The Pursuit of Happyness

Will Smith has something in common with Martin Scorcese, a nagging feeling of insecurity in relation to their work. They feel that, even though they are rich and successful beyond their wildest dreams, there is still something for them to prove before they can say: "Hollywood, I've arrived!". That 'something' is a paperweight in the shape of a little golden man named Oscar. Hollywood hands out these gongs each year in a ceremonial ritual of professional back-slapping, unrivalled in its opulence. The glitterati, the illuminati and the papparazzi all gather annually to worship at the red-carpet adorned altar of celebrity, pay due homage to the deserving winners, and quickly forget about the other nominees (unless they make a fashion faux pas that is!)

Scorcese has unashamedly made clear his desire to be an Oscar winner, and anyone who doubts this ambition need only watch 'The Aviator'. It's a Scorcese film, but not as we know it, as if Marty has taken his signature style and tailored it, made the scale a whole lot grander, added more emotional punch, and replacing the contemporary soundtrack with strings and things orchestal. The Aviator is a great movie, but 'The Departed' is more like vintage Scorcese, and arguably all the better for it. Why try to be something you're not? Ironically, in giving up the Oscar-chasing, and reverting to the style and themes with which he made his name, Scorcese has given himself a great chance of actually picking up the best director gong this year.

Will Smith is tired of just being asked 'who are you wearing?' on the red carpet of the Oscars. He longs once again to describe the 'honour' of 'just being nominated' as he strides purposefully towards the auditorium, grinning for the paps. You see, once upon a time, Big Willie suffered the bitter experience of putting his heart and soul into the performance of Muhammad Ali, possibly the world's greatest ever sportsman, and then losing out on Oscar night to Denzel Washington... a tough break, and 'Training Day' was over-rated and over-hyped in my book.. Also 'Ali' was a Michael Mann movie, and a biopic for god's sake, they always win Oscars! The Big Willie may actually have had grounds to feel a little aggrieved.

So what is the Willennium to do? Well, whether it was the tortuous creative process, the physical and emotional strain he suffered under the pressure of the responsibility of portraying Muhammad Ali, or the wounds inflicted by the globally simulcasted Oscar-night bitch-slap, W2K decided to give up acting for a while, choosing instead to 'appear' in 'Men in Black 2', 'Bad Boys 2', 'I, Robot', and as a voice in 'Shark Tale'. (Willie Will's character in Shark Tale was even called 'Oscar'). Anyway you get the point. The Fresh Prince was possibly feeling a little inadequate, and in need of more box-office success to re-establish his credentials. Whether or not this was his main goal, the movies I mentioned above were all box-office hits..

Then came 'Hitch', a combination of huge box-office success, and also, some semblance of acting effort from Will Willy Big 2K, or whatever he's calling himself these days (Snoopy Snoopy Dog Dog?). Hitch was a romantic comedy, and it proved very popular for Mr. Smith. So popular in fact, that he and his agent now believe that he has a viable platform to push for the Oscar...

And so along comes 'The Pursuit of Happyness', an unabashed 'oscar vehicle' to leave all other Oscar-vehicle pretenders in the shade. The Aviator, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, dude, these are your bog-standard Oscar vehicles. 'Happyness' has been on pimp my ride, baby, and may as well quite literally be a letter to the Academy on Will Smith's behalf:


Dear Members of the Academy,

Please find enclosed a biopic of a 'John Everyman' character who starts from nothing, believes in himself, and follows his dream, and all this despite unbelievable odds. He takes care of his kid no matter what, and did I mention that he believes in himself? Even though the odds are stacked against him? Ok, well, anyway, Will Smith would like to draw your attention to the fact that not only does he appear in this movie, but he even acts, and quite well in some parts too.

The Big Willie feels it is only fair that you should give him the Best Actor Oscar ahead of Sacha Baron Cohen, Will Ferrell, and Aaron Eckhart because, let's face it, they were in comedies! You can't give an Oscar to a comedy?! Also, Leonardo diCaprio can't win it, because he played a criminal. I mean, what kind of message does that send?! Plus, The Big Fresh Willenium is waay more Everyman than that guy!

Finally, I would implore you not to give the award to a dictator such as Forest Whitaker. Not only did he play a really bad man, one of his eyes is kind of funny. Is that the kind of Hollywood image we want to project to a billion people? (I'm just saying is all.)

Yours hopefully (fingers crossed!)

Agent to The Big Fresh Willie Willenium W2k Prince.


Ok, I should talk about the movie really.. (*sigh*). Will Smith plays a guy called Chris Gardner, who is in the process of hitting rock-bottom. His wife (Thandie Newton in a particularly annoying role) thinks he is a failure, and, for most of the movie, she has a point. He struggles to make a living and support his kid, played very well, in a kid actor kind of way, by Smith's actual chiseler, Jaden Smith.

So we know the movie is set in the 80's, because Willie plays with a Rubik's cube in about four scenes, and watches Ronald Reagan give a presidential address on TV in the first five minutes of the picture. (For those who are unfamiliar with the idea of a movie, this is called 'setting the scene', people, got that?). Although he is a salesman, Smith has an ambition to be a stock-broker. So he applies for an internship, where one intern out of twenty will be selected for the job. Doesn't that sound like the odds are stacked against him? Doesn't it? Can you guess what might happen? Can you?

Ok, I'm reverting to cynicism here, but despite the paint-by-numbers plot, script and characters, the movie occasionally hits an emotional note or two. Also, Smith does deliver a decent performance, but ... (trying.. to restrain.. cynicism... failing...) isn't that the only part of this film the marketing men wanted us to care about in the first place? Aside from a few good scenes, the movie is inane, predictable, and essentially, two hours of your life. Do you want to invest two hours of your life and ten euros/dollars in Will Smith?

In all honesty, this movie offended me. It has 'target demographics' in its very genes, is a thinly veiled academy showpiece for Will Smith, and insults the intelligence of the audience with its twee pop-psychology, Dr. Phil, cheap seven-step, self-help message of 'believe in yourself and chase your dreams etcetera etcetera.' Hero wins, Music swells, fade out, and I go back to the box-office to ask for a refund.


The Verdict: Has an Oscar vehicle ever been more clearly defined than this? Smith is good, but he won't win. Let me be clear here: look into my eyes: 'doon't gooo seee thiis...'.
The Rating: 5/10

Pan's Labyrinth

Where movies and music are concerned, I have a real soft spot for artists that demonstrate the capacity to improve, to develop and to produce something better each time they make the decision to sit at the drawing-board. There is a reason for this, and it is the fact that this type of artist is taking a risk, leaving their comfort zone, and perhaps attempting to tread on unfamiliar ground. Risk is universal, we all know what is involved. It can be exhilarating and worrisome in equal measures, and the possible outcomes can, in this case, define careers. The downside may be that your creative departure is not accepted by your audience, and your career is set back by a few years. However, the upside could be not only that a whole new audience comes to discover the great new stuff you've been putting together, but also that you get better at what you do! At the end of the day, isn't that the point of creative endeavours?

Hollywood agents would guffaw at this suggestion, but Tinseltown is over-populated with people in creative comfort zones, their decisions depending more on demographics and dollar signs than any artistic instinct. Think of the litany of Jerry Bruckheimer productions over the last ten years, and you can see the level of creative risk involved. Any creative leaps forward in this long list of big-budget multiplex-fests are generally due to the special effects teams involved. I associate Johnny Depp with the category of creative risk-takers, and admire this about him, but even he can succumb to the relaxing creative time-out offered by a Bruckheimer production (or three!).

However, it is a measure of Depp's talent that, in a movie where most 'stars' would get their sushi chefs to telephone in a performance, Depp delivers something iconic to the world of cinema. I would argue, however, that his acting ability is equally due to the risks he has taken over the course of his career and his willingness to try difficult projects, as to any innate talent or simple star charisma. Where Dean Martin had charisma, James Dean also had real acting talent, and there is a difference. Look down through their careers, and you see the vastly different levels of challenge they gave themselves.

Guillermo del Toro demonstrated more than the seeds of real creative talent when he directed the beautiful, but flawed 'El Espinoza del Diablo', or The Devil's Backbone. Set against the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War, this suspenseful tale starts off on a track that makes you think it will be 'The Spanish Sixth Sense', and then careers off wildly along different paths, finally ending up like something a little more from the mind of Robert Rodriguez. However, amid the dense story, there is definitely something there. Comparisons are difficult at best, but 'The Devil's Backbone' defiantly resists being compared to almost anything, with a stubborn mediterranean way all its own. In the uniqueness of its style, it made a name for Guillermo del Toro. And this is satisfying as, prior to this, del Toro was really only known for having helmed a couple of horrors, to mixed critical reaction ('Cronos' good, 'Mimic' baad). But del Toro was all the time gaining experience, both in Hollywood and through his native language in Spain and Mexico.

Following the Devil's Backbone, del Toro took up residence in Hollywood, and promptly gave us the over-rated 'Blade 2' and the criminally under-rated 'Hellboy'. Blade 2 felt like an experiment in special effects for me, and while there was much to like in terms of new ideas, the movie itself didn't really grab me, possibly because I was looking for something a little less fantasy, and a little more gritty, like the first Blade movie, but there you go. With 'Hellboy' on the other hand, we have a franchise that Del Toro can make his own, and he is well and truly on the case, with a sequel entitled 'Hellboy 2 - The Golden Army' out next year. Possibly for fans of the comic-book genre only, Hellboy is a tongue-in-cheek actioner, that lovingly recreates a character as portrayed in the comic book.. something that Hollywood repeatedly gets wrong.. (I'm still quite bitter about 'Judge Dredd', that should have been a good movie dammit)

Before I reveal any more of my own nerd credentials, I'll get on to Pan's Labyrinth. I don't want to give anything important away about the plot, because I'm going to recommend you go and see it. However, I will say that del Toro, who wrote, directed and produced 'El Labyrinto del Fauno', has taken a real creative leap forward with this movie.

The visual style he has developed with his Hollywood special effects fests is used to great effect here, and certain scenes are like little else seen on screen before, resembling Tim Burton's style, but with an extra dash of horror added to give the audience a real nervous edge. This is not only wondrously beautiful, it is vaguely threatening, and in the more fantastic scenes the audience is never allowed to relax.

You will have probably heard that the movie is essentially a fairy tale, but this is definitely not a kid's movie folks! The story is very much targeted at adults, even though the central character is a young girl. The 'Alice in Wonderland' fantasy feel to her part in the first half of the film is offset by the real-life struggles of her mother and the actions of her newly adopted father in reality. In Ofelia's newly adopted father, or 'El Capitan', as he is called throughout the movie, del Toro may just have created a truly iconic bad guy to add to the cinematic annals. He is very much 'the bad man' of the piece, and Sergi Lopez delivers a performance that is chillingly restrained, and very frightening.

I should point out that the film is at times unflinchingly violent, and this may turn some people off. Personally, I feel that screen violence should never be taken out of context, and that it's difficult to pin down what makes certain scenes more difficult to watch than others. The 'Reservioir Dogs' ear chopping scene never really bothered me for example, whereas the gritty torture scene in 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley' left me officially traumatised. There are scenes in Pan's Labyrinth that may horrify, but there was only one scene where I felt it was slightly excessive, reminiscent of one of those 'Goodfellas' style beatings. It is more the threat of impending violence that really chilled me in Pan's Labyrinth, especially from the relentlessly wicked El Capitan.

Like 'Devil's Backbone', 'Pan's Labyrinth' is set against the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War. Ofelia, the main character, is a young girl whose father has died recently. Her mother has now re-married - unfortunately for both of them - to a certain fascist Capitan Vidal and they relocate to Vidal's country manor, which is also a fascist command centre, tackling the problem of the resistance. Ofelia is a reader, and takes refuge in her many fairy-tale books to avoid the painful reality she is faced with. Immediately after arriving in the countryside she begins discovering strange, magical things..

'Pan's Labyrinth' is tightly written, well performed, and beautfiully brought to life on screen. The themes it tackles are universal - art reflecting life, fantasy versus reality, children's relationships with adults - but the story is so timeless it is difficult to believe that del Toro has written it himself. Like hearing a really great song for the first time, you have this nagging feeling you've heard it before.

So, as a football commentator might say, all credit to del Toro, for he has without a doubt produced his best work to date. And it is not an easy piece of cinema by any means, either in terms of production, or indeed in terms of an experience for the audience. However, a simple rule of investment states that, the greater the risk, the greater the potential return. In this case, del Toro has gone out on a limb, and taken a creative risk. I recommend you take a risk, and go see Pan's Labyrinth, because the returns are generous.


The Verdict: It is at times frightening, tense, violent and sad, but overall, Pan's Labyrinth is a beautiful story, exceptionally well told.
The Rating: 9/10

Shock new James Bond!!

In a break with tradition, and in advance of the Pan's Labyrinth review, PCMR has felt compelled to make a posting without even a hint of a movie review... the reason for this? Well, who would have thought it, but it appears Daniel Craig has been replaced as James Bond... you have to say though, his replacement looks more than capable...



Kudos to the folks at Obsessed With Film for finding this little gem.

Apocalypto

Over the last couple of years, we've seen extensive media coverage of a number of quite public celebrity meltdowns. The Tom Cruise Is Nuts website was in existence long before the man jumped up and down on Oprah's couch, but that episode prompted worldwide questioning of whether Cruise really was a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. His subsequent media tour to promote 'War of the Worlds' ironically ended up alienating him from Steven Spielberg, due to his irrepressible desire to hold forth on such topics as the relevance of scientology, and, even more bizarrely, Brooke Shields' post-natal depression.

The manner of Cruise's marriage to Katie Holmes, and also the subsequent mysterious birth of their baby, has done little to dim the media spotlights surrounding the Cruiser. In fact, although he was dropped by his studio following his fallout with Spielberg, he has since been appointed at the reins of a large Hollywood production company, and PCMR would argue that he is now even more famous than ever before. (Incidentally, now that Cruise has been bestowed with the power of the green-light, what price on the imminent development of 'Battlefield Earth 2'? We live in fear!)

Mel Gibson, too, has had a very public meltdown recently. Driving under the inflence, escaping from police officers on foot, a rather comprehensively loopy anti-semitic rant, and the now legendary 'sugar tits' remark added up to a story the National Enquirer couldn't have invented in their wildest dreams. In one of it's more prescient moments, SouthPark pre-empted this episode of lunacy with one of their own, lampooning Gibson for being completely bonkers after the success of 'The Passion of the Christ'. In the sensitively titled episode 'The Passion of the Jew', Gibson appears in Braveheart make-up dressed only in his underwear, ranting and babbling to the four mountain town kids after they demand their seven dollars admission fee back. Stan, shocked, declares that "this guy is crazy." PCMR could be wrong on this call, but believes that this episode was made before the whole sugar tits debacle... possibly following either Trey Parker or Matt Stone running into Gibson in some Hollywood get-together.

That's not to say that being crazy is necessarily bad for the potential of Gibson's artistic output. I would argue that his decision to limit his appearances in front of the camera in favour of working behind it, is actually evidence of a rational mind. His more recent forays as an actor ('Conspiracy Theory', 'The Patriot', 'We Were Soldiers') have generally been in awful movies. 'Signs' wasn't all that bad, but you get the impression his acting career would soon be in need of the potential box office jolt provided by Lethal Weapon 5, god help us..

His career behind the camera, however, has been an entirely different matter. After cutting his teeth with 'The Man Without a Face', Gibson made a giant creative leap forward with 'Braveheart' two years later, and promptly picked up an Oscar for his troubles. Possibly due to the difficulty of following up such a career-defining project, Gibson waited some ten years before making his next directorial venture, the ubiquitous 'Passion of the Christ'. Vilified and adored in equal measure, 'The Passion' provoked extreme reaction from zealots and pagans alike, proof that religious themes will not lose their controversial edge for some time to come. Despite the personal and professional vilification Gibson endured with the Passion, it went on to rake in cash hand over fist at the box office, and was probably the biggest hit of 2005, considering it's relatively meagre $30 million budget.

And so, we come to Gibson's difficult decision to follow up what will most likely be the biggest success of his career. With the creative and financial freedom afforded by one of the biggest movies of 2005, Mel announces... Apocalypto, a film about the implosion of the Mayan people, without a single recognisable Hollywood name, and shot entirely in the ancient Mayan language... PCMR can only conclude that Mel is straddling the line between complete lunacy and cinematic genius here, but after seeing the trailer a few months ago, I was definitely keen to evaluate the results of Gibson's potential folly... Now, finally, the results are in. PCMR has survived a viewing of 'Apocalpyto'... so what's it to be: depraved lunatic or misunderstood genius?

Well, the idea of making a movie like Apocalypto, depicting the demise of the ancient Mayan people, was probably considered to be lunacy in Hollywood. I'm sure the critics that Gibson attracted with both 'the Passion' and his D.U.I. episode were rubbing their hands with glee at the the likely imminence of Mel's career implosion. However, the fact that Gibson even managed to get the movie made, and with a budget of $40 million dollars to boot, must be a reflection of his strength of conviction in the movie's worth and relevance. So at this stage of proceedings, the jury is out on Gibson's sanity, and they're out probably out watching the movie before they deliver their verdict.

The movie is essentially a great piece of cinematic entertainment, and I wouldn't hesitate to compare it with Braveheart or even Gladiator, in terms of its affectionate, pain-staking reconstruction of an ancient culture. Gibson obviously has a lot of love for the Mayan culture, and from very early on in the picture, we see these tribespeople as individuals and can understand them, despite the obvious disparities between this culture and ours. For example, the tribesmen work together, they play pranks on each other, they are family-oriented, and they gather round camp-fires for a good story and a bit of a dance... these are basic versions of activities we still enjoy today... although the influence of technology has changed the appearance, fundamentally, it's the same thing.

Apocalypto is the story of Jaguar Paw and his tribe. Their peaceful tribal life is disrupted when a nomad neighbouring tribe passses through their hunting grounds in the first minutes of the movie. This tribe do not have aggressive intentions, however, but make it clear to Jaguar Paw that their lands and people were ravaged, and they need somewhere new to settle.

This episode has a profound impact on Jaguar Paw, played with ferocious intensity by Rudy Youngblood. His father sees the impact on him immediately, and advises his son how important it is not to let the disease of fear into his blood, for it pollutes, and is contagious. However, Jaguar Paw can't shake the feeling, and it proves to be portentous.

Apocalypto has received much critical press describing the level of on-screen violence, and the degree to which the director really shows us what is actually happening in the more violent scenes. I have to say however, and perhaps I was prepared to be shocked, but I didn't see any violent scenes that shocked me. There is one rather prolonged battle scene, but the evocative moments are not from the violence on screen, rather from the visceral emotions that the battle engenders. Families separated, loved ones being captured or killed, this was more traumatic to me than the actual violence, which to be honest, fit quite well with the story. There is one scene reminiscent of Wallace's torture in Braveheart, but the scene in Apocalytpo is far milder than that, for example, and PCMR doesn't recall hearing such a critical revulsion to the violence in Braveheart when it was released.

While the first act is set against the backdrop of tribal life in the jungle, the middle of the movie is the most visually stunning. This section of the movie sees Jaguar Paw travel to the stone-built centre of the Mayan people, where thousands toil on the construction of a huge stone city, and human sacrifices are offered to the gods before the eyes of a thronging city centre. These scenes are incredibly well put together and beautifully shot, and make this part of the movie quite immersive, as you're paying so much attention to the level of detail on show, it becomes quite difficult to predict what direction the story will take.

The scale of these scenes, too, is reminiscent of Gladiator. Wide shots reveal the thronging crowds, thirsty for entertainment and blood, under the guise of offering a sacrifice to their gods. This is Gibson contrasting the depraved Mayan cities with the peaceful tribes, and is a metaphor for any number of contemporary themes, none of which PCMR is going to venture!

The action in Apocalypto is very well shot, and there is a chase scene which surely will go down in the cinematic annals as one of the best. This chase is not 'The French Connection' however, for it is on foot, through the jungle. This is a signature of Mel Gibson's movies: running. Riggs had a running moment in every Lethal Weapon picture, the Scots did loads of bloody running in Braveheart, and now this! I'll forgive him this one though, for the chase scene is great, and for the third half of the movie, there really is little or no dialogue to speak of, and the action does most of the talking.

Thus, the director is the star of this movie, and the production design is the supporting actor. The script is strongest in the first third of the movie, the dialogue is so limited from then on, the action could quite easily have been shot from a story-board from about half way through. There are obvious enough weaknesses in the plot, however, such as the timescale of the action, which means Jaguar Paw experiences a couple of days that normally only reserved for the likes of Jack Bauer in '24'. That's not a major complaint however, because this is essentially an action movie after all. However, one plot point that rankled with me was in the transtion from the second to third act, where Jaguar Paw's escape becomes the chase. It felt a little forced for me, but the counter-weight is that the action continues to flow at a furious pace. The chase is quite intense, as the pursuers are never more than a few metres behind, and the jungle tends to throw up regular surprises from the flora!

Overall, Apocalypto is a great piece of entertainment, and is unique and original enough to stand proudly astride the line between genius and lunacy. It's no cinematic classic, but it is visually memorable enough to be considered a real success for Mel Gibson. I'd recommend seeing it in the cinema, but not if you're squeamish. If Gladiator was a little violent for you, then you won't like this one.

Who needs a 'Mel Gibson is Nuts' website anyway?! If he's going to continue making entertaining, visionary movies like Apocalypto, I personally couldn't care less if he was crazy.


The Verdict: Memorable, action-packed, visually amazing. Violent, but not in a gratuitous way. Worth a look, sugar tits.
The Rating: 7/10

The Squid and the Whale

Jeff Daniels is what Hollywood would refer to as a 'character actor'. In other words, he's a recognisable face, and reliable enough to turn in a decent performance, but perhaps not equipped with the adequate charisma to be a leading man, the star name top of the billing in a big-budget, flagship movie release. This label has little to do with acting ability, in common with the majority of casting decisions made in Tinseltown, but his career has certainly demonstrated an ability to tread softly and comfortably in the shadow of brighter stars. He was Keanu Reeves' partner in 'Speed', he coped admirably well opposite Jim Carrey in 'Dumb and Dumber', and he was the head of the family in 'Arachnophobia', to name but a few. The thing is, while leading men come and go, and tend to have tenuous relationships with their viewing public, the character actor's lot is altogether more secure. Indeed, Jeff Daniels has been working since the 80's amid a distinct lack of controversy, and has quietly built up an impressive resume.

In 2005, Daniels was a busy man, appearing in both the excellent 'Good Night and Good Luck' in yet another supporting turn, this time opposite George Clooney, but also in 'The Squid and the Whale' - shock! - as the leading actor. Oh wait a minute, it's a small indie flick, I get it now!

The Squid and the Whale is an austere drama about the fragmentation of a family, set against the backdrop of Brooklyn in the 80's. Daniels plays a formerly successful author, whose publishing run appears to have stalled, and is now teaching for a living. He is an intellectual snob, and disdainful of pretty much everyone without a Phd, whom he refers to as 'philistines' without a hint of irony.

Daniels' marriage to wife Joan (played by Laura Linney) has been on the rocks for some time, and finally splinters beyond repair in the first act of the movie. The break-up is complicated by the fact that Joan is now an author in her own right, and is beginning to be recognised as a serious writer, this recognition coincinding with Daniels' own downward career trajectory to the detriment of the relationship.

Unfortunately, the couple do not seem at all concerned with the effect of their break-up on their two sons, Frank and Walt. In true intellectual style, they discuss the terms of their new custody-sharing arrangements with the two boys in a rational, dignified manner, and when the young Frank, only a boy, breaks into tears, there is little tenderness shown to the boy from either parent. This theme continues throughout the picture, and Daniels' character displays a level of self-absorption and detachment from his kids that is really pretty despicable. The more time they spend in his company, the more his negative influence can be seen on their behaviour, and it's not long before things hit rock bottom for the whole family, and for the two boys in particular.

Noah Baumbach wrote 'The Squid and the Whale' as an autobiographical account of the break-up of his parents' marriage, and in my opinion, he has written a smart account of proceedings, but one that is fundamentally flawed. Daniels' character is pretty much the bad guy of the piece, and because PCMR would prefer to avoid employing pop psychology terminology in movie reviews, I'll simply say that Baumbach's parental issues have made an average movie, but not a great one.

Daniels' performance as Bernie, the downtrodden literary failure who perceives himself as superior to everyone else, and anyone who doesn't understand him as 'difficult', is quite good in the lead role. Laura Linney too, turns in half-decent support as ex-wife Joan. Of the two chips off the old block, Jesse Eisenberg is particularly good as the older of the two sons, Walt, and is the most interesting character in the movie. He viscerally experiences the break-up of his parents as an outsider to their relationship, and bears the brunt of his father's self-pity and anger at his wife, emotions which rub off on the boy, to the detriment of his relationship with his mother.

For some reason, perhaps it was the style so similar to something Wes Anderson would make (he has a 'producer' credit), I expected a Wilson brother to show up at any moment... William Baldwin has a look of Luke Wilson about him in this movie, and maybe that was the trigger for the thought.. Baldwin was pretty terrible in the role of the tennis instructor (obviously second choice when Wilson Brother II wasn't available).

So, overall, I wasn't particularly enamoured with this one. The script was smart and intellectual, sure, but like Walt in the movie, it had an air of pretentiousness about it. Also, the realistic style employed didn't sit too well with me when the younger of the two boys was suffering through a few bad moments from the psychological trauma of the break-up. There were a few scenes in the movie involving the young lad that were very difficult to watch, and I found it tough to reconcile their presence on-screen with the story as it progressed. Certainly, there was very little resolution offered, and these scenes, when they are eventually related to the boy's parents, appear to have little effect on them.

If The Squid and the Whale is a cautionary tale, it has a very obvious message: don't fuck up your kids. However, I think the real message in this movie is from Noah Baumbach, successful screen-writer, to his dad, failed author. This is the main reason I didn't really enjoy it all that much.


The verdict: Poignant in moments, great performance from Jesse Eisenberg, and a smart script, but ultimately, a little hollow for me.
The rating: 6/10

Transamerica

Change can be a painful experience. For those of you reading this in the U.K. and Ireland, you may be familiar with a show on Sky Sports on Saturday mornings named Soccer a.m. For those who may be unfamiliar, the show is essentially about football, but amid the football news and interviews, there are a number of regular sketches, one of which is a mickey-take of the Yorkshire News. Every week, a simulated newscast is transmitted from a 70's style studio, with retro effects, and of course, heavy Yorkshire accents. The point of all the stories is to mock the Yorkshiremen for their resistance to modernisation, or as the newscaster often puts it, "the ways of southerners". The refrain at the end of each bulletin is the same every week, as the newscaster winds up the story, he says "yet again ladies and gentlemen, another reminder, that change... is not good."

This spot is a jibe at stubborn males' resistance to change, but the refrain of the newscaster can be heard to be repeated in choral form by all the cast and crew members each week, almost all of them blokes, and always with a little laugh afterwards.

The mantra is popular for a good reason though, change is not easy, this is a universal truth. Humans are creatures of habit and while we like to break up our old routines every now and again, in the main, we like to be in control of any changes we encounter.

A friend of PCMR recently pointed out something that had been registering faintly with me of late, namely a trend in the type of movie reviewed on this site. Comedies and action movies, he said, is that all you watch? I attempted to defend myself, but I realised in the course of the argument that perhaps it was time for a little change in my watching habits. Time to get out of the comfort zone, and watch something a little more challenging. So, reader, you encounter PCMR in the process of change that started with 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'... let's see how it goes!

When we are introduced to Bree (Felicity Huffman's character) in Transamerica, she is in the process of what must be the most radical change a human being can endure. In the first scene of the movie, she is being interviewed by a doctor to assess whether she is ready for the final surgical step in her gender change operation. (Yes, folks, this is a long long way from Crank!). In these first, quite moving scenes we are introduced to the Bree, and almost straight away the movies two main themes are introduced, namely personal change, and the coping mechanisms we use to deal with these changes.

Almost immediately after returning home from the hospital in these early scenes, Bree receives a phone call asking for Stanley, and she quickly responds that Stanley doesn't live at this address any more. The caller tells her that Stanley's son is in jail in New York, and needs to be bailed out. This news causes Bree some distress, and we quickly fill in the gaps. Bree is, or rather was, Stanley, and was unaware of the existence of her son.

Her psychiatrist acutely observes that Bree needs to deal with this news, and deal with it before the psychiatrist can agree to let Bree go through with the op, so Bree agrees to travel to New York to bail out her son from jail. But she is very obviously still uncomfortable in her own skin, her movements and gestures are exaggeratedly female, and still exude a practiced, somewhat alien air. Her face, too is feminine, but with elements of masculinity there also, around the jaw-line and the mouth mostly. When a small child asks Bree "are you a boy or a girl", Bree breaks down, still fragile to the telling eyes of the people she meets.

When faced with the decision to tell Toby, her son, that she is in fact his father, Bree procrastinates, pretending to be a missionary from the church instead. However, the young kid is desperately in need of help, hustling as he is on the streets of New York, so Bree offers to take him to Los Angeles, hoping to deposit him at his step-father's place in Kentucky along the way.

And so begins the transamerican journey. As with all good road movies, we learn much about both the characters through the people they meet along their way, some of them ghosts from either Toby's or Bree's past, and eventually their shared origins are revealed, through Bree's family.

Huffman's performance in Transamerica is remarkable for its courage. For a glamorous actress best known for work on a show such as Desperate Housewives to simply take on such a complex, challenging role is laudable. However, for an actor or actress to deliver a performance as total as this is really quite rare. Christian Bale recently underwent a physical transformation to play an emaciated sleep-deprived factory worker in 'The Machinist', and Robert DeNiro famously piled on the extra weight to play the overweight Jake LaMotta towards the end of 'Raging Bull', but in the case of those transformations, the person you were seeing on screen was essentially the same, only with a different physical size. In Transamerica, Huffman's physical transformation is such that you actually begin to question her femininity. This is a massively brave move for an actress to take. And we're not talking Gene Hackman wearing a dress and lippy in 'The Birdcage' or Kevin Kline dancing to Y.M.C.A. in 'In or Out' here. This change is not cosmetic, Huffman literally appears to be what she is portrayed as, a trans-gender male.

In the week she spends on the road, Bree gets to know her son, albeit incognito, and also encounters her parents for the first time in god knows how long. And in this, the second act of the movie, we learn a little of why Bree is the way she is. Because family, eh? Can't choose em, can't live with em!

But all the characters in Transamerica have their problems, their secrets and their issues to deal with. In a similar manner to 'Little Miss Sunshine', the coping mechanisms employed by each character vary, as do each of their degrees of acceptance of their various problems.

The characters in the movie are all believable people, constantly in the process of getting to know themselves and each other. The script is rewarding, moving, at times funny, but always bittersweet, and the dialogue is intelligent and subtle. And Huffman's performance is heart-rendingly brilliant.

So the characters go through change in the movie, and achieve varying degrees of acceptance with their own problems, as well as each others. And after watching Transamerica, indeed after writing this review, I'd have to agree with the sentiment offered by the Yorkshire Newscaster, change is painful. But it's a fact of life, and to not accept change, be it in ourselves or in those close to us, leads to pain, secrets and generally, things that are really... not good.


The verdict: A serious, intelligent, and poignant road movie. Huffman's performance is outstanding.
The rating: 8/10

Slither

From time to time, people can be honestly seen to 'surf' the internet. The Arctic Monkeys are riding on the crest of a wave that was in part made possible from their Myspace page. The ubiquitous 'Numa Numa' kid's popularity ballooned so rapidly from a three minute internet spot he recorded miming to a europop tune, that he was eventually offered an appearance on Jay Leno. More and more companies are using viral commercials, or downloadable e-mailable versions of ads that would never air on tv, and these too have a tendency to spread like wildfire throughout office inboxes all over the world.

All these examples are variations on a theme, a commodity held in the holiest of sacred regards by movie-makers: 'internet buzz'. This is another way of referring to the interminable claptrap spouted by 'bloggers' like me, a member of a community that regards itself as slightly less inferior to the dreaded 'message-boarders'. Once the ripple of buzz is picked up on a topic, you will see forum postings, message boards abound with variations on a theme such as 'dude, OMG, like, I can't wait for this one', or 'is SOAP gona be better than LOTR???!?!' The classic example of this buzz getting out of control was prior to the release of 'Snakes on a Plane'. Now, I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on its quality, but the impression I got from seeing Sam Jackson talk it up on The Daily Show is that it's a b-movie, trying to be intentionally tongue-in-cheek, but that the idea sounded, well, pretty boring.. Why, then, did the message-boarding fanboys and bloggers embrace 'Snakes on a Plane' so fondly, giving it that most loving of internet fanboy thumbs-ups, an abbreviation (SOAP) and generating all sorts of excitement in advance of its release? Who knows folks, for the internet is a strange place. What's stranger to me though, is that a movie like Slither, which provides all the laughs and grisly enjoyment that Snakes on a Plane promised, never generated a single ripple of internet 'buzz', at least none that registered on my, um, sonar.

Slither is an irreverent comedy horror in the same vein as Sam Raimi's 'Evil Dead' trilogy, or perhaps Peter Jackson's 'Braindead'. It's a monster movie, of the genre that Troma studios have been churning out for years. For Troma movies, think 'Redneck Zombies' or 'The Toxic Avenger' and you get the idea of the tongue-in-cheek approach that they take to entertainment of this type. Slither borrows a lot from the Troma style, and indeed, one of the movie's characters is relaxing at home watching a Troma movie before she meets the monster of the piece.

Essentially, Slither doesn't take itself too seriously, and is all the more enjoyable for it. The self-awareness displayed by writer-director James Gunn probably comes from his own experience as a writer/director on Troma movies. Although he debuted with the not so memorable 'Tromeo and Juliet', Gunn did go on to bigger things, penning the script for the 1994 remake of George Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', which was a big box-office success. He also provided a bit of bankability for himself by penning the two live action 'Scooby-Doo' movies, work of a more mercenary nature perhaps, but of the type that allows you more freedom in Hollywood, freedom to do your own thing.

And with this freedom, Gunn has put together a creditable addition to the comedy-horror genre. Slither is a pastiche of homages to many well-known monster movies, with throwback scenes to movies such as Romero's 'Night of the Living Dead', 'Halloween', 'The Toxic Avenger', '28 Days Later' even, all the movies Gunn obviously has affection for.

The movie is set in a backwater southern u.s. town named 'Wheelsy', where the residents pretty much all look like zombies even before they get infected by the mutant space monster that's on the prowl. The town is policed by Bill Pardy, played by Nathan Fillion, who you might recognise from the under-rated 'Serenity', and who is soon to be seen in the questionable sequel 'White Noise: The Light'. Fillion seems to be cultivating a reputation for himself as a bit of a b-movie icon, but he gives a good account of himself in Slither.

The monster effects on display (and lets face it, they may as well be a cast member) are very good, and there are also a few genuine moments of suspense and horror amidst all the tongue-in-cheek sarcastic humour.

The story trundles along at a decent pace, and from the get-go, you're never more than a couple of minutes away from something gross! Speaking of which, the monster of the piece, the unfortunately named Grant Grant, is played by Michael Rooker, one of those Troy McLure type supporting actors you will recognise, but be unable to place from anywhere specific. He plays the role well though, even if he becomes unrecognisable about a third of the way into the movie!

I'm painfully aware though, that even if I sing this movie's praises, it's going to be difficult to convince you to see it if you're not a fan of the horror genre. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Slither tanked at the box office, despite its obvious quality. It seems surprising to me that it didn't generate any kind of internet buzz, however, as it is one of those movies that would seriously benefit from good word of mouth..

So here's my contribution to hopefully starting a wave of DvD interest for Slither. It deserves it, mainly because it's a funny, entertaining way to spend ninety minutes. The gore is extreme, the monsters are frightening, the jokes are funny, and the victims, for the most part, deserve what they get! If these characteristics do not a good monster movie make, then my name's Freddy Krueger.


The Verdict: for fans of monster horror, this is great fun.
The rating: 7/10

The Wind That Shakes The Barley

I'll be honest with you folks, I resisted watching this one while it was in the cinemas, mainly because the Irish release was surrounded by more column inches than any other movie released in this country in a long long time. Also, given that it won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, my on-line newspaper of choice also decided to give it voluminous coverage. All this journalism contributed to increasing my expectations of the movie, a scenario which can best be described by a truly scientific theorem of mine named the George Lucas Principle of Movie Expectations (or to use it's short-hand moniker, 'The Lucas Principle'). The Lucas Principle states that your enjoyment of a movie is a function of the quality of the movie, but is also inversely proportional to your expectations of it. Think 'Star Wars: Episode I': a good movie, but disappointing to anyone who grew up with the first three episodes (well, the fourth fifth and sixth, but you know what I mean). Or that second Matrix movie.. The Lucas Principle applied in both cases for me.

So not one to repeat my mistakes, I decided to let the dust settle on The Wind That Shakes The Barley, and surprise myself with it on DVD some random evening. I'm happy to say that, without the hype, without the high expectations, it is in fact a very good film.

Set against the backdrop of Ireland in the 1920's, the Easter rising has come and gone, but Ireland is still occupied by british forces. The dreaded 'Black and Tans' patrol the Irish countryside, breaking up organised gatherings such as GAA games, and generally intimidating, terrorising and killing the local people.

A proviso to you, reader, this r5eviewer is not for a moment attempting to be political, but it is worth pointing out that the director Ken Loach, himself an Englishman, is uncompromisingly ruthless in his portrayal of the savagery of the black and tans and the British army. The violence on-screen is of the most difficult type to watch, due to the high level of realism. Recently, the new James Bond movie attracted a lot of press due to a torture scene, well I can tell you, that scene has nothing on 'the Wind That Shakes the Barley'.

The story focusses on a group of friends, and in particular two brothers, played by Cillian Murphy and Padraic Delaney. Murphy delivers a very solid performance as Damian O'Donovan, and Delaney gives creditable support as Teddy, brother to Damian. Damian is a man of letters, and is keen to escape the rural hardship of life under the black and tan cosh and move to London, where he can train as a doctor, but events conspire to change his mind. Possibly against his better judgement, he joins his friends in the Irish Republican Brotherhood and decides to fight for Irish freedom instead.

As the story develops, we learn more about the involvement of every demographic of Ireland in the struggles of the 1920's. Young children deliver messages on behalf of the republicans. The women carry important letters and house and feed the young men training to take on the British army. Older parents and grandparents too, take their lives into their hands by feeding these young men.

Loach's depiction of rural ireland of the 1920's is lovingly recreated, and the skill with which the level of detail is rendered contributes greatly to the reality of the story being told. Never for a second did I question the depiction of the details I would recognise, due to being a native of these shores. The accents are Irish, the Irish language is spoken with confidence by natives, the songs are genuine, the locations are genuine and this all contributes to making the movie quite immersive. Loach sets the scene marvellously well, in as subtle a manner as you will see on celluloid. Not to embarass myself, or Loach, by comparing him to Patrick Kavanagh, but the small details of Irish rural life portrayed in this movie evoked (for me) images from 'Tarry Flynn', and this is something I particularly enjoyed about the film.

Yet, this level of subtle detail and texture all occurs in the background. While it is registering, the story continues to move forward at a relentless pace, involving the O'Donovan brothers more and more in the actual rebellion of Ireland. Again when it comes to the dialogue in the movie, the words of the main characters are not those of politicians, rather those of men who are passionate about having their own land, and leaving behind something for their children. There are no large-scale rabble-rousing speeches here, but there are lively debates between real people. The speeches are faltering, as if the men are venting forth opinions that are developing, fresh in their minds, but also close to their hearts. These scenes are among the strongest in the movie, and portray the tensions, traumas and conflicts caused by the imposition of the need for rebellion on the Irish people.

One criticism I would have of the movie is the portrayal of the British occupying force. I'm no history expert, but the black and tans are probably accurately portrayed as terrorising lunatics. That said, the British army are almost to a man portrayed as blood-thirsty condescending prigs, who regard the Irish people with such disdain, and voice this disdain so readily, that only an idiot would fail to rebel against them. They are reminiscent of Steven Spielberg's heartless black-and-white SS officers in 'Schindler's List' in the cold harsh simplicity of their portrayal. The British landlord character, too, is of this genre. While he shows a fragment of human emotion in his last moments in the movie, in the main he is a heartless authority figure, with provocative bile in his words. "Priest-infested backwater" is one phrase he uses, a good example of how to describe Ireland in such a way as to not make many Irish friends!

That said, Murphy and Delaney are given much more to work with, and their performances are strong. Their relationship continually evolves as the movie progresses, and never enters the realm of cliche as it so easily could in a story of this type.

So, while it is not perfect, 'The Wind That Shakes the Barley' is really rather good. It's pleasing to see Cillian Murphy's career develop, and if a movie like this does not increase his stature as a potential leading man, then something's up. Also, Padraic Delaney, Liam Cunningham and Orla Fitzgerald deliver creditable support, and hopefully their stars will also continue to rise as a result.

So, in accordance with the Lucas Principle, I would advise you to watch this one, but don't raise your expectations too high. As Cillian Murphy's parish priest might have said in the movie, "Gwan! Away with yerself, and quit yer messin!"


The Verdict: Equally credible and harrowing, expertly made, but slightly flawed.
The Rating: 7/10.

Stranger Than Fiction

In an earlier review of another Will Ferrell movie - Talladega Nights - I portentously predicted that 'Stranger Than Fiction' would be the 'Truman Show' moment of Ferrell's acting career. In other words, after capably demonstrating his ability to do comedy in all its mad-cap hilarity, Ferrell was about to dip his toe into more serious waters, much like Jim Carrey did to critical acclaim in 'Man on the Moon' and to more widespread audience approval in 'The Truman Show'. Now both those movies had an effect on Jim Carrey's longevity, but the effect of audience reaction to The Truman Show on his career cannot be understated. It's impossible to know if Carrey would even have been considered for 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' had he not played Truman Burbank so, well, straight. In Eternal Sunshine, there are very few moments where Carrey plays for laughs. In fact, much of his character's screen-time is spent in earnest, haunted pursuit of Clementine, the girlfriend who has tried to erase her memories of his very existence. This is a long way from prat-falls and rubber-faced gurning, and is by a very long way Jim Carrey's best movie.

There's definitely something about a comic actor turning in a respectable dramatic performance that really appeals to audiences. Even Adam Sandler has done it, in his career-best movie 'Punch-Drunk Love', a bittersweet, off-beat comedy that deserved a lot more love than it got. Sandler played a soft-spoken lonely guy, browbeaten by his family. He has a real desire to better himself, although he perhaps lacks the capability or the social skills to achieve this goal. His story in Punch-Drunk Love is enthralling and beautifully filmed, but his performance is surprisingly subtle and eminently watchable, a galaxy far far away from 'The Waterboy'.

Will Ferrell can do comedy, of that there's no question. 'Anchorman' is anarchic, sexist, irreverent and Ferrell is at his manic best. In 'Talladega Nights' however, he showed his ability to really carry a movie, and gave a glimpse of something more under the surface of the lunacy.

While I might have predicted that 'Stranger Than Fiction' was going to be the Truman Show moment of Will Ferrell's career, I'm going to modify that prediction. Stranger Than Fiction is a better movie than The Truman Show. I would more readily compare it to 'Eternal Sunshine'.

I don't say this lightly. 'Stranger Than Fiction' is a complex, nuanced story which swerves between comedy and tragedy in a manner as sure-footed as double o'seven doing parcours. The driver of the story is essentially Harold Crick's (Will Ferrell) realization that he has begun hearing a narrator in his mind. As he brushes his teeth, this narrator describes his thoughts, and as he crosses the street, the voice describes the squeaking of his shoes.. all very innocuous and amusing you may think, until the narrator mentions Harold's imminent death.

Harold's reaction to the news sends him on an enthralling and unpredictable path. His quest to find the author of the story he's appearing in sends him first to the Human Resources manager in his company for a chat, and then quickly to a psychiatrist. But Harold is a serious guy, and Ferrell does not play the character for laughs. He appears genuinely unsettled by this turn of events, and although the idea is fantastic, it is grounded well in reality by Ferrell's performance, as he never over-reacts, even when he tries in vain to make the voice speak..

Ferrell is ably supported in Stranger Than Fiction. Dustin Hoffman is excellent, and shares some of the funniest moments in the movie with Ferrell. Emma Thompson, too, is in excellent form, and this may be the best performance I've ever seen her turn in. (I don't really do Jane Austen though, so I might be wrong about that!).

Maggie Gyllenhall, too, is really lovely in this one. Having only seen her in the decidedly strange 'Secretary', I wasn't certain what to expect, but she appears to be the real deal, and delivers a balanced performance, despite her character perhaps not being the strongest in the movie.

Where Stranger Than Fiction really delivers though, is in the script. The plot appears at first to be a conventional comedy, but very early in the movie we move from 'Bruce Almighty' territory to more alien terrain: we suddenly become sympathetic to Ferrell, and concerned to see how his situation will pan out. His performance is pivotal in this regard, and I believe this is his biggest success in a role where, generally, he is playing it straight. From the moment where Ferrell's character takes a holiday from his job, the movie unravels enthrallingly, with equal moments of tension, emotion and humour. The narrative is evocative of something Charlie Kaufman might have produced, but on one of his better days. 'Being John Malkovich' was clever, and 'Adaptation' also played with narrative, but in my opinion, the devices employed in 'Stranger Than Fiction' are more successful than in either of the two Kaufman movies. The difference being that the narrative never becomes confused or fantastic. The plot is always immediate, linear and has a very definite beginning, middle and end. More like Spotless Mind in fact, but with a plot device that is more readily acceptable to a movie audience in that a voice-over is normally used in much more mundane ways to move a plot forward.

The fact that I'm comparing Stranger than Fiction to 'Eternal Sunshine' in favourable terms is an indication that I really liked this movie. I'm a big Charlie Kaufman fan, and this movie is definitely inspired by, or indebted to Kaufman's work, perhaps with a little of Wes Anderson thrown in. This is no bad mix though, as long as the execution is good. Well, happily, Zach Helm's script is well rendered by director Marc Forster, and the acting is excellent. This movie is intelligent, funny, and will leave you wanting more. Perhaps it's a little early to add it to the favourites list just yet, but 'Stranger Than Fiction' is definitely in the same ball-park as 'Eternal Sunshine' and 'Punch-Drunk Love'.

Even if you don't like Charlie Kaufman, and thought Eternal Sunshine was drivel, I would urge you to go see 'Stranger Than Fiction'. It will surprise you. If you are a Charlie Kaufman fan, and enjoyed 'Eternal Sunshine', I have no doubt you'll enjoy this movie too.


The Verdict: It's great. Go see it.
The Rating: 9/10

Clerks 2

Kevin Smith has had an interesting relationship with the movie business over the last fifteen years or so. In 1996, he announced his arrival onto the silver screen with an accomplished little gem of a sleeper comedy named 'Clerks'. Packed with witty dialogue, memorable characters, novel set-pieces and daringly shot in black-and-white, Clerks attracted Smith a bit of a cult following, and much of the internet fanboy 'buzz' that goes with such a fan-base.

Smith followed Clerks with 'Mallrats', which, to be brutally honest, wasn't that much of a departure really.. it was in colour, but all the corner-stones of Clerks were still present: slackers making witty remarks in suburban New Jersey, kidults wondering what to do with their lives, Jay and Silent Bob, insightful criticism of other well-known movies... essentially Clerks, but from the other side of the counter.

Since then, much has been made of Smith's creativity somewhat dying on the vine. Although 'Dogma' was a pretty big hit, 'Chasing Amy' wasn't bad, and 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' didn't do too badly for him, an air began to grow about Smith that cynics might say smacked of a lack of fresh new ideas.

What followed was perhaps Smith's attempt to move on from Jay and Silent Bob, but the results were less than auspicious... Tim Burton has his creative partner in Johnny Depp, and Steven Soderbergh has his in George Clooney, and these relationships have developed into creative alliances producing arguably their best work. Unfortunately for him however, Kevin Smith developed a bit of a creative relationship with, ahem... Ben Affleck. 'Jersey Girl' is the product of their second outing together (after Dogma)... and may have contributed to the demise of Affleck's career in Hollywood... (he's overdue a reinvention by the way, what price an Affleck career renaissance in the next 18 months!?)

So when your career is floundering in the Tinseltown water, what can you do? Well, you can ring the Weinsteins for one. And you can offer to make that sequel he's been asking you about all these years... hmmm... how much pride is swallowed before a call like that I wonder?

Kevin Smith is unique enough among apparently bigshot Hollywood directors in that he mixes it with on-line fans pretty regularly, giving updates from the sets of his movies, and diligently defending himself against the lunatic fringe of the internet. I'm not sure what his motivation for doing this is really, except maybe that he's a bit of a nerd himself, and he enjoys it. (Nothing wrong with that). However, I've read tirades he has written against semi-literate 'fans' from Hicksville, USA when they dare to criticize his work, and he doesn't hold back. His verbal onslaughts vary in severity from a tirade such as the ones Randall would deliver in Clerks 2, to something of a terse one-liner of the stoner variety from the likes of Jay, but these insults are always infused with the defensive vernacular of the regular internet forum poster.. now if you have ever read an internet forum, you will understand that arguments between varying stages of pond-life often develop, over such weighty topics such as 'Matrix vs. LOTR wich iz betr?' and such and such. This is why, although I admire Kevin Smith's wish to get closer to his audience, I would question his decision to roll his sleeves up and mix it in arguments with these people..

So, here's my frank admission folks, I'm not a big Kevin Smith fan. I loved 'Clerks' though, and the sequel got good reviews, so I thought, what the hey, I'll give it a go... And, to be honest, it didn't suck too badly. But it's just infused with the kind of personality that Smith has developed through spending too much time on the internet. The movie references are sometimes funny, but the targets are too simple, too obvious, and the diatribes lack the many insights offered in the script of the first Clerks movie.

I remember an excellent speech made by the Randall character in the first movie about innocent workers on the Death Star in 'Star Wars' getting wiped out by Luke Skywalker's rebels. Randall was questioning who the actual bad guys were, and this was a funny insight, a different way of looking at the movie. In the sequel, Randall insults a 'Lord of the Rings' fan in slightly more basic terms, by describing what the Hobbits should have done to each other at the end of the third movie... and it's not that this is completely unfunny, but the ideas in first movie were a lot better. It's like the writers of 'Frasier' were switched with those from 'That 70's Show'... "Sick burn, dude" etc etc. (And yes, that line is used in Clerks II).

I hesitate to suggest it, but I think Mr. Smith may possibly be trying to pander to an internet fanboy audience here... but no, that couldn't be right, could it?

Aaanyway, that said, there are funny moments on offer in this movie. The new female characters don't have a hell of a lot to offer in terms of comedy (or drama for that matter), but Randall and Dante's colleague in their new place of employment has some good moments. Elias (played by Trevor Fehrman) is a God-fearing christian and a virgin, a fan of Transformers and Lord of the Rings, and takes copious and regular abuse from Dante and Randall, the two main characters. His is the best performance in the movie, and if there's any justice, he'll survive the association with Kevin Smith, and go on to have a Hollywood career. However, the abuse levelled at Elias throughout the movie smacked of the diatribes of Mr. Smith I referred to earlier, and I got the impression the script of Clerks II contained a lot of speeches contrived by Smith to allow him to vent forth against his least favourite nerds, the ones that perhaps touched some nerves in those internet forums.... (perhaps one of them had the handle 'optimus_prime'?)

Jay and Silent Bob are back too. The Jay character gets a couple of laughs, and Kevin Smith is actually relatively funny as Silent Bob, but the joke is pretty old at this stage. Something inventive was needed to make these two as funny as they were in the first Clerks movie, and whatever this required inspiration was, it was not found for Clerks II. They make you smile, sure, but through mundane familiarity almost.

Dante and Randall, the two main characters from both movies, are pretty much unchanged since the first movie. Randall is as cynical and juvenile as ever, as well versed in Hollywood blockbusters as he is in internet porn and still living at his mom's at the age of thirty-three. Dante, on the other hand, has a fiancee, and wants to make something of his life, get married, move on, all that stuff. But is there a little spark between himself and his rather lovely boss, played by Rosario Dawson?

At it's heart, Clerks II is about growing up, knowing what's good for you, and knowing who your friends really are. So amid the pithy put-downs and knowing sleights on more successful movies, there are moments of emotion in the movie. Randall's worried that his best friend is leaving to marry a girl for the wrong reasons, and Randall is also worried about being left alone. Dante isn't certain he's marrying his fiancee because he loves her, or simply because it's the grown-up thing to do, and Dante's boss, who apparently doesn't believe in romantic love, seems to carry a torch for Dante... Emotions run high towards the end of the movie, but it didn't really convince me to be honest, mainly because the acting is generally quite poor.

There are a number of interesting cameos, however, including an entirely superfluous appearance by Mr. Affleck himself. The best of these is by Jason Lee, who you may know from the TV show 'My Name is Earl'. His 'pickle-fucker' story is so horrific, it must have an element of truth to it, although I'm sure names have been changed to protect the innocent!

So is 'Clerks II' worth watching? Well, as a straight-out comedy, it will appeal to fans of gross-out humour, and as a romantic comedy, it probably won't really appeal to many. It's not as if it was overly ambitious, it's just that in my book, it didn't really hit the marks it was aiming for.

I don't mean to be too hard on Kevin Smith, but he should perhaps get his ass out of the internet forums and the comic book conventions, and go watch something really worthy and inspirational, like 'Southpark'.. or, like, whatever. (OH yeah! ... totally sick burn!)


The verdict: not funny enough to be a good comedy, and not heart-warming enough to be romantic. Just plain average.
The rating: 5/10