Futurama: Bender's Game (2008)

3 STARS


Directed by Dwayne Carey-Hill
Produced by Claudia Katz, Lee Supercinski
Written by Eric Horsted, Michael Rowe, Eric Kaplan, David X. Cohen, Patric M. Verrone

Starring Billy West, Katey Sagal, John DiMaggio

Runtime 1 hour, 27 min.
Worldwide Gross N/A
Genres Comedy, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Adventure

Debuting on television in 1999, Matt Groening's futuristic space comedy "Futurama" was on for four seasons before being cut off the air. Despite good reviews and three Emmy Awards, the program was put to shame by FOX's lack of support and constant changing of the show's timeslot. Once being rebroadcast by late night programming, "Futurama" found itself a strong audience and steady support for the show's revival. Five years later, what fans get is a series of four straight-to-video films. The films were so successful, a new season of television shows are now being produced for airtime on Comedy Central. Bender's Game is the third in the video series.

What "Futurama" was known for was its intelligent humor, as well as its zaniness and originality. Though the humor is still present in Bender's Game, what lacks is the series' sophistication and charm. From five years ago, "Futurama" has seemed to decreased in its quality, taking cheap jokes and easy laughs. The series was much more detailed than these videos are. Everything just seems dulled down for the 20-year-old bachelor crowd. Where's the intelligence and subtle comedy that used to be the soul of this program? I hope they haven't gotten lost in the five years of the show's hiatus.

What is still hear as loud as it was originally is the writers' use of imagination. The plot is fun, fresh and original. In this adventure, the Planet Express crew becomes concerned with business conglomerate MomCorp monopolizing the fuel industry. With gas prices and tensions rising, the gang goes to the MomCorp HQ to try and stop the madness, with damaging and equally interesting results. The voice acting is still marvelous, with each line dripping with the talent of a powerful cast. The animation is crisp as well. It's finely polished and well done. You can tell they put a lot of effort in keeping with the visuals of the television series.

Sadly, I fear that this sharp comedy might be going down the wrong path. Some parts of the story seem rushed. Some plot twists are so quick it makes the film a bit confusing. I never had this problem with the series. Things were showcased beautifully. This is even more impressive since the crew had to force an interesting story into only 22 minutes. But with Bender's Game, they had a whole 90 minutes to use to their advantage. Why did they make the decision to move things at a quicker pace? Take your time. You actually have some of it to spare now.

What Bender's Game succeeds with is its superiority over the two previous films. Though this story's pacing problems might take away from the film from time to time, they're much improved from Bender's Big Score, the first in the Futurama film quadrilogy. This film also is more focused than the second, The Beast with a Billion Backs. So, with what I can tell, the series is definitely getting better. It's just not quite up to the par it used to be. Hopefully these films are simply experimentation until the film's new season and not a change of heart.

Though it might sound like I'm ripping into the film a bit, Bender's Game is definitely worth watching. It's very funny. In fact, I'm actually impressed that the quality of the film isn't worse than it is. With pressure from the currently popular toilet and barf humor in today's comedy, I'm glad that "Futurama" hasn't totally lost its ethics. Though there's some toilet humor in Bender's Game that you wouldn't have seen before, there aren't any "Family Guy"-esque moments that want to make me throw up. That's definitely something to celebrate. Here's to hoping it doesn't get worse!

Bender's Game is currently unrated.

Frost/Nixon (2008)

3 STARS

Directed by Ron Howard
Produced by Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard
Written by Peter Morgan (based on his play, which was based on historical events)

Starring Michael Sheen, Frank Langella, Kevin Bacon

Runtime 2 hours, 2 min.
Worldwide Gross $27,426,335
Genres Drama, Historical

Over two years following the infamous Watergate scandal, American president Richard Nixon has finally resigned his office. Following this event, it takes constant struggle and over $2 million for British journalist David Frost to interview Nixon for a special televised event, which is Nixon's first journalistic interview since his resignation. Its these struggles to get Nixon on the airwaves that takes up the two hours of film known as Frost/Nixon.

In most instances, I don't know what I should be feeling when watching it. Is this film about the interviews? Or the presidency? Though some might say that this doesn't matter at all, I feel that it does. It feels like the script is constantly battling with itself about the film's plot. Just when you start to think that the film is about the Watergate scandal and the interviews between Frost and Nixon, pictures are shown of the violent impact of the Vietnam War. Vietnam hasn't been a major plot element until this moment. Why does Vietnam matter? In a film about Nixon's presidency, it would. But this film isn't about that...or is it? I have no idea. This is one of the film's big problems.

To tell the honest truth, I do like this film. Outside of Langella's strong acting, Frost/Nixon is intelligent and knowledgeable. I feel like I learned some things watching it. However, I'm reluctant to accept this film as pure fact. Many historians note constant inaccuracies. The largest criticism I've read is that the film presents an opinion that the Frost/Nixon interviews were a bigger event than they really were. Others have said that many of the crucial dialogue is completely fake and that some events never even happened. Even if this is expected in a dramatic film, it would have been nice if history was respected more in Peter Morgan's screenplay.

Though I've previously noted my problems with the film's script, it succeeds in some ways as well. The relationship between Frost and Nixon is developed nicely and is very intriguing to watch. It's what hooked me into the story. Some of the film's dialogue is great as well. Another thing worth noting is the film's opening. It does very well in attracting attention.

To me, Frost/Nixon's biggest problem is that there is nothing in the film that hasn't been seen before. Where other 2008 films like Slumdog Millionaire and WALL-E flourish in creativity, there is nothing here that is incredibly memorable. Though Frank Langella's performance is well done, his approach to the character is nowhere near fresh. It's been done before and probably better. This can be said about all aspects of the production. Where's the replay value? What would make you want to see this film again?

Though nothing in Frost/Nixon is incredibly terrible, don't expect too much from it. It's not shocking, appalling, incredible, heartbreaking or anything else that could possibly make it a great film. It just is. I'm not saying that a film has to be any of these things to be great, but in a political drama, some intrigue would be nice. Go ahead and give Frost/Nixon a watch. You just probably wont want to watch it again.

Frost/Nixon is rated R for some language.

Doubt (2008)

5 STARS


Directed by John Patrick Shanley
Produced by Mark Roybal, Scott Rudin
Written by John Patrick Shanley (based on his play, Doubt: A Parable)

Starring Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams

Runtime 1 hour, 44 min.
Worldwide Gross $50,847,196
Genres Drama, Mystery

It's hard to express just how amazing this film is. Based off John Patrick Shanley's epic Tony Award-winning play, Doubt tells the story of a Catholic school in The Bronx. It's 1964 and Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Streep) is having some doubts about the school's reverend, Father Brendan Flynn (Hoffman). She tells her fellow sisters to keep an eye out for suspicious activity. When Sister James (Adams) tells Aloysius about a private meeting Flynn had with one of the school's children, chaos ensues.

Throughout the film, some things should be considered. Are the child abusers really the enemy? Or are the people who go after them the ones we should be worrying about? No one's saying that child abusers should be given sympathy. But is searching for them like a witch hunt really an effective way to do things? If Aloysius had never told her Sisters to look for suspicious activity, would anything at all have stood out to Sister James? These are questions that came to my mind when watching Doubt.

Something great about Doubt is its cast. Academy Award nominations went to Streep, Hoffman, Adams and Viola Davis as Mrs. Miller. But the performance that stands out the most to me is Streep's. Her performance is the best I've ever seen her in. She plays her role with an incredible power that puts every other modern-day actor to shame. After all, what other actors can say that they have fifteen Oscar nominations? But this role takes the cake.

The film's script is great as well. There's many memorable lines and some scenes that will never leave my mind. What's really great about the screenplay is that each character has their own noticeable traits to identify them with. Unlike some films, Doubt's characters are fully developed. Father Flynn has his eyecatching flamboyance, Sister James has her incredible kindness and devotion and Aloysius keeps strong with her die hard strictness. It's with theses quirks that the actors mend so well with.

Are there any bad qualities in this film? To tell the truth, I can't find any. Everything just seems so amazing to me. Some critics say that some of the film's scenes seem fake and overstaged. I completely disagree. To me, you can't get any more real than the drama displayed in Doubt. Its writing is pure as it can possibly get. Conversely, other critics said that Doubt wasn't dramatic enough. That it didn't shock them like a mystery film should. But in my opinion, Doubt isn't a film that's supposed to shock you. It's supposed to make you think. And Doubt certainly does this.

Doubt is definitely another amazing film in a great year for cinema. How it managed not to score a Best Picture nomination astounds me. Doubt is truly exceptional and succeeds in ways that other films don't even come close to. Even if you don't like it as much as I do, Doubt is still a film that you should see at least once.

Doubt is rated PG-13 for thematic material.

Little Children (2006)

4 STARS


Directed by Todd Field
Produced by Albert Berger, Todd Field, Ron Yerxa
Written by Todd Field, Tom Perrotta (based on the novel by Tom Perrotta)

Starring Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley

Runtime 2 hours, 10 min.
Worldwide Gross $14,821,658
Genres Drama, Romance

In 2004, Tom Perrotta, writer of the acclaimed 1998 novel Election, releases Little Children, which is subsequently listed on numerous Top Ten lists. Only two years later, Little Children is released for the silver screen. How is a film made in such a short amount of time? Little Children is a very good film. The fact that it was realized, adapted, cast, shot, edited and released in under two years only adds to the film's brilliance.

It's hard to describe the plot of Little Children. It's mainly about two people, Sarah Pierce (Winslet) and Brad Adamson (Wilson) who embark in an extramarital affair. Then there's ex-cop Larry Hedges (Noah Emmerich), who is pissed off about a convicted sex offender living in his neighborhood. The sex offender, Ronald McGorvey (Haley) is having trouble battling his immoral urges while his mother (Phyllis Somerville) is wanting to help him get on with his life. Meanwhile, Sarah's relationship with her husband is falling apart and gossip about her is circulating the neighborhood. On Brad's end, he's having trouble with his wife (Jennifer Connelly), who's pressuring him to pass the bar exam and get a job as a lawyer. Needless to say, a lot is going on.

The strongest element of Little Children is its cast. While Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson are both decent in their portrayals, its the film's supporting cast that is really notable. Amazing performances come from both Jackie Earle Haley and Phyllis Somerville. Another great performance comes from Tony Award-winner Jane Adams, who plays Sheila, Ronald's date in the dinner scene. Though her performance is less than five minutes in length, it's flawless. Truthfully, its hard to find someone in this film who does a bad job acting. This is the most compelling reason to see the film. It's hard to think of a film that matches Little Children in its quality of acting.

Something else notable is the film's screenplay. With all of its subplots, the script is still coherent enough to be easy enough to understand. It's not a confusing film, which is a great achievement considering the story's complexities. Something that might throw people off is the film's alarmingly slow pace. Though there's many eye grabbing moments, the film is altogether slow. But like my review of The Queen, I don't see this as a bad thing. I don't mind, but others might.

I also really like the score, composed by Thomas Newman. But something that really makes Little Children original is its narration, which is fun and creatively done. However, the best quality of this film is its ending. It's perfect. It almost effortlessly resolves all of the story's conflicts and answers all questions quickly and effectively. But most of all, it's shocking. That's right, shocking. I actually gasped. Be prepared. It's perhaps one of the greatest endings to a film I've ever seen.

The one thing holding the film back for me is its length. When looking back, some scenes seem a bit unneeded. This makes it seems like the film is just rambling on, when this really isn't the case. The film could have been much more fluent if some things were taken out. But that's just my opinion.

Little Children is very well done. Something that astounds me is how underrated it is. It bombed at the box office, taking in $12 million less than it's production budget. It was also shunned at the Academy Awards, earning only three nominations and no Best Picture nod. But it's alright. Little Children is revealing, frightening, controversial, brilliantly acted and in a way, even beautiful. And that's good enough for me.

Little Children is rated R for strong sexuality and nudity, language and some disturbing content.

Jesus Camp (2006)

4 STARS


Directed by Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady
Produced by Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady

Starring Becky Fischer, Mike Papantonio, participating interviewees

Runtime 1 hour, 27 min.
Worldwide Gross $1,013,596
Genres Documentary

Have you ever wondered what the word evangelical actually means? Jesus Camp will certainly give you a good idea. I'm not at all suggesting that this film gives a fair representation of every evangelical Christian on Earth. This is how stereotypes are made. But if anything, this film definitely shows you how devoted some of these people are towards their beliefs.

Jesus Camp follows evangelical leader Becky Fischer and her children's summer camp called the "Kids on Fire School of Ministry". At the camp, the attending children perform many questionable activities, like praying before a cutout of George Bush and breaking cups with words like "government" on them. Is this sane? Is this okay? This isn't for me to answer, but these are the questions that the film presents.

How you view Jesus Camp all depends on your beliefs. If you're a strong Christian, you might see Becky Fischer as a revolutionary and you might think that what she's doing is incredibly noble. If you're anti-religion, you'd probably view Becky Fischer as insane and you might think that what she's doing is harming these kids. This is the beauty of Jesus Camp. Unlike documentaries like Religilous or Fahrenheit 9/11, its stance is not entirely clear. It can easily be interpreted on either side of the spectrum. Good documentaries are like this.

Controversial opinions aside, the film itself is very well made. For one, it's refreshing to see directors who aren't afraid to artistically use cinematography, done by cinematographers Mira Chang and Jenna Rosher. There's some scenes in the film that are made a lot stronger by straying away from the traditional wide-angle shot. The film's editing by Enat Sidi is good as well, with each thought running fluently to the next. I also applaud Camp's directors for staying on the film's topic. Other directors could have have taken this topic and ran all over the place with it, trying to do too much. Thankfully, the directors of this film are smarter than that.

One thing that detracts from the film are the scenes with Mike Papantonio. Scenes are filmed in the radio host's recording studio during one of his shows. While they do offer an alternate opinion, it doesn't stop the scenes from seeming very unnecessary. The film's about a group of kids at a bible camp. Why should we care about what Mike Papantonio thinks? Also uneven is the film's soundtrack. While well done, it sometimes seems
unneeded and over dramatic.

Those scenes aside, to me, Jesus Camp is everything a documentary should be. It's fair, evenly presented, gripping, thought-provoking and artistic. What more could you want? Jesus Camp is a great film. If you haven't seen it, do so when the opportunity presents itself. You won't regret it.

Jesus Camp is rated PG-13 for some discussions of mature subject matter.

The Reader (2008)

4.5 STARS

Directed by Stephen Daldry
Produced by Donna Gigliotti, Anthony Minghella, Redmond Morris, Sydney Pollack
Written by David Hare (based on the novel by Bernhard Schlink)

Starring Kate Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes

Runtime 2 hours, 4 min.
Worldwide Gross $108,227,848 (as of 08/24/09, still in theatres)
Genres Drama, Romance


Set in post-WWII Germany, The Reader is story of tragedy, guilt and forbidden romance. The film stars the irreplaceable Kate Winslet as Hanna Schmitz, a kind, hard-working woman with a dark past. Also starring, in his American cinema debut, is David Kross as Michael Berg, Schmitz's young and naïve lover. After the film's introductory scene (with Ralph Fiennes as an older Michael), the film is flashed 47 years in the past, where Michael is wandering the streets with a case of scarlet fever. When spotted by Hanna, he is tended to and walked home. It is in this scene when the two characters develop a complicated love for each other - a love that is driven throughout the film to its end.

Though I will not reveal exactly how, The Reader is a holocaust related film. However, unlike other holocaust epics, such as Spielberg's Schindler's List and Benigni's La vita è bella, not a single scene is ever set in the 1940s. Not even a flashback of such a scene ever occurs. But this makes The Reader even more interesting to watch. Though firsthand evidence of the holocaust is never seen, this doesn't take ever away from the film's raw, emotional power. This is no doubt the work of an amazing director and screenwriter. Another anomaly about The Reader is that the film is not shown from a victim's point-of-view, but a perpetrator's. Amazingly enough, when you watch this film, you don't feel disgust towards this perpetrator, but sympathy.

The acting in this film stands out as well. Though the acting of Kross and Fiennes is good, it is the work of Kate Winslet that really stands out. From her stature to her accent, Winslet is 100% German in this film and she never seems out of place. She reads her lines incredibly well, with a fluency that grabs attention in every syllable. She steals every scene with a quality of acting that will get the attention of viewers for years to come.

Also notable is the cinematography from both Roger Deakins and Chris Menges. Though the two did not work on the film collaboratively, the images still seem to flow beautifully. This film's cinematography is a perfect example of how to use the craft intelligently and artistically. Additionally worth noting is the art direction by Christian M. Goldbeck and Eva Stiebler. Though simplistic, the sets' dark palette match well with the dark tones of the film's screenplay.

Though beautifully written, something troubled me about the screenplay by David Hare. Throughout the film I sometimes asked myself, "What is he trying to say? What is the message?" By the complexities of the film's script, it could be a number of things. It might be that Hare wants us to form our own opinion and draw our own ideas about the film's meaning, something I have no problem with. Nevertheless, The Reader is definitely saying something. I'm just not sure what. Thorough reflection is needed for a film like this.

This film stands as just one of the many reasons why 2008 was such a magnificent year for cinema. Whether you might not want to, The Reader makes you think and helps you craft your own opinions. It's an incredible and powerful film that you will not forget once you've seen. If you haven't yet, do so. Just be prepared with a box of tissues and a clear, open mind.

The Reader is rated R for some scenes of sexuality and nudity.