Will test the limits of your patience.

The H-Bomb: Or, it will test the limits of your attention, because this latest offering from veteran indie oddball Jim Jarmusch sure doesn’t do much to hold it. The “story” (using that word in the loosest way possible) is about a hitman traveling around Spain on an assignment that’s never really explained to us. He meets up with various mysterious people played by the likes of John Hurt, Tilda Swinton, Gael Garcia Bernal, and some naked chick.

At these little meetings he always orders two cups of espresso, and his contacts give him a matchbox containing a small piece of paper, which he reads over and then swallows. Then, the contact will spout some incomprehensible lines of philosophical gibberish, then tell him to go to such-and-such a place and talk to so-and-so. Stick a bunch of scenes of our protagonist, played by Isaach De Bankole, walking around, riding on trains, meditating, not talking much, not boning the hot naked chick, and in general not doing much of anything at all, and you have “The Limits of Control”.

I must give Jarmusch credit, he has, either intentionally or completely by accident, created the ultimate cure for insomnia. Any time you’re having a restless night, forget the bottle of cheap wine and the Lunesta, just pop this cinematic sleep aid into your DVD player and let it play… you’ll be snoozing away in La-La Land in no time. Even if you down a few of those espressos that the main non-character loves so much, you’ll still be straining to keep your eyes open to the end. In many ways, this reminded me a lot of “The American”, a film I quite liked, except here the nuanced character development has been reduced to zero, the pretentiousness has been multiplied by about a thousand, and the boredom by roughly a million.

Jarmusch’s signature style has always been one of off beat minimalism and existential cool, and until now, I’ve genuinely enjoyed everything he’s done, and a few, like “Dead Man“, “Night on Earth“, and “Down By Law“, I absolutely love. But this time it seems he decided to strip away the quirky charm and personality that usually defines his work, and instead just go for straight up filmic masturbation… somehow satisfying himself, and nobody else.

I would swear that Jarmusch spent more time styling that ridiculous hairdo of his than he did on writing the script to this thing. From what I could gather, he was attempting pure cinematic minimalism, not dissimilar from Gus Van Sant’s more recent films. Though for me, the only one of Van Sant’s films made in this style that actually worked completely was “Elephant”, where he used the banalities of an average day at high school as a chilling build up to a Columbine-type massacre. Jarmusch’s film, however, has no such foundation, and therefore he is left with nothing more than an empty shell of a movie about a non-character taking part in a non-plot that leads to a non-ending.

Is there anything to recommend? Well, if you like looking at pretty pictures for a long time (another pastime our protagonist enjoys), then sure, since the cinematography by Christopher Doyle is quite lush and gorgeous. De Bankole is a gifted actor, and he could have given a strong performance, had he been given a script or a character to work with. But, he only had a non-character, and as a result, he gives a non-performance. I never thought I would say this about an actor with his abilities, but he does little more than take up space on the screen.

Most of the supporting cast members only have a scene or two each, in which they spout dialogue so hysterically pretentious I thought Jarmusch was attempting self-parody. “Sometimes the reflection is far more present than the thing being reflected.” “Wait three days until you see the bread, then the guitar will find you.” Sweet baby Jesus… they should be given a collective Oscar for being able to utter such drivel without vomiting.

Every good director is going to have the occasional dud, and for Jarmusch, “The Limits of Control” is definitely a dud. A dud that lands with a thud that’s the opposite of entertaining. Again, if you have a sleeping disorder, then definitely give this a watch. But if you’re looking for an independent film with interesting themes or interesting characters or… interesting anything, then I think you can pass on this indulgent snoozer in good conscience.

More images awaiteth ye, here!

Swift shot: The 3D is just a gimmick to take more cash out of your pockets, first and foremost, avoid spending money on this one – PERIOD! Jack Black grew on me over the years, but this latest outing needed to stay lost at sea, forever.  The running fat guy in a little coat bit gets old rather quickly, and just when I found myself interested in Black’s Gulliver, the idiocy reigned supreme, overshadowing any real interest in these cookie-cutter characters.

I can’t say it was total garbage, but it was garbage for the brain, sure you will laugh a few times, but are you laughing in earnest or are you trapped in that seat and thinking, I better get my money’s worth?  You won’t have to worry about that, because you’ll heed my advice and leave this journey to be experienced at home, months later, on Netflix or on ABC Family or something.  Nothing really dramatic EVER happens in this work, granted it is a family comedy – but what clan of uni-brow buffoons would find this dull fantasy amusing?  I’d rather I never find that out – oh sure, every film has one cult following or other – it takes all kinds, still I stand by my opinion, I never want to meet the cultist weirdos, donning purple sneakers and hoodies to catch a ride to Lilliputia.

One mark for this flick, I enjoyed the novel approach to this modern version of Gulliver’s Travels.  Many of us remember enduring the Ted Danson mini-series in the 90s, hell, I watched at least half of one, because I always found Gulliver’s Travels interesting.  Thank you, Director Rob Letterman (Monsters vs. Aliens, Shark Tale) for actually featuring a normal guy in our modern time period as opposed to some high-sock wearing lame ass.  I liked the quippy little pop-culture references and the bad-ass robot.  I liked looking at Emily Blunt, but to be blunt, I could see her dying inside as she delivered her lines, wondering, is my career in the crapper now, is this how it begins?  I am sure she will bounce back as will Jack Black.

I am not usually this harsh to a film unless it really disappoints me, and maybe I was hoping for a lot more from Gulliver’s Travels than I got – thus the scathing point-blank attack.  Jack Black, take this one off your imdb, because it was an anemic attempt at a family comedy, maybe the kids will like it, but they like freaking Thomas the Tank Engine and Max and Ruby, and freakin Babar, the dictator elephant – so you can’t take their opinions for much.

One more thing, Amanda Peet was under-used and Jason Segel’s character wasn’t killed off fast enough.  I knew him . . . Horatio, yea, so what?  And, finally, a musical number to end all wars, now I know Obama needs to call up Jon Favreau and get with Jack Black and Amanda Peet – apparently terrorists and wars can be thwarted with Elaine Benis’ famous reference to the original title for War and Peace.  Oh God, was that a spoiler?  No, by definition that can only happen if there is something worthy of spoiling – this film was devoid of spoiling, because it was delivered rotten and full of prickly seeds that stick in your teeth and leave stains on your fingers that get all over your lovely tapestries.

I would not recommend anyone pay to see this one, if you do, you don’t have me to blame.

“See you later, alligator”

<<<More images, click here>>>

I watched the trailer for “The Gainesville Ripper” before agreeing to review the film, and after viewing both the trailer and the film, I thought, what is the point in revisiting old pains?  Nothing new was revealed, some facts were blatantly distorted and the story-telling used poetic license in places where just the cold facts would have been dramatically effective.

This story opens fresh wounds that terrified Gainesville in 1990, essentially locking down central Florida. In August of that year, during the first week of school for the University of Florida [The Gators] and neighboring Santa Fe Community College, five students were viciously murdered in their off-campus apartments.  “The Gainesville Ripper” attempts to tell the tale of murderer, Danny Rolling - what motivated him and what might have transpired, from Rolling’s perspective.

Rolling (Zachary Memos) was already serving a life-sentence for robbing a bank and a grocery store (which occurred in September of 1990, a mere month later) when law enforcement linked him with the student murders. Rolling confessed to the murders in January of 1993 blaming his split personality which he called “Gemini”.  Gemini and the sick animal were executed for the murders in October of 2006 – Gainesville still bleeds.

Josh Townsend’s rendition of Rolling’s story begins with actual footage from outside the prison during Rolling’s execution in 2006. The Right-To-Lifers are picketing, others are celebrating, there’s even a prayer circle. Then the film takes us back in time to Rolling’s release from prison in 1989, after serving eight years for robbery. Rolling exited that facility into the caring arms of his mother, who’s overjoyed with having him on the outside again.  At home in Louisiana, we quickly find out that dad is an abusive drunk who spares no expense with verbal lashings and physical intimidation – he uses this as an excuse to steal a gun and buy a Ka-Bar combat knife.

Rolling manages to acquire a job painting houses. On his daily route to the job site, he takes notice of a young lady entering her home. Since she is intriguing to him, he decides to sit outside her house in his vehicle. He takes notes on the times she’s coming and going. When he’s decided that it’s about time to finally have his way with her, he approaches the back door of the house, packing knife. Unfortunately, he’s not planning on her father and eight-year old son being in the back yard . . . and they quickly meet their demise.

After Rolling kills the father and son, he drags the bodies into the kitchen of the house. The young lady is shocked to find her bloodied father laying there. Rolling attacks her next. She makes a small attempt to get away but then he has the knife at her throat. Instantly she becomes cowardly and submissive, whimpering “no, no”. Rolling throws her down on the bed, tells her how much she’s gonna like what he’s about to do as he’s unbuttoning his pants.

Next occurs what I’d like to call “Rape & Repeat” #1. The viewer gets to sit through watching divergent angles of the scene played out through the eyes of both Rolling and the victim. After Rolling has his minute of power with her, he’s left with no choice but to kill her as well. Blood is splattered everywhere – all over Rolling’s face, the victim, the bed, the walls. Afterward, Rolling positions her body on the bed in a seated, relaxed pose, bent leg, with her arm draped behind her head. Rolling double checks a sketch he’s got in his hand to verify that her body looks like he planned before leaving the residence.

Kudos to Townsend for one scene showing how cold Rolling was, while on a break at the job site the next day, Rolling mentions to a co-worker listening to the radio about the killings, “Who would want to kill a little boy?”

Since house painting and murder are hard work, Rolling takes to drinking a lot, which translates into Rolling thinking that he’s got one up on his old man. He and dad have a stand-off over a beer in the family kitchen. Mom comes rushing in, trying to break up the fight. Rolling’s laughing, drinking, and dad’s had enough. Dad runs in the other room, grabs his gun and starts waving it around. Rolling runs outside and grabs the hidden gun.  Aw heck – looks like a “wife beater” wearing gun fight at the Rolling residence! Yee-haw!

After the gunfight at the Abnormal Corral, Rolling decides it’s time to split again – heading south, to Florida. On that long trip, we are graced with the first (of many) monologues that Rolling has with himself. Rolling’s got a lot of self-justification that he needs to discuss with himself and we get to hear about it ad nauseum. He’s got plans, he’s got numbers and don’t-you-know-it, he’s got more people to kill. He’s just gotta lay low for awhile.

I’m pleasantly surprised with the film thus far into the movie. Granted, Rolling hasn’t made it to Gainesville, so the real nerve hasn’t been hit yet. Sadly, I caught myself wishing I was watching another movie but, alas, I was not.  I knew what was coming next, and worse, I knew it was all too real, twenty years ago.  Would anything truly insightful or meaningful unfold with the rest of this movie? For those who put four years of hard work and effort into this, unfortunately not.

Very little of the Gainesville student murders depicted in this film held actual significance to the manner in which the five students actually lost their lives, apart from the fact that they were raped and murdered.

Horror movies are supposed to be scary, but “The Gainesville Ripper” was not. This coming from someone who has checked every closet in the house for twenty years, thanks to Rolling. There was no big lead up to the attacks in the film, and the suspense wasn’t there. The level of resistance by the victims was almost non-existent (when in fact, the male victim is known to have put up quite the fight during his murder). Sitting through four additional “Rape & Repeat” scenes was tiresome. Listening to Rolling’s conversations with himself bored me.  After the second one, his modus operandi was clear – he was crazy and he wanted to rape and kill people – period.

The producers missed an opportunity to create an accurate portrayal of the murders with the fact that the real Rolling took time to thoroughly clean the bodies after he raped, tortured and murdered them . . . thus taking law enforcement longer to catch him. For me, the inclusion of this action (methodical sober cleaning) would have been more chilling than another rape scene. Instead, the producers show him leaving the crime scene a bloody mess with Rolling only taking the time to shower and clean his body.

Thankfully, though the producers chose to leave the gruesome mutilation out of the scenes, apart from the infamous beheading. In lieu of mutilation that occurred at the actual crime scenes, they chose to include a cut of Rolling giving one of the victims a smile ala The Joker in Batman – which never actually occurred during the murders, but again, maybe it was done to alleviate some of the actual horror.

And while the effort was made to re-create the panic and fear going on in the town of Gainesville at the time, that fell short as well. Truthfully, in 1990 there was almost mass hysteria in Gainesville, with guns and weapons of every sort selling out in every neighborhood.  It was not unusual to see people walking through town armed with baseball bats or tire irons (cops didn’t even bat an eye at it) and yet this memory was not emphasized in the film.

Since Rolling was out and about town, robbing banks, drinking beers at the bar and getting high with his lone partner-in-crime, I would have loved to have seen him interact with one of these fearful Gainesville residents – a friendly nod to a passerby on the street with a simple exchange from Rolling advising “Be careful! That madman could be anywhere” would have been chilling to imagine.  Instead more focus was spent trying to portray Rolling as a psychologically complex creature, one who rode his bike murder to murder, praying on his victims; one who camped in the woods and left farewell tribute cassette tapes to his parents.

Before one of the murders, Rolling ended his message with:  “… well, I’m gonna sign off for a little bit.  I got somethin’ I gotta do…”  The fact that Rolling got away with these murders for a brief period of time is intriguing; Rolling, however, is not and this film doesn’t convince that he ever was.

It was very apparent that this was the first feature film release by Townsend. Although he has a great eye for direction and camera angles, Townsend’s talent was quickly eclipsed by the technical problems that occurred during the screening I attended in Gainesville. Some scenes would abruptly cut off at their end and a blank screen would appear before the next scene. (Even when the actual end of the film arrived, the movie just stopped and the director hollered out “that’s it” so we knew it was over. The credits ran without any music. ) The soundtrack music itself was also well done but the actors vocals were completely muddled by the surround sound in the theater, sometimes to the point of inaudibility.  But, I may have been privy to a rough-cut, so I can let that stuff slide.

Josh Townsend started filming “The Gainesville Ripper” in locations throughout Florida during 2006. Post-production took close to three years to wrap. The screening I attended in Gainesville, happened to fall within days of the twentieth anniversary of the student murders. Townsend claims that this was a coincidence but after the shoddy final cut, I doubt it. It appeared to more than one disapproving eye that the time-line of the release and the anniversary screamed intentional.

There’s a reason why no one in Hollywood bothered touching this story before Townsend (apart from a made-for-TV movie). There’s no new tale to tell. So I’m afraid that not even a brief cameo from Herschell Gordon Lewis (best known for creating the “splatter film” subgenre of horror) could save this flick – in the end, it ended up stinking like a rotting corpse.

Say hello to a little friend…

Only a few minutes into “Furry Vengeance” it became clear to me that I really should have brought along my friend’s three year old. He would have been able to appreciate the humor and thrills that are lost on those of us who made it out of the single-digit age range. Maybe he could have taught me something about what made this film funny. Since I didn’t have his wisdom, though, I sat through the film like a sour grinch.

The premise is nothing new. A residential developer, played by Brendan Fraser, and his family roll into town to begin a project that threatens a pristine slice of forest nearby. Naturally, when the mischievous forest animals catch whiff of the plan, they revolt. Led by a chittering raccoon, the army of animals who would normally think of each other as dinner turn on Fraser instead, who then becomes subject to all kinds of secretions.

Some might feel bad for Fraser in this role. After all, he gets sprayed by a skunk, soaked by a sprinkler, tossed around in a portable toilet, and crapped on by a flock of birds. Then again, it seems somewhat appropriate. Fraser has long been making comedies deserving of the very same treatment. Still, he has a strong fanbase (who they are, though, I have no idea) and kids love him, so this film is likely to do well at the box office.

Brooke Shields also has a supporting role in the film, which brings some relief to the antics on screen, though it’s not saying too much. She still looks great, but her comedic timing is a bit off. Comedy has never been her thing, but unlike Fraser she’s never tried to make it her thing. She has undeniable presence, though, which makes her fun to watch on screen, especially when she’s wincing at the mess Fraser gets himself into. Yeah, we feel the same way.

As far as the animals are concerned, there is very little given to them in the way of personalities. They don’t talk or really even emote with enough diversity to enjoy them. Instead, they just rub their paws together maniacally or laugh when one of their “plans” comes to fruition. Most of the animals in the film are real, which was to me very nostalgic.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t taken back to when I was a kid like I would have hoped. This was definitely no “Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey.” This isn’t even “Air Bud.”

CGI does come into play throughout the film, though. It’s used to show a variety of facial expressions on all the different animals. There is even one or two creatures that get a complete CGI makeover when using an actual animal would have been just too outlandish, or difficult.

Overall, this is not a very good film. The story is recycled, the jokes are stale, and the performances of the adult and kid cast aren’t engaging in the least. However, very young kids are likely to find it all very funny. Since the film is clearly aimed at them, in a way it accomplished what it set out to do. That doesn’t mean you should rush to take your kids, though. Rent the similar “Over the Hedge” and check that out instead.

Love hurts… and so does this movie.

The H-Bomb: From Garry Marshall, the edgy, inventive, fiercely independent director of such gritty, avant-garde fair as “Runaway Bride”, “The Princess Diaries”, and “Pretty Woman” comes his most shocking, controversial film to date… “Valentine’s Day”; the riveting story of several diverse characters who cross paths on… Valentine’s Day. (Think “Crash“ revamped as a broad, clichéd, and mostly unfunny romantic comedy, and you basically have this film)

I’ll level with you, I hate chick flicks on general principle, and I hate Valentine’s Day because I’m forced to think about all the good looking guys in the world who are getting laid while I’m not. So, when those two elements are combined, for me it basically results in a gigantic shit sandwich seasoned with vomit sauce.

Director Marshall really doesn’t help matters since it seems that he set out to make the “Magnolia” of romantic comedies. Allow me to just briefly go over the cast of characters with you; we have a male florist who isn’t gay (credibility goes out the window right there); a schoolteacher in love, a cheating doctor, a bitter sports reporter, an aging football star with a secret in his… closet, a publicist throwing an anti-Valentine’s Day party, a fledgling actress who works as a receptionist and moonlights as a phone sex “entertainer,” some underachieving dweeb who thinks that Valentine’s always falls on a Thursday, a couple of horny teenagers, a horny first grader (!), a horny elderly couple (!!!), Taylor Swift playing the most gratuitously gratuitous character in cinematic history, the guy who played Jacob in the “Twilight” movies playing the second most gratuitously gratuitous character in cinematic history, and Queen Latifah playing… Queen Latifah (not literally, but basically).

This film went off the rails for me very early on when Ashton Kutcher (an actor I can’t stand) proposes to Jessica Alba (an actress I can’t stand) and she says “Yes.” The very thought of these two people who annoy the piss out of me getting married and breeding sent my Shitty-Ass-Fuck-Suck tolerance meter through the roof and just put me in a very negative mood from the outset. Sadly, the movie did far too little to improve my mood for the duration.

For the first act of the film, everybody was just breezing around an unnaturally bright and sunny L.A. with big, perky smiles plastered on their faces. Everyone in the flick seemed so Goddamn content and happy with their perfect little lives, giving each other hugs, kisses, and creepy little plastic hearts with feet that walk around when you wind them up, that I started to wonder, “Is there gonna be a movie here? Or is this just a two hour commercial for Valentine’s Day?” Alas, drama starts to unfold in the second act as the characters find out that their perfect little lives aren’t as perfect as they thought they were.

During these moments, characters get all teary eyed while over-bearing music plays on the soundtrack. You know the kind of music that sitcoms play when a rare serious dramatic scene occurs, that kind of music that condescendingly tells you “Okay, this is a sad part, feel sad“… that’s the kind of music I’m talking about here. But, with absolutely no interest in straying from predictable, formulaic convention, Marshall has everything wrap up all nice and tidily and gives everyone a happy ending… the kind that only ever happens in the movies .

Now, I know I sound like some bitter, romantically challenged curmudgeon on a tirade, and I am. However, I would be lying if I said there aren’t some bright spots in this film. I liked George Lopez as a no nonsense flower delivery man, Hector Elizondo brought his A game as a man who still deeply loves his wife after a half century of marriage (despite the fact that he easily has the worst line in the film, “Now that I know the truth, everything else feels like a lie.” Uggghhhh), I can watch Anne Hathaway do just about anything and be somewhat interested (and aroused), Jennifer Garner gives a speech towards the end that is downright hilarious, and there are several amusing moments sprinkled throughout that almost rise to the level of funny.

When all is said and done, however, I just found it dull, ripe with cliché, and at times excruciating to sit through (I really had to resist the urge to throw my soda cup at the screen and shout obscenities at Taylor Swift’s annoying, dumbass, bimbo Barbie doll of a character and her stupid fucking over-sized teddy bear). The whole movie is just so sugary and syrupy that I felt like I needed to brush my teeth after watching it. Worst of all, it goes on for-fucking-ever, mainly because there are so many damn characters! I felt like my least favorite holiday was unfolding before my eyes, in real time… slowly.

Judging from the reaction of the people I saw it with, I may very well be in the minority here, and I’m sure it will make some major bank, but for me, the over-the-top cutesy-cutesy-happy-happy-sweetness of it all made me just want to stab out my eyeballs and puncture my eardrums so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of it. If I want to watch a movie named after a holiday, I’ll take “Halloween” and “A Christmas Story”, thank you very much.

It seems like The Rock has given up action movies in favor of kid-friendly comedies. In Dwayne Johnson’s latest kiddie flick, “Tooth Fairy”, The Rock plays Derek Thompson, a cocky, arrogant hockey player better known as “The Tooth Fairy” because of his penchant for knocking opposing player’s teeth out. When a hotshot new player Mick “the Stick” Donnelly (Ryan Sheckler), comes on the team and steals Derek’s thunder, Derek does not take it well. He takes out his frustrations on his girlfriend Carly’s daughter Tess (the adorable Destiny Whitlock) by nearly telling her that the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist. His punishment for not believing is being summoned to Tooth Fairy Land, where he is ordered to serve two weeks as a tooth fairy.

As a tooth fairy, Derek is given some pretty awesome gadgets to complete his tooth-gathering job, including Invisible Spray, Amnesia Powder, Shrinking Paste, and Cat Away, most of which he uses during off-duty hours to his own advantage. In one scene, he repeatedly uses Amnesia Powder on Carly (Ashley Judd) until he sufficiently answers her question about their relationship. While serving his sentence, Derek grows closer to Carly’s son Randy (Chase Ellison) but he ends up shattering his dream of becoming a rock star. Derek can be a really rotten guy!!!

Chock-full of corny puns and sight gags, the only part of the movie I appreciated were the scenes with Julie Andrews. The always-regal Andrews is sufficiently exasperated at Derek’s antics but she handles him with grace. Oh, how do you solve a problem like Derek Thompson?   Right!  I went into this movie not expecting much and that’s what I got. hell, a dollar under my seat would have been nice. It’s a decent flick for the kids, not so much for the adults I am afraid.   There’s a cameo from a certain “guy”, but I don’t want to ruin it for you as it may be the only thing that keeps you awake – that and the screaming children surrounding you!

The H-Bomb: How in the hell did a movie starring Harrison Ford, Ashley Judd, and Ray Liotta get dumped straight to DVD? Isn’t Harrison Ford one of the most bankable stars working today? Why then, have you (most likely) never even heard of this film? Sadly, there is a very good reason…

South African born writer/director Wayne Kramer made a big splash a few years ago with “The Cooler”, a casino set drama that starred William H. Macy and got Alec Baldwin a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. After that, he came out with the wild-as-fuck, acid trip crime thriller “Running Scared”. While that one wasn’t received very well, I personally had a blast with it, and Mr. Kramer became one of my rising directors to keep an eye on. He showed true promise… unfortunately, much of that promise has diminished with the release of his latest; the self-important, preachy, half-baked “Crash”-wannabe “Crossing Over”.

Much like “Crash”, “Crossing Over” is set in modern Los Angeles, boasts a large ensemble cast with many different story threads that intersect, and deals with clashing cultures and race relations. Specifically, the overall theme is immigrants in the U.S.; how we treat them, how their cultures often clash with our own, what they have to go through to become Citizens, how we respond when they present a world view different from our own.

This would all be well and good, except Kramer’s approach is so heavy handed, and his examples of differing cultures and ideologies are so extreme, that the film is ultimately rendered ridiculous. Among the story threads are an Iranian family who commits an “Honor Killing” because it’s part of their culture, a Bangladeshi teenager who gives an over-the-top speech to her class that sympathizes with the 9/11 terrorists and more or less condones their actions, a Korean youth whose forced onto the path of becoming a gang banger, and the most idiotic of them all, an Immigration Official who agrees to help a struggling Australian actress get a green card… if she agrees to meet him regularly for sex.

If your overall impression of America came simply from watching “Crossing Over” you’d think it’s a mean, unwelcoming place and that immigrants would be better off staying where they came from. Well, for one thing, that’s bullshit since the United States is a country of immigrants. And for another, if that is the impression Kramer is going for, then he seems to be constantly undermining it with his own plot.

Take the Bangladeshi girl, for example. After her speech she’s reported to Homeland Security and is put on the fast track to deportation when it’s discovered that her parents are illegal immigrants. Now the film wants me to be on her side, it wants me to feel bad for her, but after her little introductory monologue, I’m not and I don’t. In a big scene where she’s weeping and saying goodbye to her siblings, I’m supposed to be weeping right along side her, feeling her pain. But, instead, I was thinking, “Fuck her! They can’t kick her ass out of the country fast enough, as far as I’m concerned!” In fact, this is the character that the film puts most of its emotional weight behind… big mistake.

When the film isn’t shooting itself in the foot like that, it caves in on itself from being obvious and overly simplistic. When we meet Harrison Ford’s Immigration Officer at the beginning, we see him rounding up Mexican illegals. The film makes it clear, Ford feels bad about that, he doesn’t like his job, he doesn’t believe in it. Well, that’s understandable, but we do have immigration laws for a reason.

Despite its obviousness, “Crossing Over”‘s message is a mixed one. On one hand, it seems to be saying, “can’t we all just get along?” But on the other hand, it seems to say that some customs just can’t be tolerated (like… um… “Honor Killings” for example).

The film wears its sincerity on its sleeve, and the game cast does the best it can, but dramatically it just never gels. Aside from getting me to actively dislike some of the characters (Ray Liotta is a fucking slime-ball in this), its emotional impact was nonexistent. Kramer tried to make a significant social drama here, but since the most significant thing I can think of about this movie is the fact that Sean Penn’s supporting role was left completely on the cutting room floor, I think it’s safe to say he failed. This one isn’t even worth a rental.

I hate Sharkboy and Lavagirl. I harbor a general dislike for the Spy Kids. If it’s family fare with Double R at the helm, I’m the dad using redirect tactics on my ADHD children at the theater…”Hey, look! There’s a bum! Let’s roll his ass!” This typically works, until the DVD’s are released, then I’m the dad praying for the DVD player to break after the 10th successive viewing in one day…which is repeated every day…for months on end. Thank God for my crappy day job (and the extra scratch I get from bum-rolling), my tie and I would reverse roles.

Shorts centers on Toby “Toe” Thompson (Jimmy Bennet), an eleven year old with the unfortunate luck in finding himself at odds with the town ruffians. Their ring leader? Helvetica Black (possibly one of my favorite names for a villainess AND she comes with her own beautifully simplistic theme song), played by Jolie Vanier. Her dad? Carbon Black (James Spader), the head of Black Box Industries and owner of Black Falls, where everyone who works for B.B.I. lives, including Toe’s family, led by Jon Cryer and Leslie Mann. Toby’s first run in with the rainbow rock is after he gets pelted in the noggin with it, though you’ll quickly see that he isn’t the first kid, nor the last person, to have a turn with the wishing rock. Of course, everyone is reckless with their wishes, but thankfully the audience is spared from the final everything-back-to-status-quo wish, though this ending isn’t that much better, or all that different. If only one of them wished for a gun, so that I could be put out of my misery…

It took awhile, or maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention, but Rodriguez’s association with Quentin Tarantino finally has him giving that out-of-sequence-story telling technique a shot. He does it rather well, weaving several short stories together neatly, utilizing his narrator very effectively to keep it coherent for the slower children in the audience. This approach helped keep my interest up despite the overall dull storyline. The actors were neither great nor horrible, but I think the blame lies on the characters being poorly developed. Giving every character one trait that defines them (along with a name to match-most notably “Nose,” who likes to pick boogers) does not make a character necessarily good or interesting. That’s probably my biggest beef with double R’s films; they’re all style, no substance – and Shorts couldn’t even show, let alone place, in style. Judging by the successes of his other family films, he obviously is doing SOMETHING right as far as milking parents by way of their children are concerned, but I’ll be damned if I know what it is.

Exercise your parental rights and practice your anti-drug techniques by just saying “No” to your children’s heartfelt desire to tug your purse strings on this one. Make them watch Goonies instead – kid’s need direction.

Better wait for year two

Storyline

An ‘enchanted’ story about two hunter, gatherer’s attempts to rescue the women they love, during the year 1 A.D . . .  *insert loud power heave here.

The Cast

Jack Black.  Michael Cera.  Oliver Platt. David Cross.  Hank Azaria.  Bill Hader . . . the list goes on and on.  Okay, Jack Black—you either love him or hate him, right?  Michael Cera—the same.  Oliver Platt: who can hate Oliver Platt?  I mean, c’mon people.  He’s practically a substitute God when one’s on vacation or goes in for surgery.  And Bill Hader? Why hasn’t a statue been erected of him at our nation’s capitol or a new designer narcotic named after him to be passed out at Floyd concerts?  “Dude, pass the Hader, man!  Right-right.  Sorry… It’s just once you hit the Hader, nothing else matters. I know what you mean, bro.  I know what you mean…”  Anyhoo, back to reality since my Hader just wore off . . . the cast just didn’t have any dialogue to work with.  They did what they could, but this should have been seen a mile away before shooting.  

The Good, Bad and Indifferent

Again, it’s like going to a reunion: you see all your old buds.  You stay in good cheer waiting to see or hear something to really catch your attention, but it never happens.  You leave knowing, “hey, at least I saw Jack Black and didn’t get suckered into seeing, “Jackasses of Christmas Past” …or something like that, but you just blew some hard earned cash that could of scored you that new kittens floating in bubbles screen saver or three-degree burns chewing gum you wanted to so badly give to your father-in-law on the fourth – damn!  Poor dialogue and weak story arc will crush a movie anytime, especially with predictable comedic cast-typing.  Pretty much wrecked Chevy Chase’s career.

The Bottom Line

Wait until they figure something out for the sequel – if there is one.  The film was made for around $75M, dollars, if you can believe that.