatrical and standard DVD release. With Blu-ray, you may have to keep reminding yourself a little more often, “It’s only a home movie…It’s only a home movie…It’s only a home movie.”

YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN

Written by Hombre Divertido

You can mess with the Zohan all you want, but under no circumstances should you ever pay money or spend time on this film.

In my review of Leatherheads I had touted it as the worst movie of the year. Zohan makes Leatherheads look Oscar-worthy. How the brilliant comedic minds of writers Adam Sandler, Robert Smigel, and Judd Apatow were able to take such a ripe premise, and spend 113 minutes yielding so few laughs, is in itself quite amazing.

In this disaster Sandler plays the Zohan, a superhuman commando who longs to leave the Middle East for peaceful life in the U.S. as a hair stylist. In a battle with his arch nemesis The Phantom (John Turturro, who continues to take roles that distance himself from a career as an actor), the Zohan manages to fake his death and make his way to America where he does indeed become a hair stylist and more.

There is little else here. The cast is talented, but even the usually funny Rob Schneider is left to chew scenery. Some of the bits would not work regardless as they just go on too long. The scene in which the Zohan is attempting to prove himself at the salon by insuring that no hair ends up on the floor is a perfect example. It is smile-worthy, but is completely overdone. Director Dennis Dugan, whose credits primarily consist of Sandler vehicles or productions, appears to be completely in over his head here, though the ultimate blame has to go to the writers. This material simply isn’t funny.

There are some interesting casting choices as well. Michael Buffer as the rich American trying to tear down the neighborhood where the Zohan now resides has the audience waiting for a “Let’s Get Ready To Crum-ble!” in reference to his career. It is equally disturbing seeing John McEnroe dance with his shirt off, and Mrs. Garrett (Charlotte Rae) from The Facts of Life in a stage of undress. They did manage to make Chris Rock look unfunny, Mariah Carey look stiffer than usual, and give Barry (Ernie from My Three Sons) Livingston a nice role.

On the bright side; the cinematography is pleasant to look at, and the soundtrack is fun.

Young kids may find the physical antics of the Zohan amusing; unfortunately the crude and sexual content should preclude their attendance.

Recommendation: No, No, No! Being tied up and forced to watch Billy Madison and Mr. Deeds on TBS would be more enjoyable than messing with the Zohan again.

OTIS

Written by Fantasma el Rey

The senior prom looms and all poor Otis wants is to take the lovely “Kim” as his date. He has the kick-ass tux, the hot car, and those wicked dance moves. All he needs is Kim and her family to say yes. Too bad Otis is a complete psycho and his prom was twenty years ago. So follow me now, if you dare, into the sick and twisted world of Otis. I shall be your guide on the ten-peso tour of the dark comedy, horror movie that turns the happy suburban sitcom world on edge as well as provides a new look at a played-out genre.

Otis, directed by Tony Krantz, is a clever play on the gore fest, teen slashers that most folks love and tend to think is what horror should be. It opens straight away with whom the serial killer is, how he tortures his victims, and why he does what he does to them as he catches it all on camera. After the accidental death of victim number five, we even get to see how he abducts the girls. So with that, we’re not spending the film looking for a killer, leaving what happens next the fun of Otis and why I kept watching for just over an hour and a half.

Otis (Bostin Christopher) and his new “Kim,” real name Riley (Ashley Johnson), he names them all “Kim,” begin to spend quality time in his torture garage, where he builds different makeshift sets to act out his courtship. He asks her out after the football game, takes her to a movie, and drives her around in his cooler-than-ice Trans Am. He is even proper enough to ask her parents for permission to escort her to the prom. What a guy, just a sweet kid really, who has gone a bit nuts after his parents have died and he is watched over by his older brother (played brilliantly by Kevin Pollak), who has a life of his own.

The family of Otis’ latest captive (father Daniel Stern, mother Illeana Douglas, brother Jared Kusnitz) decides to get involved as days go by and the seemingly inept and rude F.B.I. agents have no leads. The family takes matters into their own hands after receiving a call from the now-free Kim, who escaped on the hilariously sad prom night. So with Riley safe in the hospital and armed with household weapons and an evil, vengeful plan from Hell, they skulk off to the run-down residence of one Otis Broth.

Once inside the fun really begins as they wait for Otis to arrive after a long shift of pizza delivery. The door opens and the family rains down bloody havoc on the savage that abused and raped their loved one, torturing him to a brutal end; too bad it’s Otis’ brother. Oops. Once they find this out, the family of crazed killers must cover their tracks and stay cool.

Twisting, twisting, the story goes as Otis discovers the video of his mean-spirited brother’s demise and the Feds find out the truth to boot. But have no fear the Feds are hep and understand the wrath of a family in pain; they let them slide and do confide that if they could, they would do the same. No charges pressed and no striped suits to detest so all ends happily ever after, right? Wrong. What of Otis and his fate? We know he must avenge the death of his brother and reclaim his “Kim,” the genre demands this. Yet, alas my fiends that is a story for another film or is it?

Seriously that’s how it ends, well pretty much. I can’t spoil the very end of the film for you, Ghoulies, you’ll have to see it for yourselves. I do hope that Otis goes without a sequel though; leaving the film as it is gives it more meaning. A “part two,” which I do admit could be interesting if we get more of a back story about the original Kim, would put it in the same bag as all the other stupid movies it pokes fun at. I would hate to see it go on and on past its potency much like the horror films and spoofs that go beyond a second outing.

The uncut DVD has a few extras that are interesting like the audio commentary from director Krantz and writer Erik Jenderson. Two good extras to look upon are the “festive” alternate ending and the showing of the movie that Otis brings Kim to. Those two add a bit more to the movie as far as what Big O does to his girls and the alt. ending makes you wonder which is best. The DVD also includes a making of featurette with a closer look at what the cast and crew think of the film. So check it out I did and got a kick out of it once I got past the gore for gore sake's, which isn’t all that much anyway.

JUMPER

Written by Pollo Misterioso

Like teleportation, we are thrown into Jumper with a “whoosh” of information and left a little bit shaken. Unfortunately, the rest of the film never really regains a firm footing.

Based on a novel by science-fiction writer Steven Gould, Jumper, directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity) introduces us to the life of David Rice (Hayden Christensen), a teleporter, or jumper, who must try to survive in a world where he is being hunted by paladins, i.e. people that kill jumpers.

Before credits are rolled, an older David tells us of his past and his first encounter with teleportation. During a near fatal accident, he teleports himself to his town library and realizes that this secret cannot be told to anyone, so he leaves. Years later, David is living in a beautiful apartment in New York City, where he can be anywhere in the world. When he journeys home and meets up with his childhood sweetheart Millie (Anna Sophia Robb) whom he takes on a trip to Rome, he gets himself in trouble with another jumper and the paladins, headed by Roland played by Samuel L. Jackson.

David is a stubborn and pompous young man. It is very hard to like a character that lives a life so privileged without consequences and who doesn’t seem to care about anyone else but himself. In fact, when Millie is re-introduced into his life, she asks no questions of where he has been, but falls in love with him anyway.

The fight becomes part of a war between good and evil, right and wrong. But Roland wants to kill David just for being different; David has only committed small crimes, not worthy of a death sentence. There is never an explanation of why he is being hunted. Roland has an intense hatred of jumpers and puts himself in a position to restore morality and normalcy to humanity. Apparently, jumpers take advantage of a normal society, but they have supernatural powers, why not use them?

The fantasy of this film is incredible. David moves from London to Rome to Egypt in a way that is pleasing and fun to watch. But these escapist moments are overdone and become meaningless once they are repeated so many times.

Even with beautiful CGI techniques and awesome action scenes, the story is so loosely put together that it becomes more unbelievable than its premise. There are holes in the back-stories and no development within the characters, so the jumping becomes the most interesting thing to watch. Whoosh.

With the idea of unlimited travel and hints of paranoia and discrimination Jumper should make for an awesome sci-fi action film, but it travels as fast as David, and not all of us can catch up.

The DVD extras on “Jumper” include commentary by the director and producers along with deleted scenes. But there are many extras that one should take a look at if they wanted more from the film. These include “Making an Actor Jump” which explains how they figured out to teleport someone. This is very helpful and interesting for anyone that wants to know more about the techniques used in action films.

27 DRESSES

Written by Pollo Misterioso

Apparently everyone has marriage on the mind, but this is not new. Hollywood loves the idea of a happy endings and that means tying the knot to secure it. Not saying that this is an outdated idea, but when it is forced down young women’s throats that women can only be happy when married, it leaves you with a more uncomfortable feeling than a bad bridesmaid dress.

27 Dresses stars Katherine Heigl and is directed by Anne Fletcher, a famous choreographer, and features Edward Burns and James Marsden as the leading men. That is a nice little cast, but pretty faces only go so far.

We begin with the back-story of Jane’s (Heigl) obsession with weddings. She sees them as a calling; the same way great artists or composers are drawn to their craft. Flash forward and she is a New York assistant to a self-made businessman George (Burns) whom she is in love with. Her true calling is weddings, not only being the maid of honor, but also submersing herself into every aspect of the occasion. And yet, for someone that claims weddings are her calling, she is still unhappy. When she introduces her sister to George, they fall madly in love and Jane is then asked to plan the wedding for her sister to the man she is in love with. In the middle of all this, she meets Kevin Doyle, her favorite wedding announcement writer, who falls for her, but uses her to further his career.

It is not that this film did not have good intentions, it’s just that all the ingredients weren’t mixed right—and that is frustrating in a predictable genre. Heigl’s character seems to be the perfect leading lady, but she comes off as pathetic and self-loathing. Desperation is never fun to watch on screen, especially when it deals with marriage. The biggest problem is her lack of action in any situation that she is in. The whole world knows she is in love with her boss, but she does nothing. She claims to have a strong bond with her sister, but she says nothing. She is left pouting and doing things she doesn’t want to do.

The only smart character in the film, Kevin (Marsden) ends up getting punished for his actions and made to look ridiculous. He is always the voice of reason, even coaching Jane to say “no” because she is simply too nice. He gets what he wants, makes mistakes and falls in love, all without pouting or being untrue to himself.

Beneath the veil of marriage comes the very important theme of one’s own happiness and the idea of knowing when to say “no.” But even this very important backbone to the film, is never developed and at the climax of the movie, when Jane finally says something to her sister, she is punished and must pick up the pieces. The film is about being true to oneself, but Jane only gets that when she is the one walking down the isle.

Every single girl gets a strange slap of reality after attending a wedding, questions of when and to whom one will get married run through our heads. In 27 Dresses Jane keeps saying how much she loves marriage and weddings, but really she is passively hinting at her own need for a perfect wedding. But marriage isn’t the ultimate happiness; one must be true to themselves. 27 Dresses tries to remain cute and pleasing to watch, but it doesn’t really know what it is trying to say, and like a slap of reality from weddings, it’s uncomfortable.

The DVD extras for this film are definitely for lovers of weddings and dresses. These include deleted scenes from the film, a making of, along with a couple of featurettes that are fun to watch. A favorite being “You’ll Never Wear that Again” which gets into all of the dresses that were chosen for this film.

THE BUCKET LIST

Written by Pollo Misterioso

Rob Reiner is good at making feel-good movies. Somehow they always make us cry and laugh during the same viewing. The Bucket List is more proof of Reiner’s working model, but it also brings up interesting views of age, life, and family.

Starring Jack Nicholson as a billionaire named Edward and Morgan Freeman as a worn-down mechanic named Carter, these two pair up as the most unlikely of friends, and it works.

Both of these men find out that they have fatal cancer and will pass away within the year. They are in the same hospital room when they are both diagnosed and decide after their short time together that they will create a “bucket list” of all the things that they want to do before they die. With that, Carter says goodbye to his wife and Edward (who obviously has enough money to do all that they desire) are off. They travel to China, to France, and even to the Himalayas for Mt. Everest. But skydiving and tattooing are also a part of the list. Then there are the more personal goals, dealing with family and the ones that you love.

Both of these actors are phenomenal. Morgan Freeman’s voice is so reassuring, that with his opening narration to the film there is a sense that this movie is for everyone. Nicholson is hilarious to watch. Some of his expressions are priceless and with one eyebrow raise, he is your best friend and your worst enemy. By casting these two well-established actors, the film becomes inviting and people want to see it.

But these actors have clearly aged and that is what the film is about. The glamour is stripped away and you are left with a new pair of best friends that have been your best friends for years. Both Freeman and Nicholson are embracing their journey through Hollywood and now they get to sit back and play aging men. Piece of cake.

Besides coming to terms with one's own death, there are many other issues of the adult world that are explored in this movie. Carter is trying to come to terms with his wife, his high school sweetheart and the only woman that he has ever been with. It is a different kind of love that he must find and come to terms with. As for Edward, he has alienated everyone that he knows and does not want to die alone.

As the men cross off each item on the list, they test themselves and each other. But as Carter says to Edward “find the joy in your life,” the audience is left to reflect on what happiness, love and our joy we have.

This film is part of the perfect formula that Reiner has produced countless times. But the thing is, it works. “The Bucket List” makes you believe in the good in people and the struggles that we all go through to become better. And that is always nice to watch.

The DVD extras for The Bucket List include an interesting interview with the screenwriter Justin Zackham called “Writing a Bucket List” about his own bucket list that he made. There is also web access when the DVD is played in a computer and John Mayer music video for the song “Say.”

WHOSE LAND IS THIS?

Written by Guest Reviewer Jennifer Dysart

As an hour-long special made for TV in 1997 (and reedited in 2005), Whose Land is This? uncovers the unique situation of contemporary land claims in British Columbia. Most of Canada’s land mass was divided up in treaties signed by the European newcomers and the Aboriginal peoples in the late 1800s and early 1900s that fundamentally acknowledged but diminished Aboriginal people’s rights to the land. However, this documentary effectively uncovers why land claims in B.C. are a current-day hot topic despite that bit of Canadian history: it is a little-known (but much studied) fact that unlike the other provinces, B.C. failed to deal with the legal issue of Aboriginal land title prior to joining confederation of Canada in 1871. Except for a few treaties that covered small parcels of land on Vancouver Island issued by Hudson’s Bay Company representative Sir James Douglas, B.C. did not make formal agreements that identified who has rights to what in B.C., which sets the stage for the high tensions that surround the issue more than a century later.

The filmmaker, Richard Hersley, interviews a wide range of people, including elders, academics who have studied the Aboriginal and provincial history and politics, and Aboriginal leaders who were integral to the long battle to have the issue revisited in Nation to Nation negotiations and/or litigation. What the experts agree is that indeed there is a strong case for land claims that will redesign the borders of the province.

As an educational special made for TV, this documentary takes a journalistic approach with its unidentified narrator, abundance of archival photos, and oral recounts of written and oral history. The research is impeccable, and the film excels at peeling away the layers of governmental jargon, media anxiety, and general misunderstanding that has plagued the land-claims issue for decades. Yet, with a re-edit completed in 2005, Hersley might have explored what developments (or lack of them) have surfaced in the eight years since the documentary was first shot.

Through the on-the-street-interviews with strangers of various ethnicities in Vancouver, B.C., filmmaker Richard Hersley gently teases out the discomfort and lack of awareness that non-indigenous Canadians have of the history of First Nations land claims and juxtaposes them with voices of the younger Aboriginal population. Their politically and culturally strong opinions about the meaning of land ownership in B.C. exemplifies that the question Whose Land is This? is worth asking, regardless of the decade in which it is asked.

The DVD can be ordered through the First Nations Films website.