Blogger Precedent could be set

Hey Everyone!

Hope y'all are having a great break.

Though this really has nothing to do with movie or TV reviews, it has a lot to do with blogging. As has been discussed at length within journalism, blogging is changing the face of how people get their information.

However, the celebrity gossip Web Site, http://www.perezhilton, which i read very frequently, is currently involved in a $7.5 million lawsuit against the paparazzi photo source X17.

The LA Times did a story on this lawsuit, which can be read in full at the above link.

Some highlights of the story are quoted below

Reached by phone at his "office," a corner table in a Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf on Sunset Boulevard, Hilton, whose real name
is Mario Lavandeira, sounded miffed. "She is suing me because I'm arrogant? That's not what her press release said. My
position is that I don't think what I am doing is illegal, and I am going to vigorously defend myself. I am willing to step up
to the plate and fight for my rights and fight for the rights of all bloggers."

While it's easy to be flippant about a battle between paparazzi and a sometimes juvenile blogger (who might draw cocaine
or mucus trails from noses, mouth drool or other snarky/silly things on the photos he posts), there is a serious legal
question at issue."

But X17's attorney, John Tehranian of Costa Mesa, doesn't see it as fair use at all. Hilton, he said, "is basically free-riding
on the labor and efforts of X17 and its photographers who stay up all night and roam the city, and he simply right-clicks
and posts their photos." (Actually, Navarre said, she has altered her site so that Hilton can no longer right-click to get
photos, but he manages to get them anyway.)

This conflict is more than a juicy legal fight between two controversial enterprises. It's also the manifestation of a cultural
shift in how those obsessed with pop culture get their fixes. These days, no one has to wait for People's weekly
appearance on the newsstand or even "Access Hollywood's" nightly roundups to find out about Nicole Richie's latest arrest
or shockingly low weight.

Hilton, who said he earned less than $50,000 last year and expected to make in the six figures this year, is known for the
dizzying pace at which he updates his site, sometimes posting two dozen or more times a day.

"Perez is not being targeted because he's an affront to paparazzi everywhere," said technology expert Matt Lum, whose
company, Hoodlum Productions, provides technology expertise to both Hilton and X17. "He is being targeted because the
entire industry is undergoing a shift that was arguably brought on by blogs like perezhilton.com, which took stargazers
from a weekly or nightly television fix to an hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute, entertain-yourself-at-the-workplace
enterprise.

"The way that Americans get their news and entertainment these days is a whole lot different from waiting for things to get
printed, and that's what's at the crux of this whole ordeal," Lum added. "When he says he is fighting for all bloggers, he
really is."

Keep an eye out on this law suit because this will have serious consequences for journalists and bloggers alike!

Manifesto of Miles

An esteemed professor of critical writing once asked me and a group of my peers what we felt the role of the critic was. At the time, I was fortunate enough to have taken the opportunity to publish a few practice reviews for the school paper before this point, and like some of my fellow writers on Dawg Flicks, I have been an avid magazine (and website) review reader for most of my life.

So I turned my chair around in my cozy little back corner of the classroom, and I wrote the first thing that came to my mind. It went something like this:

"The responsibility of a critic is that of an honest audience member to another. An audience knows what it wants to see—what it expects—and it is not the critic's job to define what they themselves expect, but rather to understand the audience's expectations and objectively convey how they have or have not been met."

Okay, so I've added a few words since those first few days of class, but I am proud to say that the principle remains the same.

Go out there and review to your heart's content, but don't let the readers walk away with an impression of how much you liked it. Give them a strong impression of how much they are going to like it, and your job, as they say, is done.

Greg's Manifesto

When I was younger I wanted to be a diplomat so I could gain coveted diplomatic immunities such as no speeding tickets. With this same logic, I first thought of reviewing as an easy way to gain access into the world of entertainment. It was going to be fun. In reality there can be a lot of work behind a good review, but if you forget the fun part the reader is left to suffer.

A good reviewer has enthusiasm for the topic they're reviewing. They try and engage their readers while still delivering an honest verdict that they have reached after deliberating long and hard on their subject. If a reviewer is being honest, engaging, and shows a passion for art then they are doing their job. Backing up reviews with evidence is also very important in order for a reviewer to establish credibility with their readers. A little research can go a long way towards making a good review.

Our society depends on strong reviewers. Good reviewers may be found just about anywhere. Some are at major newspapers and magazines, and some can be found at blogs in the dusty corners of the cyberworld. As a reader, look for someone who shares your entertainment interests. A good reviewer will save you time and money.

And if you ever decide you want to be like me and review films and TV, just look at my profile picture. You must first really learn to love popcorn.

Becky's Manifesto

At the beginning of my Critical Writing class, my professor, Professor Boyd, asked the class, "What do you think about the role of the critic?" It didn't take me very long to think about this; I've thought about it many times before and my mind was made up. I viewed reviews as a means of entertainment.

I love to read entertainment magazines like People, US Weekly and Entertainment Weekly, and I love films: love to watch them, critique them and read about them. I make sure to always read the movie reviews in these magazines, not even thinking of the effort that went into the writing, though I do now. I read the reviews as entertainment.

If I wanted to see a film, but a critic panned it, I would still see the film. Basically, I take a critic's advice with a grain of salt. After spending a long semester honing my skills in critical writing, I came to appreciate the effort that it takes to produce a good review. Throughout the semester, several critics visited our class to help us in our efforts. They believe strongly in the importance of their jobs and the skills that reviewing requires. Along with Professor Boyd, these critics taught me how to write a review. Every single one of them told us to write conversationally as if writing to a friend. Professor Boyd stressed the basic writing skills: grammar, structure and style.

I learned a lot about myself as a writer this year. Critical writing was fun for me, and one day it may be something that I pursue, but my mind has not changed. I do believe that reviewing is an art form that takes practice and skill, but I see reviews still as entertainment. I understand that critics are "experts" in their field, but everyone has an opinion, and that opinion is often different from others. Everyone has different tastes, which is why I'm sure some people will not agree with my view of the critic. If I ever do become a critic, I'll be fine with being just an entertainer.

Jo's Manifesto

At the start of the semester, we read an article titled, “Critics’ Voices Become a Whisper.” In this article, Patrick Goldstein chronicled the supposed ineffectiveness of critics when panned movies like “The Da Vinci Code” and the second “Pirates of the Caribbean” did very well at the box office this summer. Some people took this to mean that the role of the critic was becoming moot. The other perception of critics is negative. Even the word “critic” has a negative connotation in most everyday speech.

After taking this critical writing class, however, I have a new appreciation and respect for critics’ works. I don’t take critical writing to be either a dying profession nor do I take it to be something that is negative (except maybe Michiko Kakutani).

To me, criticism is a well-written, researched and informative opinion. It is an art form that can put a new author on the map or can humble a singer who has gotten too comfortable at the top. While everyone has an opinion, I’ve experienced the hard work that goes into articulating a researched article either encouraging or dissuading someone to spend almost $8 on a movie ticket or to choose one show over another on Thursday nights.

Though over the next few years, critics’ mediums may change and their methods of communicating may shift, I think the critic remains a vital part of the dialogue in the multi-billion dollar entertainment industry.

Ugly Betty

"Ugly Betty"

ABC Thursdays 8/7 c

By Anna Fry

Don’t call me on Thursday nights between eight and nine. For the rest of the fall television season, I’ll be busy watching “Ugly Betty.”

For those who have yet to discover the charms of America Ferrera’s loveable loser Betty Suarez, my advice is to tune in now. Although I missed the first three episodes, I’m hooked after watching only the fourth, “Fey’s Sleigh Ride,” which aired Oct. 19, 2006. Don’t worry, the writers generously sprinkle context clues throughout the witty dialogue that help new viewers understand the ongoing storylines of ABC’s comedy / drama / mystery hybrid.

On paper, “Ugly Betty” doesn’t look that promising. The fish-out-of-water premise is a familiar one—a naïve, good-hearted painfully unhip girl-next-door gets caught up in the bustling New York fashion scene (think Devil Wears Prada).

The expertly chosen cast is what makes this adaptation of the hit Columbian telenovela “Yo Soy Betty, La Fea” so entertaining and into appointment television; The actors are fully committed to their over-the-top characters.

Betty, with braces, thick red glasses, and unruly hair, is hired to be the assistant to handsome playboy Daniel Meade, who has taken over as the editor of Mode fashion magazine from his intimidating, secretive father Bradford Meade.

In the fourth episode, Betty runs into trouble because she is possibly the source of a leak that led to a hated rival fashion magazine stealing the concept for Mode’s holiday spread. Betty teams up with two snarky coworkers, Marc and Amanda, fellow loose-lipped guilty parties. Marc and Amanda delight in Betty’s missteps and embarrassments, whipping out camera phones to capture Betty clumsily spilling a drink on a party-goer.

Under orders from the show’s most villainous character, Wilhelmina Slater (Vanessa L. Williams), the two try to undermine Betty. Marc, Amanda and Wilhelmina are just mean enough for you to root for Betty, but are so comic in their superficial, conniving meanness that it doesn’t alienate you. Williams in particular takes a character that is essentially every stereotype of a villain we’ve ever seen (her appearances are set to ominous music) and develops her into a scene-stealer by exaggerating her scheming ways.

The office scenes are equally as entertaining as the scenes revolving around Betty’s family. Mark Indelicato, 12, displays impressive comedic chops as Betty’s aspiring fashionista nephew who skips school to shadow her on the job.

Unfortunately, the storyline involving Betty’s ex-boyfriend Walter is irritating. He dumped Betty for another girl and then comes crawling back. Although their relationship status remains unresolved, it seems Betty is too full of goodness not to forgive him. The problem is that the audience hasn’t. Walter’s character stands out from the otherwise excellent cast as the sole weak, disposable character.

However, Walter plays a small enough role that it doesn’t detract too much from the overall strength of the show. So, if you do decide to call me on Thursday night, make sure it’s during a commercial break.

Gilmore Girls*

* This is a critical competition between two reviews. Use the comments! State your preference and discuss with other readers.

"Gilmore Girls"
The CW Tuesdays 8/7C

By Becky Howell

Lorelai just can’t get over “Snakes on a Plane.” “Snakes on a plane!” she cries over and over again after seeing the infamous film with Chris, her daughter Rory’s father. Chris, with his charming, boy-like smile, gazes at her with amusement and appreciation.

“A movie should not just be its title,” Lorelai says. “This was all just snakes, snakes, relentless snakes, snakes on a plane, snakes, snakes, snakes on a plane.”
This is Lorelai Gilmore, a woman Lauren Graham has made infamous for her witty, fast-paced banter, with only her squeaky-clean daughter Rory, played by the porcelain-skinned Alexis Bledel, coming in a close second.

This is more like the “Gilmore Girls” we all know and love: long rants and outbursts about absolutely nothing. After Amy Sherman-Palladino, the creator of the show, decided to leave in early 2006, fans worried this might change the show, which is now in its seventh season. Dave Rosenthal, a writer/producer on the show, took over the job and almost proved the fans right. Something about the dialogue in the first few episodes just didn’t seem right, but “Gilmore Girls” is back on track in the fourth episode.

The big question now, after the bust-up of Lorelai and Luke, the grungy, grumpy diner owner, is whether or not Lorelai can trust Chris with her newly broken heart. Sookie, Lorelai’s bubbly yet annoying friend, and Rory are not so sure, with Sookie referring to Chris as the “bowling ball” of rebound dating.

Meanwhile, Rory is trying to deal with the absence of her boyfriend Logan while he is in London on business. Lonely and bored, she returns to Yale for the semester and dives right into work. While reporting on an art show for the paper, Rory makes two very annoying friends who are wearing what I can only assume is artsy-chic clothing. In true “Gilmore Girls” fashion, the newcomers are fast talkers, but not quite in the same charming manner as our beloved Gilmore girls. Oh, I wish they would stop talking. In a move that could only come from true desperation and boredom, Rory brings her new friends home to hang out and blows off a phone call from Logan.

This is all good fun, but the best part of the episode involves a scene with Emily Gilmore, Lorelai’s controlling and snooty mother, that left me almost crying with laughter. After being pulled over for talking on her cellphone, Emily lets the policeman have it, leading him to believe that she has been drinking. After refusing to take the Breathalyzer test, an incredulous and infuriated Mrs. Gilmore is arrested.

During a very romantic date with Chris, Lorelai’s evening gets even better when she goes to get her mother out of jail and gleefully takes pictures with the officers.

These are the ingredients that make up “Gilmore Girls.” The show has always been able to mix warm and fuzzy with quirky and amusing in a flawless execution. Though the new writers may have had trouble getting started, they now appear to be warmed up and ready to go.

By Jo Lee

I realize I’m about to anger many “Gilmore Girls” fans, but I’m prepared. I like Chris and Lorelai.

The Oct. 17 episode picks up six weeks after Chris tells Lorelai he loves her at the end of the previous week’s episode. They are now dating, but Chris hasn’t been invited inside.
Yes, Chris has made some terrible mistakes in past seasons. There was Sherri’s pregnancy and the fight that caused Luke and Lorelai’s breakup. After being miserable for the end of last season, Lorelai is finally happy with Chris, and presently, their relationship is the most engaging part of the Tuesday night drama.

To be fair, “Gilmore Girls” has faced major changes for its seventh (and, many speculate, final) season. There was the departure of creator and executive producer Amy Sherman-Palladino and her husband, producer Daniel Palladino, who could not reach a contractual agreement last spring. In addition to producing, the Palladinos wrote 87 of the first six seasons’ 131 episodes. “Gilmore Girls” also moved to The CW, a new network conglomerate of ratings-challenged The WB and UPN.

Because of these changes, it’s natural that new executive producer David S. Rosenthal may need time to adjust. Tuesday marked the fourth episode of the new creative regime, but the spark that made “Gilmore Girls” such a popular and critical darling is still missing.

This week’s episode, titled “'S Wonderful, 'S Marvelous” was written by Gayle Abrams. In her “Gilmore Girls” debut, Abrams keeps the pop culture references, with characters citing everything from “Snakes on a Plane” to “Folsom Prison Blues.” However, the dialogue is slower and the flow of the previously fast-paced show lacks the wit and intelligence perfected under the Palladinos.

Though it’s natural for 21-year-old Rory to share less on-screen time with her mother, they shared a single scene bantering over clothes. Thankfully last season’s feud is over, but it would be nice to see them interact more, as their relationship, the envy of mothers and daughters everywhere, is the show’s heart.

When the writing falls short, the seasoned actors, so familiar with their small-screen counterparts, are able to lift the show up somewhat. Comedic genius Lauren Graham is perfect as Lorelai and flawlessly projects her character as a multi-faceted, complicated yet totally relatable modern-day single mother.

Scott Patterson has also evolved from surly diner-owner to unsure dad of April, the 12-year-old daughter he found out about last season. Patterson has been interesting to watch, as Luke makes his bumbling entrance into fatherhood, which should continue as April is staying with Luke for two weeks.

While covering an art show for the paper, Rory, (the talented Alexis Bledel), finally makes some girl friends of her own outside of Paris. Fast-talking but painfully annoying Lucy and Joni are too reminiscent of Madeline and Louise from Rory’s Chilton days, and I hope they’re not permanent fixtures in future episodes.

Then there’s Lorelai and Chris. In a gesture that would make any girl swoon, Chris goes all out on a romantic date, rents a vintage convertible, and they watch “Funny Face” at their own private drive-in. Though charismatic Graham could have chemistry with a telephone poll, hers with Chris, (David Sutcliffe), is undeniable. When they interact, I get the feeling that they have indeed known each other forever, and Chris is the only man who I think can truly get Lorelai, which he demonstrates in this episode when he and Lorelai have to bail out her mom, Emily.
The jail time is caused when, in a hilarious scene, Emily gets arrested for talking on her cell phone while driving. Kelly Bishop, who over the past seven seasons has perfected the blend of evil and humor in Emily, is at her peak tonight as a snob who refuses to comply.

As the episode winds down and they drop off Emily, Lorelai says Chris is the only man who really knows her and, to my delight, he finally makes it past the front door.

I realize happiness never lasts long, that Chris will probably screw up, and Luke will save the day. But for now, I’ll root for Chris and hope executive producer Rosenthal finds the spark fans expect from this superb show.

Hollywoodland

"Hollywoodland"

Starring Ben Affleck, Adrien Brody, and Diane Lane

Rated R for language, some violence and sexual content.

Grade: A-
Verdict: Great acting and cheap time travel.

By Greg Sullivan

Ben Affleck. Adrien Brody. Diane Lane. Maybe you’ve heard some of these names before.

Hollywoodland has its share of star power. What separates it from scores of other films? The stars actually perform.

The film is a murder mystery based on real-life events. George Reeves, TV’s Superman in the fifties, was found shot dead in his bedroom after a party one night. Police thought the death was a suicide, but this theory has always been a subject of controversy.

So the task of making this haunting true story come alive is given to a cast stocked with A-list actors. The challenge is to make the audience believe they’re in Hollywood’s past.

Affleck, fresh off appearances in Surviving Christmas and Gigli, was due for a break-out performance, and he delivers here. He portrays George Reeves with all the charm of a classic Hollywood actor. He’s polished, he’s vibrant, and he looks comfortable in a suit.

Adrien Brody delivers a strong performance as loser detective Louis Simo. Simo is hired by Reeves’ mother and becomes wrapped up in the Reeves case while struggling to help raise his own son.

The film alternates back and forth between scenes from Simo’s life and scenes of Reeves’ life in the days leading up to his death.

The film proposes three ways that Reeves may have died, but none of these theories are new; The film is giving the audience a chance to speculate on Reeves’ death along with Simo.

This technique, however, becomes confusing when the film fails to distinguish whether what Reeves is doing is a theory in Simo’s head or an actual flashback for the audience. I was not expecting Reeves to die a second time, but on his third death I understood that the film was using Simo’s mind to propose theories on how Reeves died.

This problem presented a brief distraction, but it didn’t make the film overly frustrating since there was so much good acting from Brody, Affleck and others.

The title refers to the early days of Hollywood when the white letters on the hill used to spell “Hollywoodland.” However, the sign had fallen long before this time period and the title is a little misleading. Nevertheless, a sense of nostalgia comes across effectively in the film.

Diane Lane could not be a more convincing Toni Mannix. Playing the part of studio executive Eddie Mannix’s wife, she looks just how such a wife must have looked in the 40s and 50s, and her chemistry with Affleck was much easier to watch than J-Lo’s.

The film is directed by Allen Coulter. Best known for his work directing TV’s Sex and the City and The Sopranos, here he is making a promising feature film debut to what will hopefully be a long and distinguished career.

Not only does Hollywoodland offer viewers the opportunity to see some of today’s best actors doing strong work on the same screen, but it takes you back in time for under ten dollars.

And for the 80-year-olds in the audience seeking some closure on George Reeves’ death, SORRY. The murder remains a mystery.

Lost

"Lost"
ABC Wednesdays
9/8 c

By Alison Loudermilk

Like junkies who need their fix, legions of people position themselves in front of the television for each new episode of the character-driven drama, “Lost.” If you read the “Lost” blogs, fans are torn. They desperately want to learn the real story behind the survivors of Oceanic Flight 815 and the mysterious island on which they’ve been stranded. But revealing that secret will mean an end to the high. And no true junkie wants his high to end.

“Further Instructions,” the third episode of season three, delayed that moment a bit longer. Trading the more prosaic storyline of man versus man — or the survivors versus the potentially sinister “Others” tribe also inhabiting the island — veteran writers Carlton Cuse and Liz Sarnoff returned to the more interesting theme of man versus monster (in this case, a polar bear). Conspicuously absent were the show’s arguably three biggest and hottest stars — Jack (Matthew Fox), Kate (Evangeline Lilly) and Sawyer (Josh Holloway). Instead, the recurring and fascinating character John Locke, a hunter and nature freak superbly played by Terry O’Quinn, dominated the episode and battled the polar bear.

Returning to camp after the dramatic implosion of the hatch, another of the show’s many mysteries, the strangely mute Locke seeks to speak with the island. Unlike his fellow survivors, Locke has always regarded the island as more than simply the site of the airplane crash. After being confined to a wheelchair, he suddenly found himself able to walk after the crash. Since then Locke has viewed the island as a sort of living entity capable of strange feats.
Through a self-induced hallucinogenic haze, Locke learns he must “clean up his own mess.” In typical “Lost” fashion, this translates to rescuing fellow survivor Eko (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), held prisoner by a polar bear in the island’s jungle. The bear, by the way, isn’t all that odd on an island that features an invisible monster and more ghostly specters than you could shake a stick at.

Unfortunately, the polar bear special effects were poorly executed. The bear resembled a giant barking dog, as an astute fan noted on one of the “Lost” blogs. Kind of a letdown for a show that consistently racks up one of the biggest budgets on broadcast television.
“Lost” is renowned for keeping viewers on the edge of their seats, and the horror-style dream sequence in which Locke learns what mess he must clean up, shot by director Stephen Williams, provided this episode’s requisite scare and revelation. Along with the intricate plot, hyper-sharp color, quick cuts, close-ups of Locke’s horror-stricken face and some strategic blood quicken the heartbeat but don’t resort to predictable gore fests seen on shows like “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.”

“CSI” may be predictable, but the most recent Nielsen ratings for October demonstrate that “CSI” and its spin-offs consistently pull in more viewers than “Lost.”

Hopefully, these ratings don’t doom the unique and highly entertaining drama. “Lost” epitomizes smart television with its multi-threaded, fast-paced narrative, ongoing story and wild plot twists.

But “Lost” writers should be careful not to repeat the failures of “X-Files,” their sci-fi brethren, spinning too many narrative threads and failing to weave them together into a plausible explanation.

Like “X-Files,” “Lost” invites repeated viewing, encouraging frenzied fans to search for clues they missed the first time around. It prompts them to rehash their findings over the water cooler, the dinner table or the Internet. And, junkie that I am, I don’t want it to end.

For now, a full season stretches before me and millions of dedicated viewers. Beyond that lay the series DVDs to binge on after the show finally ends. But what then? Like any good addict, I’m in denial, living from Wednesday night to Wednesday night.

Desperate Housewives

“Desperate Housewives”

ABC Sundays 9/8 c

By Matthew Grayson

On ABC’s hit series “Desperate Housewives,” it’s the women who play hardball, and in the Oct. 22 episode, titled “Nice She Ain’t,” they try their hand at sabotage.

“Desperate Housewives” always begins with recently departed narrator Mary Alice Young (Brenda Strong) introducing the episode’s theme and always ends, like any well-told story should, by revisiting this theme. However, rarely does an episode of “Desperate Housewives,” or any show, for that matter, carry its theme so expertly and so consistently throughout an entire hour of television as Sunday night’s installment of the award-winning series.

“Nice She Ain’t” weaves together five separate tales of sabotage into one finely crafted story arc full of twists and turns that always surprise but never go over the top. Though all the characters do live on Wisteria Lane, a fictitious but thoroughly convincing street in suburban utopia, “Desperate Housewives” finds far more clever means of transitioning from one home to another than simply hopping door to door. A shot from inside a microwave reveals character after character opening its door to retrieve his or her meal, usually leftover casserole or a TV dinner, until the microwave morphs into an oven, out of which Bree Hodge (Marcia Cross), a devilishly neurotic prude, pulls a beautifully cooked turkey.

Smart humor has always been the strong suit of “Desperate Housewives,” and this episode’s theme of sabotage not surprisingly lends itself to plenty of witty one-liners and hilarious situations. While Bree deals with her daughter’s affair with a teacher, Susan and Edie fight for Mike, who has woken up from his coma but is suffering from amnesia. A few houses - or rather microwaves - down, model-turned-trophy-wife Gabrielle Solis (Eva Longoria) comes home to find her husband Carlos (Ricardo Antonio Chavira) in a bathrobe with champagne in hand and assumes he’s still trying to seduce her out of their ongoing divorce. He tries to explain, but Gabrielle won’t hear him out. Only when she finds a blond bombshell in their bathtub does she get the picture.

Like any woman of Wisteria Lane would do, Gabrielle one-ups her husband in no time. Carlos comes home the next night to find her seducing Phil Lopez, who beat him out for Latino Businessman of the Year. When she can’t “pull the trigger” in bed, though, Carlos insists she still loves him and offers to bring her breakfast in bed. As Carlos opens the bedroom door the next morning, however, he finds her lying next to a random naked man, at which point she explains that they spent all night “pulling the trigger.”

Such surprises, though usually unpredictable, aren’t over the top or even hard to imagine. There’s a sense that what happens on “Nice She Ain’t” happens to someone, somewhere in real life. The characters are authentic, the dialogue is believable and the story lines (who can’t relate to sabotage?) seem like the highlights from a neighborhood’s collective memory—albeit one with a particularly grisly and scandalous past.

Perhaps that’s why series creator Marc Cherry chose such an anonymous name for the setting of “Desperate Housewives.” There are dozens of Wisteria Lanes across the country, each with its own fair share of skeletons in walk-in closets.

The Last Kiss*

* This is a critical competition between two reviews. Use the comments! State your preference and discuss with other readers.

“The Last Kiss”

Starring: Zach Braff, Rachel Bilson, Jacinda Barrett, Tom Wilkinson and Blythe Danner

Rated R for Sexuality, Nudity and Language

Rating: B –

By Jo Lee

Confused boyfriends, young seductresses, shouting matches and quarter-life crises sound like an episode of Maury Pauvich. Instead these elements make up the premise of the new Zach Braff movie, “The Last Kiss.”

In this overly melodramatic adaptation of the Italian movie, “L’Ultimo Bacio,” Michael (Braff) seems to have a wonderful life, including a perfect girlfriend of three years who is pregnant. However, when all Michael envisions for his future is a 9-to-5 job, a mortgage and 2.4 kids, panic sets in.

On cue, in walks the stunning co-ed Kim, (“The O.C.’s” Rachel Bilson), whose college life seems utterly uncomplicated. Two years away from graduating, Kim is interested in Michael and not shy about it. When Kim, simultaneously a bold, flirtatious temptress and a naïve ingénue, makes Michael an offer, he can’t turn dismiss her. Consequently, his life spirals out of control.

Braff is effective as the sweet but misguided Michael, who is at a crossroads in his life. Braff, who admitted to tweaking some of his dialogue, carries the movie with his dry wit and perfectly timed humor. Jacinda Barrett delivers a lackluster performance as Braff’s live-in girlfriend, Jenna. Her only memorable moment is calling Michael a slut then brandishing a knife at the philandering father of her unborn child.

Paul Haggis, screenwriter and back-to-back Oscar winner for “Million Dollar Baby” and “Crash,” fails to impress in his adaptation of Gabriele Muccino’s 2001 film. This movie tells a run-of-the-mill story about getting lost in one’s own life. As Kim says when meeting Michael, “The world is moving so fast now that we start freaking out way before our parents did.” Indeed, “freaking out” is a constant occurrence in the film, as Michael and his band of underdeveloped, one-dimensional friends try to figure out their lives.

There’s commitment-phobe Kenny (“Dumb and Dumberer’s” Erik Christian Olsen) who can’t be with a woman longer than it takes him to redress. Casey Affleck gives an underwhelming performance as Chris, a man overwhelmed by work, a wife and baby. Then there’s the guy whose life just plain sucks. In one scene, single, jobless Izzy, (“Garden State’s” Michael Weston), cries to his ex-girlfriend that he still loves her. This interaction comes across as pathetic and desperate more than sweet and romantic.

Neither Oscar nominee Tom Wilkinson nor Emmy winner Blythe Danner give career-high performances as Jenna’s formulaic, unhappily-ever-after parents. Wilkinson and Danner do bring more depth to their characters than their less-experienced cast-mates; however, even their characters are at times reduced to the roles that plague their daughter and her friends.

Bilson’s flawless portrayal of Kim is a breath of fresh air amidst this histrionic fighting. Her palpable chemistry with Braff makes their scenes some of the most enjoyable and a welcome break from the fighting. Even though Kim is “the other woman,” the innocence Bilson brings to Kim’s character makes it impossible to dislike her.

Director Tony Goldwyn’s attempts to convey passion and emotion through intense fight scenes fall short, and they end up looking like scenes from MTV’s “The Real World.” The verbal battles and tear-fests take up much of the movie and bring about an oppressive air. Watching these scenes makes the audience feel sorry at how pathetic the characters’ lives are instead of invoking a sense of empathy or compassion.

It is actually in the movie’s quieter, more subdued moments that Goldwyn (“Grey’s Anatomy”) succeeds at showing the pain and confusion Michael both causes and suffers. In these beautifully shots scenes underscored by Braff’s handpicked indie soundtrack, the film finally connects with the audience.

When Kim innocently brings Michael a mixed CD only to find out he’s going to be a father, she doesn’t scream like the other characters. Her eyes fill with tears and she softly asks him why. That scene is at once more emotional and gut wrenching than all the yelling scenes combined. Tender, poignant moments like this breathe life into the sometimes-stifling film, making the seemingly endless shouting scenes somewhat more endurable. Some aspirin wouldn’t hurt, either.

"The Last Kiss"

Verdict: Mediocre movie not recommended for serial monogamists.

Grade: C+

By Allison Loudermilk

Don’t go see “The Last Kiss” with a date. This messy relationship movie will have you wondering if the person sitting next to you is The One. Probably not, if this remake of the Italian film “L’Ultimo Bacio” has anything to say about it.

Reprising his role as the goofy, sensitive soul of “Scrubs” and “Garden State,” Zach Braff stars as Michael. Nearing their 30s, he and his three buddies are teetering on the brink of crises brought on by commitment, marriage, kids, and in Michael’s case, a hot, young co-ed catalyst named Kim (Rachel Bilson of “The O.C.”). Once, these kinds of crises might have been reserved for middle-aged men, but no more.

“The world is moving so fast now that we start freaking out way before our parents did because we don’t ever stop to breathe anymore,” Kim says earnestly.

Indeed.

The script makes it hard to feel sorry for these guys. On paper, their lives don’t seem that bad. Michael and his beautiful, smart girlfriend Jenna (Jacinda Barrett) are in love and on the verge of big events like babies, houses and the m-word. Enter Kim, who meets Michael at a wedding and is every girlfriend’s worst nightmare — pretty, fun, uninhibited and 18.

We’re also supposed to sympathize with Michael’s friend Chris (Casey Affleck), who is married with a toddler and a wife who expects him to help out, and with his token single friend Kenny (Eric Christian Olsen), who gets a lot of action.

Blythe Danner, as Jenna’s mom Anna, has them all beat in the acting and the sympathy departments. Even as a minor character, she is easily the best-drawn female role, as opposed to the hastily sketched parts of Jenna, Kim and Chris’s wife Lisa (Lauren Lee Smith). For a movie that attempts to unflinchingly examine relationships and life choices, the underdeveloped female characters are a big script omission by screenwriter and Hollywood golden boy Paul Haggis.

Anna’s rebellion against her deadened 30-year marriage provides one of the movie’s most powerful scenes. Bravely venturing to the gym by herself, she breaks down after she can’t figure out the treadmill. The scene is shot and framed beautifully, as is much of the movie, with the older mom on her knees weeping alone before the darkened, rain-slicked window of the gym.

Does that sound depressing? It is. About two-thirds through the movie, a friend I brought with me left to go shopping, saying the film contained all of her darkest relationship fears.

Dragged down by its weighty themes, “The Last Kiss,” directed by Tony Goldwyn, offers little light besides super sexy Bilson, who was fun to watch and not coincidentally resembles a younger Barrett.

Bilson isn’t given much to work with. One scene has her brightly saying “relationships either work or they don’t.” Uh, thanks for the insight. And when they’re heading down the wrong path, make a mix tape.

If only this movie were a mix tape, it would be great. As with “Garden State,” Braff handpicked the excellent soundtrack, which includes Snow Patrol, Aimee Mann, Fiona Apple and Rufus Wainwright among others. Otherwise, “The Last Kiss” bears as much relation to “Garden State” as a not very funny second cousin.

Unfortunately though, “The Last Kiss” is much more than a mix tape. It’s a relationship movie with an overwhelmingly male perspective and a too-neat ending. That said, “The Last Kiss” will still draw you into its pathos, and it won’t easily leave your head. Much like a hot young co-ed.

Invincible*

* This is a critical competition between two reviews. Use the comments! State your preference and discuss with other readers.

"Invincible"

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Greg Kinnear and Elizabeth Banks

Rated PG for some mild, crude humor

By Miles Moffit

Nobody ever said a motivational tale had to be perfect. While "Invincible" may not be the best football film of all time, it tells a story that is sure to take your breath away in the end.

The story is loosely based on real events surrounding Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Vince Papale, who became the NFL's oldest rookie at 30 years old in 1976. The opening of the film places the Eagles in a long losing streak, and in an effort to save the team's reputation, new coach Dick Vermeil (a rock-solid performance by Greg Kinnear) holds open tryouts to pacify fans and garner momentum.

Papale is played by Mark Wahlberg, who, after he is persuaded to attend the tryouts, is met with the daunting task of transforming into a believable football player. While he succeeds admirably, along with the rest of the movie's cast of players, Wahlberg's portrayal of Papale as a down-on-his-luck Philly bartender hangs heavily on circumstance.

For instance, there is an early scene that calls for an outburst of anger, and instead of conveying the weight of his rage, his tantrum feels wooden and unemotional. With moments like these, the film seems to assume you're going feel sorry for him, but neither the script nor Wahlberg's performance provide the character with the necessary depth, and that's a shame. A little more time spent with the character of Papale could have made this movie truly great.

Good news is that the film does provide ample, capable support to make the whole package work. Papale is surrounded by a troop of loyal Eagles fans that frequent the bar where he works. This atmosphere of brotherhood and familial love provides both Vince and the audience with the uplifting moments of determination needed to stick with the game.

The most prominent member of the group is the requisite love interest Janet (Elizabeth Banks), a beautiful co-worker of Papale's who has fallen into the same lot of luck, at least as far as love is concerned. Unfortunately, her character waits until the last fifteen minutes of the movie to truly stand out by any means other than her appearance. Like Wahlberg's Papale, while Janet is not unlikable, it takes a while to find out that she really is worth the attention.

But hey, of course the two hit it off, and of course it's going to make you smile whether or not their characters are fully rounded. Development aside, the film is still a powerfully encouraging experience. There are moments of disappointment, but this is not a story that is meant to discourage, so such moments aren't given much emphasis.

It is in this matter that the movie succeeds as a whole. You may well feel that it reaches too high for those inspirational moments at times, but by reel's end, it delivers whole-heartedly.
The moral of any story where the ordinary becomes extraordinary is that you don't have to be perfect to do something great.

"Invincible" has its faults, but it'll have everyone leaving the theater smiling.

By Becky Howell

Mark Wahlberg is back in yet another underdog story as Vince Papale, the 30-year-old Philadelphia native who tried out for the Eagles football team in 1976 and made it. Walt Disney Picture’s “Invincible” tells the true story of Papale, a man barely scraping by in the 70s. “Invincible” begins with a long montage illustrating that times are tough in Philly with many men out of work and others going on strike. The film then cuts to the Eagles’ stadium, where boos and catcalls are heard as Vince and his raucous friends attend a game that their favorite team is losing—badly.

One night, after losing one of his part-time jobs, Vince comes home to find his wife gone and a note that would make even the toughest NFL player cry. While Vince picks up extra hours at his bartending job, Dick Vermeil, the new Eagles’ coach (Greg Kinnear), holds a press conference announcing that he will be holding open tryouts. At a friend’s insistence, Vince tries out for the team and makes it—but just barely. Now Vince has to prove his worth to himself, the city and to the other players. He is the hero of the everyman in Philadelphia, and the whole city looks to him for inspiration to keep its spirits up through the hard times.

Doesn’t this seem slightly familiar? Why, yes it does. Wahlberg, swaggering everywhere he goes, played almost the same character in “Rockstar,” but with longer hair and even worse clothes. As Papale, Wahlberg is soft-spoken, unemotional and subdued but easy on the eyes. In a scene after Vince’s wife has left, Wahlberg half-heartedly beats a chair against the wall. Though not the greatest actor in the movie, Wahlberg has come a long way from rapping as Marky Mark and early movies such as “Fear” and “The Big Hit.”

Greg Kinnear, still wearing his short shorts from his role in “The Bad News Bears,” is very likable as the coach who gives Vince a chance. Kinnear is the highlight of the film, even though he doesn’t have enough scenes to work with for his role to be outstanding. Elizabeth Banks, a less talented version of Rachel McAdams, plays Janet Cantrell, Vince’s romantic interest, and (gasp!), a Giants fan. The rest of the big supporting cast are characters that aren’t too memorable.

Overall, “Invincible” is “Rudy” meets “Remember the Titans:” plenty of heart and loads of grueling practice. It’s the classic football movie equation: bad team plus new coach plus discord among the team eventually equals success. The musical score guides the emotional scenes, giving the audience audible clues on how it should feel. Without this cheesy music, many of the emotional scenes would fall flat.

So far, “Invincible” has made over $45 million at the box office. Though this movie will never win an Oscar, the script can be entertaining and heartwarming at moments. Often slow-paced, the movie lags, but jokes laced throughout keep the audience interested. If you like football history and long training montages shot in slow motion, this is your movie. If not, go to look at Marky Mark in his football gear.

The Illusionist

"The Illusionist"

Starring Edward Norton and Jessica Biel

Rated PG-13

By Matthew Grayson

Watch out, Romeo and Juliet. Step aside, Tristan and Isolde. Star-crossed lovers are back on the big screen, and this time they’ve got magic to boot.

Based on a short story by Steven Millhauser, “The Illusionist” is a tale of two lovers of different social status who will stop at nothing to be together. Set in Vienna at the end of the 19th century, this supernatural mystery is a period film that’s as stunning visually as it is emotionally.

When a young magician named Eisenheim (Edward Norton) is forbidden to pursue a relationship with his beloved Dutchess Sophie von Teschen (Jessica Biel), he travels the world to learn the secrets of his trade. The two are reunited years later and waste no time in rekindling their former passion.

This chance encounter comes much to the dismay of the power-hungry Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell), who plots to marry Sophie against her will. Leopold enlists the help of Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) to dig up dirt on the universally popular Eisenheim, and what follows is a finely crafted and expertly paced story of love, death and intrigue that left me guessing until the end.

With coaching from renowned magician David Blaine, Norton appears far more comfortable performing mind-boggling magic tricks than he does speaking in an Austrian accent. However, the rest of his performance is superb. Even in the company of Leopold, Eisenheim remains calm, collective and undeniably cool. Norton, no surprise here, plays the part to perfection.

The real shocker in “The Illusionist” comes not at the end but rather every time Biel enters the scene. The character of Sophie is a far cry from Mary Camden on “7th Heaven,” and Biel surprised me with the grace and eloquence she brings to the role of a potential princess. And she happens to look the part as well.

In a movie with its fair share of facial hair, Sewell’s handlebar mustache is a work of art, and his acting isn’t bad either. Likewise for Giamatti, who’s convincing both as a 19th century Austrian and as a police inspector obsessed with uncovering the secrets behind Eisenheim’s magic.
Throughout the film, director Neil Burger draws a mighty thin line between illusion and reality. One’s belief in magic, or lack thereof, quickly becomes irrelevant, for what is the purpose of magic if not to entertain, awe and enchant its audience?

The film’s gorgeous special effects do all three, and its cinematography successfully recreates a fascinating world in which a magician, a prince and the lovely Jessica Biel all look right at home.
Perhaps the only downfall of “The Illusionist” is its surprise ending, which leaves the viewer scrambling to remember clues that are, in fact, nonexistent.

As a smile slowly spreads across his face, Uhl pieces together the puzzle after the fact in a fashion not unlike that famous scene in “Usual Suspects” to which all too many directors aspire. The pacing of the flashback, though, is far too rapid and far too sequential. Nobody’s mind works like that, not even a chief inspector’s.

Still, “The Illusionist” is a clever love story with a fine cast and finer special effects. Viewers will want to believe Eisenheim’s beautiful tricks, if only because magic never looked this good.