Well, the lucky bastard who got to see Sith and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory early can now post his reviews here for everyone to see and comment. \:D/

C
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Loyal/ ... actory.php - C-
Cinderella Man: http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Loyal/ ... llaman.php - A

F
Fantastic Four: http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Loyal/ ... icfour.php - D+

H
Herbie: Fully Loaded: http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Loyal/ ... loaded.php - F

I
Island, The: http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Loyal/Island.php - A

M
March of the Penguins: http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Loyal/ ... nguins.php - A

S
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith: http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Loyal/Starwars3.php - A

I feel so special

http://www.worldofkj.com/Loyal-FantasticFour.php - D+

I think me and you are the only ones who saw the real Fantastic Four movie.

Chocolate Factory Will Leave A Bad Taste

Remaking classic films makes perfect sense on paper. You'll strike the nostalgia chord with filmgoers familiar with the material, all while making it accessible to new ones. The thought being why create new stories when you can just remake old ones. Sometimes the results are spectacular but more often than not, remakes tend to struggle to match up to the legacy laid forth by their predecessors. Unfortunately, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory falls into this category. The film, directed by Tim Burton, starts off great. We're introduced to Charlie Bucket (a perfect Freddie Highmore) and his impoverished family (Helena Bonham Carter and Noah Taylor play Charlie's parents). Tim Burton's production team creates great visuals, including the worlds inhabited by the other lucky children who find the golden tickets. From that group, Veruca, Augustus, and Violet shine in their roles (the odd child out in this group is Mike who comes off a bit too smarmy for his own good). The parents of the children aren't given much to work with, except for Violet's mother/manager played winningly by Missi Pyle who thankfully wont be given any parental awards anytime soon.

That brings us to Johnny Depp whom I'm a huge fan of. This is as good as a time as any to bring up the original Willy Wonka embodied by Gene Wilder. Fans of Wilder need not worry, the only similarities between the two are in name only. Whereas Wilder was all mystery and charm, Depp's version comes across a ghastly lunatic man-child. He takes a wicked glee in dispatching the children. Not that his version of Wonka isn't entertaining. His portrayal is captivating and sometimes quite funny, but mostly it hits all the wrong notes and is too off the wall to appeal to most moviegoers. It's Wonka by way of Michael Jackson in need of anger management.

Once we enter the chocolate factory, the film will seem quite familiar. The screenplay by John August (who previous worked with Burton on Big Fish) follows closely to the structure of the original film, with a few important changes. Veruca's scene has been changed and is hilarious. You'll never think of a squirrel's nuts in the same way again. The film also focuses more on Wonka's origin, designed as a series of funny flashbacks that seem to keep happening at the most inappropriate times during the factory tour. Christopher Lee, the oldest and hardest working man in show business gives an inspired performance in an extended cameo as every chocolateer's worst nightmare, an overbearing dentist as a father.

What happens next was unexpected and ultimately torpedoed the entire film. Everyone remembers the Oompa-Loompas, those marvelous little men working night and day in the chocolate factory, all while singing songs and offering timely advice. They are horribly reimagined here, dreadful characters (all played by the same actor Deep Roy) who suck the energy out of the film. Though the remake isn't a musical, the Oompa-Loompas still sing (I shudder at even calling it singing). Each song is based on a different style of music, none of which have any place in the film and fall flat. Veruca's is the closest to working, it's funny and memorable. But her song comes so late in the game, it's a moot point by then. This is a case where a single character, or more appropriately, multiple copies of the same character ruin an entire film.

The second half of the film is also terribly rushed. Depp turns up the weirdness to an 11 which helps the rest of the film from being completely unwatchable. The visuals in the chocolate factory are for the most part well done. But the screenplay offers nothing new so you're left cold and unattached. The filmmaker's changed the ending from the original film, now including the always nauseating "false ending." Even Charlie, Wonka's biggest fan is disenfranchised. And if Charlie can't stand being in the chocolate factory, I'm not sure how audiences members can be expected to. Afterall, he does live in a shack where 4 people sleep in the same bed. Anything has to be better than that, even living in a death trap with a creepy pseudo-child killer and hundreds of irritating little people.

Do yourself a favor and skip the remake, and rent the original.

Grade: C-

Sith Happens

Star Wars means different things to different people. For some, it's an inescapable phenomenon. For more than a few, it's a religion. A way of life. I've always felt a special kinship with Star Wars. We both came into the world in 1977, only a few months apart. My earliest memories are of playing "hide the wookie." Wait, who am I kidding here? No one cares for my sappy back story. Why does every review for Revenge of the Sith have to start with "How Star Wars influenced my life." Let's cut to the chase shall we. Let's answer the million dollar question. Is Sith a fitting conclusion to cinema's foremost franchise?

The answer is a resounding "yes." Revenge of the Sith opens unlike any other Star Wars film. We're thrust, quite brilliantly into the closing moments of the often discussed but never seen fabled Clone Wars ( this is until Cartoon Network's animated series came long). Opening Sith at the end of the Clone Wars at first glance is an odd decision. But having seen it executed, it's a flawless and technically daring sequence. You'll see things that are wildly unexpected during the opening minutes, including why R2-D2 is such a interesting character. We also learn in a short amount of time, how Anakin Skywalker's (Hayden Christensen) and Obi-Wan Kenobi's (Ewan McGregor) relationship has grown in the year's since Attack of the Clones. We get our first look at the newest villain General Grevious. And after one of the more thrilling lightsaber duels in Sith, we get to see Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) put into motion a series of events that will bring about the fall of both the Republic and the Jedi. Special mention needs to be made of McDiarmid who creates a cunning and ruthless villain. Sometimes great acting is lost amid the greenscreen forest but no such problem with McDiarmid.

A key to Revenge of the Sith's success lies in Lucas' storytelling ability. This film, unlike others, never stops. It doesn't feel the need to catch us up. Instead, it's constantly adding layer after layer until you feel as though your heart will explode from exhaustion. There are moments of political maneuvering that will give some viewers an awful sense of The Phantom Menace deja vu. And the relationship between Anakin and Padmé (a glowing Natalie Portman) hasn't developed much beyond soap opera fawning. But really, in a such a technically dazzling and thoroughly entertaining film, those are minor issues.

You can best sum up Revenge of the Sith in the scene where Master Jedi Mace Windu (Samuel L Jackson still channeling Shaft) assembles a team to confront Chancellor Palpatine. Not to give anything away that hasn't been shown in the trailers but the meeting does not turn out well for Windu and this team. It will remain for me one the most powerful scenes I've ever witnessed. The fact that the audience will plead and scream for things to not happen during this scene is a great testament to Lucas' film. Everyone knows what will happen to Anakin yet are still emotionally vested in his transformation. It is truly remarkable.

Things go from bad to worst for the Jedi shortly thereafter and for a film going at breakneck speeds, it still somehow manages to hit hyperdrive. From the wookies at war, to Yoda's confrontation with the Emperor that ends with a very sad realization, you'll see things that while exciting to look at, are just as fulfilling emotionally. It's a tone seldomly struck within the genre and Sith has in one masterful stroke, placed itself towards the top of the food chain. Not that Revenge of the Sith is without its share of problems. There are some ackward editing decisions including Darth Vader's reveal and several audio keys that will either have you laughing or rolling your eyes or both (girlie screams and Tarzan yells). But again, like dialogue issues, these aren't something to undo a film if everything else manages to be hit out of the park.

Much has been made out of how "dark" Sith is, it's the first Star Wars film to receive a PG-13 rating. I assume the rating has more to do with the tone of the film than actual visuals. What happens to Anakin following his lighsaber duel with Obi-Wan is graphic and alone worthy of the rating. But throughout the film, underlying themes of evil and its corrupt nature are also present which makes Sith a more adult Star Wars film.

So there you have it. Lucas has created a great Star Wars film. Will it undo the years of hate and anger towards Lucas and his production team for the supposed failings of the first two prequels? Who knows and really who cares. Stand it alone and Revenge of the Sith is an extremely well-made fantasy/sci-fi film. Compare it to the other films in the series, and you have a more mature look at the Star Wars universe. Some fans will love it, others may not. I for one could not have dreamed of a more fitting conclusion of the prequel trilogy. Or should I say the beginning of the original trilogy. Lucas should be commended for bringing to life a film franchise unlike any other that first began a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

Grade: A

Cinderella Man Delivers KO

"I think all period pieces should star Russell Crowe. If you doin' a movie about the past, you best get Russell's ass. I don't care if you making a movie about three weeks ago, you need to get Russell Crowe. He'll do the research about three weeks ago, he'll walk like three weeks ago, he'll talk like three weeks ago, and you'll close your eyes, and you'll go “that sounds like three weeks ago!”

-Chris Rock's opening monologue at the 77th Annual Academy Awards

Despite being very funny, that statement by Chris Rock has been proven right yet again. Cinderella Man is the story of heavyweight boxer Jim Braddock, played brilliantly by Russell Crowe. Other actors may have played Braddock as a brute with a soul, but Crowe's performance is all soul, while never forgetting the beast within. Falling on hard times during the Great Depression, Braddock struggles to keep his family together. His three small children slowly freeze. His wife Mae (a surprisingly effective Renée Zellweger) adds water to the little milk they have left to keep up appearances for the children. A meal for the family is a single slice of bologna apiece. When Braddock's oldest son is caught stealing food for the family, I wondered why they couldn't discipline him and keep the food. What was at stake was truly life or death.

Doesn't sound much like a boxing film does it? Cinderella Man is as much about boxing as A Beautiful Mind is about algorithms. The two films happen to share the same bloodline. Both films starred Russell Crowe, both were directed by Ron Howard, both are based on real events, and both were written by Akiva Goldsman, with an co-writing credit here by Cliff Hollingsworth. Ron Howard has assembled the pefect team for Cinderella Man. From the score to the editing to the costumes, every part of the film works perfectly together. The boxing scenes, though few, are as good as any filmed in the history of the genre. As was the case with A Beautiful Mind, some critics will complain about the over sentimental nature of Cinderella Man. In a film such of this, that's a moot point. It's all about second chances and when Braddock climbs back into the ring, he makes the most of it. The film's title couldn't be more appropriate. This is the ultimate sports fairy tale.

Paul Giamatti as Braddock's manager and only friend Joe Gould adds the perfect amount of comic relief when needed. In one the most powerful scenes in Cinderella Man, Braddock broke and out of options returns to Madison Square Garden to ask for money. It's Gould who puts everything in perspective for Braddock. What we find out later about Gould's own situation during these tough financial times adds an entire new level to what could have a been an over the top caricature. Speaking of which, Craig Bierko as the Krameresque boxer/killer Max Baer is sure to be a point of contention. Bierko known almost exclusively as a comedic actor, plays Baer in an almost cartoon fashion. Not that it doesn't work. Max Baer was larger than life. But at times, Bierko needed to reign in the antics and make Baer a realistic antagonist for Braddock.

At a time of the year when Hollywood rolls out countless sequels and pointless comedies, it's refreshing to see a quality film. Cinderella Man is a tremendous success and Oscar attention is guaranteed. The performances are top notch, the direction is flawless, and the film does an incredible job transporting the audience back in time. If you want to see a film this summer that will make you laugh, cry, and feel inspired, Cinderella Man is a must see.

(Note: Comparsions are bound to be drawn between Cinderella Man and last year's Best Picture Oscar winner Million Dollar Baby. Though both films feature boxing, they are polar opposites.)

Grade: A

Herbie: Fully Unneeded


There comes a time in a reviewer's life when he or she must approach a film carefully. That time is almost exclusively reserved for children's films. Now, I don't own children. And I'm also not a child. Nor a tween. Or a gay male. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good children's film. It simply means I'm not the target audience. And that certain rules of logic need to be ignored, thrown out the window. Which brings us to Herbie: Fully Loaded, the newest and if there was a god, last remake out of Hollywood.

Herbie: Fully Loaded (one wonders what a half-loaded Herbie would look like) avoids the pitfall of logic by dispensing of it entirely. A large portion of the film is devoted to the mysterious lovebug driver Max who's identity is hidden by a helmet. The audience, from the get-go is in on Max aka Maggie (Lindsay Lohan). And normally, the shock and awe campaign of "Can you believe it was really ___________" works. You buy the surprise at the reveal. The problem here is that Max/Maggie's helmet is see-thru. That's right, see-thru. Silly mistake or idiotic filmmaking? The plot thickens...

Herbie is a surprisingly lazy film, which for a Disney remake is really saying something. Screenwriters Thomas Lennon, Ben Garant, Alfred Gough, and Miles Millar (4 screenwriters is never a good sign), and director Angela Robinson never attempt to make a coherent film. Do people know Herbie is alive? Are they worried about this? Who are these people? As the movie progresses, Herbie seems to become increasingly hostile and violent. This bug is dangerous. Didn't they watch Christine? It's a demon car. Destroy it! When Herbie started to break the laws of physics via flips and summersaults, I imagined a different Herbie film. A film in which the government is after Herbie. They want to know what makes him tick. Herbie is drugged and taken to an undisclosed military base in Nevada. And dissected. Or better yet, Herbie disillusioned with being left for scrapes, seeks revenge on those who wronged him. Herbie: Unleashed, a Quentin Tarantino film.

I digress.

Michael Keaton, assuring us all that multimillionaires too have bills to pay, plays Lohan's dad and the head of the once glorious Peyton racing team. And in a horrific extended cameo, there's Matt Dillion mugging the camera as Nascar racer Trip Murphy. Attempting to cover every storyline imaginable, the filmmakers squeezed in romance, both human and Volkswagen. We get it. You think people want to see Lohan kiss. But there's an equal amount of people who are sickened by the very idea. When it was revealed that the studio paid over a million dollars to digitally alter Lohan's cleavage in order to maintain the G rating, you realize no one knew what kind of film they wanted to make. Camp, kid-friendly, avant-garde. I could care less about the angle, just please give me something I can watch. Hollywood remakes by their very nature, tend to range from bad to very bad with a few welcomed exceptions now and then. To say Herbie: Fully Loaded is unwatchable is an insult to snuff films. You must avoid this film at all costs. Think of the children.


Grade: F

Fantastic Bore

I can only imagine the look of horror on the faces of the cast and crew of Fantastic Four when they watched The Incredibles last fall. Pixar's film was a warm and friendly homage to the famed family of superheroes. It's not inconceivable to think that had the producers of Fantastic Four seen a rough cut of The Incredibles early enough, maybe they would have called the whole thing off. Fantastic Four isn't a horrible film, it definitely has its moments. But when your neighborhood is inhabited by the likes of Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, and The Incredibles, no matter how fast and loud your sports car is, it's still just a Honda parked next to a Ferrari.

The success of comic book films often lies with the director. It's takes a certain type of talent to be to transfer the written exploits of superheroes onto film. It's not an easy task and the cinematic graveyard is littered with the headstones of directors unable or unwilling to meet the challenge. And with Fantastic Four, Tim Story the director of Barbershop is woefully out of his league. Parts of the film play like hyper stylized commercials. Others, like bad sitcoms. I expected at any moment for Johnny Storm aka The Human Torch (Chris Evans) to turn towards the camera and sell me Gatorade. Speaking of The Human Torch, the other players in this foursome aren't entirely without charm. The Thing (Michael Chiklis), The Invisible Girl (Jessica Alba), and Mr. Fantastic (Ioan Gruffudd) are all okay and likable. If there's anything that works in the film, it's the interaction between The Thing and The Human Torch. Too bad their relationship is shortchanged in order to give more time to the wholly unbelievable romance between The Invisible Girl and Mr. Fantastic.

Fantastic Four plays really loose and carefree with continuity. You never really buy into the universe because the rules change from scene to scene. One minute The Thing is too heavy to ride an elevator. The next, he isn't. The Human Torch is able to reach supernova temperatures. That's right, the temperature of the sun. What a fantastic ending to a potential film franchise that would be. Our hero, in an attempt to foil the evil Dr. Doom (Julian McMahon) goes supernova and destroys the planet. Now that's creative filmmaking. But no, somehow his energy is contained. And all is well. Except for the collateral damage that is. And the impending military response.

Truth is, there are too many good films in theaters right now to recommend Fantastic Four. Sure, there are some laughs to be found, almost exclusively thanks to Chris Evans. And it does revel in its own goofiness. But when a summer superhero film can't deliver an interesting story or at the very least, exciting special effects, what's the point?

Grade: D+

The rest are in denial. It's sad, yet entertaining.

I really do disagree with you on many films, especially CINDERELLA MAN (5/10 or C-). That's alright though, people have different tastes It's just like we're complete opposites :wink:

so his reviews should be an excellent indicator for you.

I'm sure we agree on a lot of other films though

Steel Magnolias
A Beautfiul Thing
Girl Interrupted
Get Real
Muriel's Wedding
Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
My Best Friends Wedding
Fried Green Tomatoes
Flirting
Camp
L.I.E
On the Edge
My Own Private Idaho
Moulin Rouge

all favs of mine. I have an extremely diverse taste in film.

http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Loyal/Island.php

The Island Is Cinematic Paradise

Who would have ever guessed that Michael Bay of all people could direct a brilliant, epic, science fiction film in the vain of Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Minority Report, with just a pinch of 1984 for good measure. Now, I'm no Bay hater. I quite enjoyed Armageddon and Pearl Harbor for what they are. The Bad Boys films are kinetic madness. Bay's opus in my mind was always The Rock, a film that managed to take the James Bond we all know and love, Sean Connery, and make him incredibly rude, sarcastic, and ultra violent.

Interesting enough, Bay who started his career in commercials, had always worked with megapoducer Jerry Bruckheimer (Beverly Hills Cop, Pirates of the Caribbean, Top Gun). Bay's over the top action sequences and rapid fire directing fit perfectly with the producing style of Bruckheimer. But for The Island, Bay was recruited by Spielberg and Dreamworks, and in the process, has become a much better filmmaker.

The Island is really two films disguised as one, perhaps due to an extensive rewrite of Caspian Tredwell-Owen's (Beyond Borders) screenplay by Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci (Alias, Mission Impossible III). The first film revolves around a utopian society, where people are told how to dress, what to eat and given seemingly meaningless jobs. Your bathroom waste is checked for irregularities, you partake in endless exercise, you read children's books in large groups. For all practical purposes, it's like an extremely creepy resort. Then there's the lottery. Fans of Shirley Jackson (http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cyberen ... lotry.html), know you can't trust a lottery that seems too good to be true. An ominous cloud definitely hangs over The Island Part One.

It's never good to ask too many questions in these types of situations, for the answers almost never lead to laughter. Such a fate befalls Lincoln Six-Echo (Ewan McGregor) who because of a missing Puma sneaker, suddenly sees his surroundings in a whole new light. The questions begin to snowball, compounded by frequent nightmares. When Lincoln finds out the awful truth (Michael Clarke Duncan's fate drives the awful portion of the truth home), it's not a minute too soon as Jordan Two-Delta (Scarlett Johansson), Lincoln's most bestest friend wins the lottery. And so ends the first film. Classic sci-fi indeed. This film could have been released in 1968 with Michael Caine and Twiggy playing the leads.

If The Island Part One tested the creative abilities of Michael Bay, The Island Part Two is old school Bay on a sugar high. Magnificent car chases, exploding helicopters, shootouts, everything you've come to expect from Bay and more. Strangely enough, all this action doesn't negate what happened in the beginning of the film. Somehow, it all comes together. A very strong supporting cast helps matters, including Sean Bean (Fellowship of the Ring), Steve Buscemi (Armageddon), and Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator). The film never lets up, even as it comes to a somewhat predictable conclusion. The ending does raise some interesting questions (identity theft would be a major concern) and the overall plot could create some heated religion vs science debates. But when a typical Bay film demands little brain activity, all this afterthought is a welcomed change.

The Island is one of the best science fiction films of the last 25 years. Don't let the "From Michael Bay" scare you away.

Grade: A

http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Loyal/ ... nguins.php

Penguins Take Flight

Humans love to project themselves onto penguins. The flightless birds waddling through life are hugely entertaining, the highlight of any zoo visit. They've always reminded me of sullen waiters. And who didn't love the perpetually pessimistic Chilly Willy? What's so special about the documentary March of the Penguins, what makes it such a treat, is that it shows us a serious side of penguins that for the most part, no one ever knew existed.

Now Luc Jacquet's March of the Penguins isn't the Schindler's List of nature documentaries. There are many moments in the film that are extremely cute and funny. And there's nothing wrong with extremely cute and funny. Had the film been compiled solely of penguins tap dancing and performing pratfalls, I would be the last person to complain (well second to last, my father was injured in an unfortunate penguin attack). But March of the Penguins gives the audience the complete penguin experience, laughter, tears, and more.

The film opens with Emperor penguins trekking 70 miles across the harsh and barren landscape that is Antarctica in order to partake in an unimaginable ritual. For 7 months, the penguins will go without food and without warmth with one goal in mind. To create life. It's hard to imagine the chain of events that led to this ritual. Surely there were easier ways to reproduce. Anywhere seems better than a frozen wasteland. But by using keen, almost supernatural instincts, these penguins prevail. If you weren't watching a documentary and someone simply told you this tale, you would swear it was fiction. It is that unbelievable.

Watching these penguins endure wind storms and temperatures that would kill most people in the name of love, elevates March of the Penguins to a level not reachable by other nature documentaries. And perhaps that just me, a human, projecting the notion of love on these animals. Maybe it's all instinct and self-preservation. But love is the only word that really makes sense. Mothers leave their eggs in the care of the fathers for months on end in order to secure food (an interesting animal kingdom role reversal). Once the eggs hatch, the situation becomes more dire as the chicks will soon starve without food. The fathers employ a last ditch effort to keep their young alive, having saved a small amount of food in their bodies to feed the chicks for such a situation.

As the story unfolded, I realized most Best Picture Oscar winners aren't this dramatic. There's a collective sigh of relief when the mothers return, though some have died in the trek of food. And some chicks have frozen or starved to death while they were gone. Seeing a mother penguin attempt to steal another chick to replace her loss, makes us again question the relationship between human emotions and animals. Seeing other mother penguins fight her off, removes any remaining doubt. These animals do love. And they also suffer and grieve.

I understand why the film is rated G but that doesn't change the fact that this isn't The Lion King. Killer leopard seals, dive bombing predatory birds, and countless dead penguins, some of these images will certainly upset younger children. But this is a film that can be enjoyed by almost everyone. Breathtaking cinematography, an excellent score, along with a commanding narration by the ubiquitous Morgan Freeman, all add to an incredible experience.

The film falls short of perfection. There are some questionable editing decisions, like following up scenes of chicks playing with scenes of them dying. The juxtapose is too much for an already emotionally draining experience. The scenes filmed underwater don't quite fit in with the rest of the documentary. And the Aurora Borealis light show was too grainy to enjoy. But those are all minor issues. Like Winged Migration and Microcosmos, March of the Penguins is destined to become the quintessential nature documentary.

Grade: A

A History Lesson

You know you've tapped into something special when audience members leave half-way through. Walk-outs for me, are true signs of cinematic greatness.

The best film thus far of 2005 has come from the most unlikely of sources. David Cronenberg, best known for off-center gems like Scanners, Dead Zone, and Videodrome, (he flirted briefly with commercial success when he remade The Fly) has crafted a masterpiece with The History of Violence. It's based loosely on a graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, with a screenplay penned by Josh Olson. The film follows a small town diner owner Tom Stall (post LOTR Viggo Mortensen) who after a seemingly random act of violence, is thrown into a world of inexplicable chaos.

Much of the film revolves around whether or not Tom is who he claims to be, and how his family is affected by these events. I'm hesitant to say any more since the film depends somewhat on the element of surprise, though not as much as say The Usual Suspects. Maria Bello turns in an award worthy performance as his wife Edie. Ashton Holmes plays Tom's teenage son with such conviction that for moments you almost feel as if you're watching a documentary. Ed Harris and William Hurt also turn in excellent performances, taking great advantage of the evil roles given to them.

A lot has been made about the sex and violence in the film. There's not much, certainly no more than other similarly themed R rated films. The only noticeable difference with A History of Violence is the realism contained within those scenes, you'll get up close and personal with the bloody aftermath. Queasy audience members may want to avoid this film or at the very least, take 4 well-timed bathroom breaks. But for the brave souls left behind, they'll be hypnotized with glee and disgust. These scenes are incredible to say the least (including one sexual position not often seen in non pornographic cinema).

A History of Violence works best as two age-old cautionary tales. The first, you can never leave your past behind, no matter how hard you try.

The second, always be wary of quiet people. Still waters run deep.

A+

Grizzly Details

2005 will go down as the year of the documentary thanks to the breakout performance of March of the Penguins and the feel good art house sensation Mad Hot Ballroom. But Grizzly Man, a less ambitious but infinitely more engaging film owns the title of best documentary of the year.

Timothy Treadwell, like Saturday Night Live's fictitious zookeeper Brian Fellows, was a lover and expert on animals but without all the messy academic credentials. For over a decade, Treadwell would spend each summer living in the Alaskan wilderness with the resident Grizzly population, often the only human for miles, though sometimes he went with his girlfriend Amie. Treadwell would meticulously document his expeditions, seeking to protect the Grizzlies from poachers, tourists, even the park rangers. We're not given a lot of backstory on Treadwell to help explain his obsession. We do learn that Treadwell changed his last name, was a failed actor, having allegedly lost the role of Woody on Cheers by a slim margin. And for a while, Treadwell pretended to be an orphan from Australia. He talks candidly about a history of substance abuse and it's apparent that Treadwell substituted one dangerous behavior for another.

A large part, if not all of the documentary's appeal is watching Timothy Treadwell. With a Prince Valiant haircut and fey mannerisms, his larger than life persona is endearing. He frolics in the wilderness with his family of bears, having given them names like Sgt. Brown, Mr. Chocolate, Tabitha, and The Grinch (Downy and Rowdy are personal favourites). Grizzly Man transcends entertaining exploitation whenever Treadwell sheds his Gumpish ways. When he gets into a shouting match with various gods, including Allah and "the Hindu guy that floats," we realize we're witnessing something strangely sad. Treadwell befriends and falls in love with a wild fox named Timmy and the love almost seems reciprocated. He has an emotional breakdown over a bumblebee that died while pollinating a flower. It's strange watching Treadwell, so peaceful and full of warmth. You're immediately put at ease, even with the knowledge that same peaceful nature led to his demise.

Director Werner Herzog, no stranger to films about obsessive men, wisely intercuts Treadwell's footage with short interviews of his friends and family. The pathologist who examined the contents of the bear's stomach, eerily and without expression, recounts his take on how the maulings took place. While the audience never hears the audio of the attack which was taken by a running video camera (in the chaos its lens cap wasn't removed), both Herzog and the pathologist offer insight on its contents. It's Herzog who after listening to the audio, urges Treadwell's ex-girlfriend to never listen to the tape, begging her to destroy it instead. What horrible sounds must have been captured to elicit such a response from of all people, a documentarian. The violent deadly nature of Grizzlies is underscored throughout the film, including footage of two large males fighting over a female (the aftermath and Treadwell's reaction, priceless). Treadwell himself opens the film with commentary on their killing power, constantly, obsessively, and with great foreshadow, using the word decapitation.

Though not certain, it was clear to me by the film's conclusion that Treadwell suffered from several forms of mental illness, manic-depression and schizophrenia being chief amoung them. His violent outbursts against the world, his need to shed his human shell, his nonsensical rants on random subjects like homosexuality, all point to a man who was in desperate need of help, but instead was surrounded by enablers and bystanders masked as caregivers.

Despite the tragedy of it all, especially the loss of Amie Huguenard who actually feared bears and seemed wrapped up in a situation beyond her comprehension, you never quite feel sad about Treadwell's death. From a man's perspective, living with bears ranks right up there with dating supermodels and racing sports cars on the coolness scale. Few people truly live their lives the way they want, without any concern of ridicule or consequence. Fewer still will die doing what they love. For that, Treadwell should be admired. Grizzly Man stands as his tribute. And will forever be his legacy.

A+

I love a Good "Bad" review and that was brilliant.