Rachel Weisz is looking forward to her first toga party.












FAMILY VALUES: There is some violence and implied nudity.





TOMORROW: Another Year

The Emperor’s Club

The Emperor's Club



















TOMORROW: Incredible Hulk



Who knew the dead could be so hot?


















TOMORROW: The Ides of March

One Day

One Day

Jim Sturgess finds that when he closes his eyes he really can't find Anne Hathaway's mouth.

(2011) Romance (Focus) Anne Hathaway, Jim Sturgess, Patricia Clarkson, Ken Stott, Romola Garai, Rafe Spall, Jodie Whittaker, Tom Mison, Heida Reed, Amanda Fairbank-Hynes, Georgia King, Emelia Jones. Directed by Lone Scherfig

Our lives are a series of 24 hour periods, stretching from birth to death. Taken as a whole, they form our life. Individually they may not have the same meaning, but it only takes a single day to change our lives forever.

Emma (Hathaway) and Dexter (Sturgess) meet on July 15, 1988 – the date of their college graduation in Edinburgh. They hit it off and almost have sex but it doesn’t quite work out so they decide to stay friends. Their friendship takes them through diverging paths in life; Dexter becomes a TV presenter whose mother (Clarkson) is ill and whose father (Stott) can’t stand him. Emma’s bright-eyed idealism gives way to world-weary cynicism as she gets stuck in a job she can’t stand. Emma and Dexter drift further apart as she struggles to find herself and he becomes lost in stardom.

They seem to be moving on into different relationships; Emma with Ian (Spall), a failed stand-up comic and Dexter with Sylvie (Garai), with whom he has a daughter Jasmine (Jones). Emma’s career begins to take off as a teacher; Dexter’s declines after a series of woeful teen countdown programs in which his growing addiction to alcohol and drugs begins to affect his work, while his age begins to slam doors in his face.

Soon it becomes evident to both of them that they are far better together than they are separately – the sum greater than the parts. Has too much water flown beneath the bridge for them ever to get together?

This is based on a book by David Nicholls (who also wrote the screenplay) and is directed by Scherfig, the Swedish director who in 2009 won acclaim for his movie An Education. This is a disappointment of a movie; one which has two of the most appealing actors in Hollywood and squanders them. It’s quite a shame too; if this had been executed better it might have been a solid movie.

The problem with the movie is the problem that comes from the novel it’s based on – the two main characters spend nearly the entire movie apart. The whole conceit of the movie is that we are encountering the two main characters on July 15th every year (or in some cases every second year) from the day they first meet. Because we don’t see the characters together as much, there is no time for them to develop chemistry together.

One gets the feeling that Hathaway has moved on from roles like this. She has Oscar-caliber talent, evidenced in movies like Love and Other Drugs. Emma is not a role really suited for her. For one thing it forces her to adopt both a Scottish and a Yorkshire accent, which drifts during the course of the movie. It never sounds convincing to my ear; quite frankly I think the movie would have been better served to have cast a British actress in the role (and there are a lot of good ones).

Sturgess has to play an absolute rotter at times and he pulls it off; his disarming grin and boyish good looks aiding him in his portrayal. I hope he continues to get romantic leads because he is uncommonly good at them. Clarkson, like Hathaway, is a very fine actress who again is saddled with an unconvincing British accent. She’s a fine actress but couldn’t she and Hathaway just have been re-written to be Americans? Or have British actresses cast in those roles?

A bit of a spoiler follows here although to any sensible moviegoer it won’t come as much of a surprise. One of the central moments of the movie is the moment when Emma decides that her feelings for Dexter are stronger than she admitted they were and that she truly loves him and needs him. It’s a moment that comes off abrupt and schmaltzy, going from “We’re friends and I don’t have any interest in you romantically in the least” to “You’re the love of my life” in a matter of moments. It’s like a car with bad brakes trying to stop on a dime.

Curiously, the movie gets better in a lot of ways from there, even if it descends into general romantic grab a box of Kleenex territory. Once Hathaway and Sturgess get more time together, the movie really elevates. It’s too bad for most of the first hour or so they’re too busy denying their feelings and saying to all and sundry that they’re just friends. Too much time hitting us over the head with the idea that they’re better together than apart – and then they don’t have enough time together to seal the deal. You never fully get the sense that there’s chemistry between the two.

I really wanted to like this movie because it has not only two of my favorite actors in it but also a director who has an exciting future ahead of him and a high-concept way of looking at a 20-year-romance. It should have come together but unfortunately for a variety of reasons it didn’t. All the beautiful Scottish scenery and longing wistful looks from a pair of attractive actors can’t save a movie from its own shortcomings.

REASONS TO GO: Beautiful scenery of Edinburgh and the north of England looks beautiful onscreen.

REASONS TO STAY: Never get a sense that the couple is actually good for each other. Relationship moves abruptly, a very jarring feeling for the audience.

FAMILY VALUES: There is some sexuality and a bit of nudity. There’s also a bit of violence, and a smattering of bad language. There is also some depiction of substance abuse, drugs and alcohol.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: In order to set the mood for the skinny dipping scene, Hathaway mooned Sturgess, unaware that there was an apartment complex behind her with many of the residents filming the shoot with mobile phone cams. To date, the footage hasn’t surfaced on the Internet which Hathaway has expressed gratitude to the complex residents whom she expressed had “class”.

HOME OR THEATER: A definite cuddling on the couch movie.



Source Code

Source Code



















HOME OR THEATER: Very much a big screen affair.


TOMORROW: Death at a Funeral (2010)



Yuki Amami shows skills rapidly being lost in a modern world.

(2001) Horror (Kadokawa/Asmik Ace) Yuki Amami, Atsuro Watabe, Eugene Harada, Shiho Fujimura, Kazuhiro Yamaji, Keiko Awaji, Koichi Sato. Directed by Masato Harada

Japanese horror movies have grown in great leaps and bounds since the days of big lizards made of rubber suits. This new style of horror, nicknamed “J-Horror” by fans, relies on folk traditions, subtlety and atmosphere for horror. They also are known for delivering a knock-out punch in the sex and gore departments, something modern American horror movies have become awfully timid about in this day and age. 

Akira, a young teacher (Watabe) assigned to a middle school in the town of Ikeno, runs out of gas on the way there. He is picked up by young Seiji Doi (Harada) and is brought to the idyllic little village of Omine. There he meets Miki (Amami), a 40-something spinster who is part of the Bonomiya family. She has a little workshop where she hand-makes specialized high grade paper for calligraphy for the Doi family paper company, run by the aging harridan Katsuko (Awaji).

Akira quickly develops feelings for Miki and as school starts, is able to walk back and forth between villages for romantic liasons with Miki. The romance is obviously agreeing with her, as she begins to look younger and happier even as her family is tormented by nightly bad dreams, even matriarch Tomie (Fujimura). 

As the relationship between Miki and Akira begins to grow, she confesses to him a dark secret – when she was younger, she had a romantic fling with “the wrong man” who left her with child. She had the baby with the intention of giving it away, but it was stillborn. She has remained a spinster all that time, burdened with guilt and tending the newborn’s grave every day.

The Bonomiya clan is having problems. Patriarch Takanao (Yamaji) is something of a Luddite, forbidding television or radio in the home and yet, inexplicably, allows computers since he is developing an Internet business that eventually fails. Drowning in debt that is complicated by a gambling addiction, the brutish Takanao agrees to sell off Bonomiya land to a country club, a deal brokered by the Doi family, to retire his debts. This will also force Miki to move elsewhere, something she cannot bear since she loves the mountains so much.

The villagers tend to steer clear of the Bonomiyas and with good reason; as Tomie and Katsuko explain, the Bonomiya women are cursed with the Inugami, imp-like demons who reside in an urn who when loosed, bring the wrath of the dog gods on those who displease the Bonomiyas. A string of misfortune is blamed on the Inugami and the Bonomiyas and the villagers are growing restless and violent. Akira longs to take Miki away from all of this, especially since she doesn’t believe in the curse, but something ancient and sinister ties her with bonds harder than steel to the village.

The movie is brilliantly photographed, lush and beautiful. The village of Omine is an oasis of tranquility near a modern highway and railway line, depending on a river and ancient customs to make a slow-paced lifestyle for those who live there. Watching this, I could long for a village like Omine to decompress in.

There is little of overt gore and horror here, depending more on a sense of unease that something is not quite right. There is a great deal of sex in the movie and as is not unusual with Asian movies, subjects that are normally taboo for American filmmakers are breached almost casually. When the horrific climax begins, the movie changes from color to black and white, returning to color again when the events of the climax are concluded. The change is far more effective than showing blood and gore in living color. 

The plot line is somewhat confusing, so you’ll need a lot of concentration to keep up with all the subtitles, and you’ll occasionally be lost in the beautiful cinematography of Junichi Fujisawa. There are no monsters here, except the ones we ourselves create, and no ghosts except the ones that were already there in the first place. Inugami is a marvelous find, a J-horror movie that received little acclaim (as far as I can tell) when it was released in 2001, but one worth seeking out and certainly well worth the effort..

WHY RENT THIS: Gorgeous cinematography and dependance on an uneasy feeling for horror before the real shocking acts begin in the final reel.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: The plot can be overly complicated for having to read subtitles throughout.

FAMILY PLANNING: There is a good deal of sexuality in the movie as well as a healthy amount of violence and gore in the final reel.

TRIVIAL PURSUITS: The inugami are actual figures in Japanese folklore; they have inspired a manga and anime of the same title that has nothing to do with this movie.




TOMORROW: Limitless

The Oh in Ohio

The Oh in Ohio

Danny deVito and Parker Posey have just found out they're supposed to make out in their next scene.

(Cyan) Parker Posey, Paul Rudd, Mischa Barton, Danny deVito, Heather Graham, Liza Minnelli, Keith David, Tim Russ, Ed Brigadier, Miranda Bailey. Directed by Billy Kent

We have a thing about sex. It fascinates us, intrigues us, titillates us but ultimately makes us uncomfortable when we try to discuss it with one another. Even the thought of talking about our orgasms and our masturbatory habits can bring a blush to our faces that would put Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer to shame.

Priscilla (Posey) is an uptight executive who has been married, comfortably by all accounts, to Jack (Rudd) for ten years. He’s a teacher in a local high school whereas Priscilla works as a shill trying to lure business ventures to relocate to Cleveland.

To say the spark has gone out of their marriage is like saying Hurricane Katrina brought a little dampness to the Gulf Coast. Priscilla you see has never experienced an orgasm, even though she and Jack have tried valiantly – 1428 times, not including this morning by Priscilla’s own count. This woman is completely anal in a different context than you’re probably thinking about right now.

This has put a strain on the marriage and not to put too fine a point on it, on Jack’s feelings of masculinity. He’s literally tried everything to stimulate his wife and has essentially given up on trying. While the two are polite and civil to one another, there is a kind of awkwardness between them, like a couple of blind people trying to talk about the elephant in the room with no real context to work from.

Priscilla’s co-worker Sherri (Bailey) recommends New Age sexuality guru Alyssa Donahue (Minnelli) who does things like having the ladies in her class draw pictures of their vaginas, and then examine the real thing in a pocket mirror for comparison. Donahue recommends masturbation and plenty of it, leading Priscilla to a sex toy store where a helpful clerk (an uncredited Graham) dissuades her from purchasing a vibrator the size of Pike’s Peak and instead steers her towards something a bit more realistic.

Priscilla’s self-stimulation leads to – wonder of wonders – her first oh Oh OH OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGODYESYESYESSSSSSS which, predictably changes the dynamic in her marriage. She becomes almost obsessively addicted to her vibrator, using it at every turn possible.

That essentially marks the death knell of her marriage, driving Jack to an apartment (in the lovely Manly Arms, an apartment complex for single men – oh Cleveland I never knew you were so cosmopolitan!) and into the arms of a sexually aggressive student (Barton) which is illegal even in Ohio, but seems to make sense here; after all, if I was a teacher with a student that looked like Mischa Barton, I might consider throwing my moral compass overboard, at least for a while anyway.

Priscilla soon begins to feel lonelier than ever and finds she needs more than self-stimulation. She begins an unlikely friendship with Wayne the Pool Guy (deVito) who at first is only after putting a pool in her yard so that he can make an advertisement that he put a pool in every single home in the neighborhood, but eventually reveals a deeper side to him that you wouldn’t think was there…yes, I know a deep end for the pool guy, how droll.

This got widely panned by the critics when it was released in 2006 and I can see why that is; the humor is a bit forced and juvenile at times, but there is also Posey’s stellar work as Priscilla, playing off her reputation for playing ice queen-type characters and turning Priscilla into a sympathetic figure instead. Her relationship with Wayne the Pool Guy is one of the movie’s high points, even if on the surface the romantic relationship seems unlikely as all get-out.

The insights here into human sexuality mock its importance in relationships even as it does seem to infer that it is an important component indeed. It seems that Priscilla isn’t in a complete and healthy relationship until she begins to pleasure herself, which leads to actual sex, which she finds she likes even better – despite having had it 1,428 times previously without the desired results.

This isn’t going to change your life in any particular way, but it does make for a nice way to pass the time, even if some of the laughs are more like uncomfortable giggles. Although on the surface it seems to be an unsuccessful sex farce, I found it works better if you look at it more as a study on the place of the physical element in romantic relationships. American Pie this ain’t.

WHY RENT THIS: Some nice insight into human sexuality. The deVito-Posey romance is surprisingly believable and sweet.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: The humor is sometimes too quirky for its own good and occasionally the filmmakers try to force laughs that aren’t there.

FAMILY VALUES: There is a good deal of sexuality, a bit of drug use and a moderate amount of foul language. In other words, fine for most adults but a trifle much for immature teens.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The Cleveland setting is well-earned, as most of the filming took place there.



TOMORROW: Of Time and the City