JJ79 Blog

Six episodes from two different Travel Channel programs are collected on "Paranormal Destinations" just in time for Halloween. Among the entries from "Mysterious Journeys" and "Weird Travels" are installments featuring such diametrically different subjects as the Loch Ness Monster and Area 51, the Salem Witch Trials and Civil War ghosts. Every episode has the same thing in common: legends and myths involving something on the fringe of traditional science.

In the first episode from "Mysterious Journeys" (and the driest, content wise, if we´re being honest), the origins of the Dracula story are probed. Bram Stoker, when he created his fictional Dark Prince, combed through history books in favor of drawing the most heinous qualities out of a number of real life people. Or so it is assumed, based on various aspects of the character. The most famous of the infamous is Vlad the Impaler. What this series gets so very right through the three episodes is a reliance on brisk history and dramatization in order to cover all the bases.

Then there´s the untold story of Confederate troops who haunt the grounds where the battle of Gettysburg took place during the Civil War. Here we´re introduced to some of the tools and techniques used to communicate with ghosts and spirits running amok. And it is a fascinating glimpse into paranormal investigations we don´t get in the other episodes. There is an interesting side story to talking with dead Confederate troops which isn´t discussed. Is this type of science really science? If so, why is it legitimate? If not, what are the problems with it? These questions-and others-are outside the scope of the topic, yet are deserving of their own discussions. A historical note: a man was shot every 2 seconds during the battle.

(The only major problem with the presentation occurs here. After every chapter, the DVD defaults back to the main menu. It is possible to scan through these areas to get to the next; however, the viewer shouldn´t have to.)

Rounding out the "Mysterious Journeys" segments is "Witches of Salem." This episode more akin to Dracula than Gettysburg in that it is a straight retelling of history and dramatization of events. More than crushing a man to death by piling stones on his chest, the single aspect which stands out is the leap in logic made by the people of Salem, Massachusetts, to point fingers at witches. It seems as though the entire ordeal started with the two daughters of the new reverend thrashing about on the floor to avoid being punished by their father. (When the doctor checked them out, he could not find anything medically wrong with them. The diagnosis, then? Witchcraft, of course!) This led to over 150 people being jailed on suspicion of witchcraft and nearly 20 executed.

"Weird Travels" focuses more on contemporary mysteries, as evidenced by the episodes representing the series. First up is "Lake Monsters," with the obvious emphasis being the Loch Ness Monster and Champ from Lake Champlain. As a kid, I was enamored with the idea of a giant dinosaur-like creature living in Scotland, hiding from the world. I read books, looked at pictures and dreamt about Nessie. It should come as no surprise, then, the Loch Ness part of this episode didn´t provide any new information for me. When combined with the Lake Champlain version, one has to wonder if there are actually creatures there, or if one is the product of "cultural envy." (Lake Champlain is located in the United States, by the way.)

"Bigfoot" is the subject of episode two. The presence of a giant, hairy ape man is fun in concept, yet has never been as "cool" a thought as Nessie. You mean to tell me there are creatures sighted throughout North America who stand much taller than a normal man and can evade all but the most archaic cameras and video capture equipment? Really? The program features people-bless them-who make it their life´s work to find Bigfoot, not to mention a truly laughable dramatization of the creature.

Last up is perhaps America´s greatest shared legend, that of Area 51 and UFO´s. It is easily the most believable investigation of the three if only because it is impossible to believe Earth is the only planet with life on it in the entire galaxy. Just because we haven´t found it yet doesn´t mean it´s not there; this conflicts with the other monsters in that a great deal of our planet has been catalogued and mapped without finding conclusive evidence of them. Not to mention the heavy military presence near Roswell, New Mexico, and the plethora of sightings over the years.

VIDEO:
The "Mysterious Journeys" segments are presented in 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen; "Weird Travels" are all 1.33:1 fullscreen. Being recent productions, neither commits major sins with the transfer, though there is rather small blocking in certain dark scenes in "Ghosts of Gettysburg." (The same episode features what looks to be black spotting on time lapse footage, though I can´t be entirely sure.) Everything else looks acceptable when you take into account the origin of some photographs and videos presented.

AUDIO:
A solitary English 2.0 mix is included for all episodes (no subtitles) which does its job with little fanfare. Interviews are free of distortion; ambient sound effects pop up when appropriate. It´s a flat sounding track as expected from a television program, not to mention the subject matter. However, how the product sounds is less of a concern when the material is nearly a straight retelling of history.

EXTRAS:
Visiting haunted sites or finding monsters scared the extras away. There´s nothing here.

PARTING THOUGHTS:
More than fluff pieces on cruise travel tips or the best places to get a tan, this is the type of material where The Travel Channel excels. Part of that is due to its one-time parent The Discovery Channel and the other is thanks to the rich national history of haunting and the paranormal we have within our borders. This compilation is a nice start and should be a precursor to complete series or season sets.

Under discussion:

Baby Broker: Born to Be Sold  (1981)

There was a time when the major networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) all had movie of the week divisions. A movie of the week, some might recall, is a 90 to 120-minute production made explicitly for broadcast on television. They are analogous to today´s direct to DVD features, with a relatively small budget, superficial story and one or two name actors. In the case of 1981´s "Born to be Sold" (DVD title "Baby Broker"), Lynda Carter, Dean Stockwell and Harold Gould star in a story about a social worker who becomes involved in a baby-for-sale business.

Based on the novel "The Baby Brokers" and based on inspired by true stories (according to the crawl at the end of the film, anyway), "Baby Broker" tries to enlighten the audience about a social topic which hasn´t been fully covered in the media. In the world of the early 1980s, it may have been seen as a groundbreaking, provocative drama. For a 2008 audience, though, where the bar has been raised almost impossibly high by basic and pay cable, not to mention DTV features and regular TV series, it comes off as being too easy.

That´s the best word for the 95 minute production. Easy. When 14 year old Cindy (Donna Wilkes) runs away from a home for pregnant girls looking to sell their babies, she has Kate Carlin´s (Carter) phone number apparently memorized and some money for a pay phone in her pocket. To be sure, a coincidence or two like this doesn´t mean the film is no good. However, when the story relies on narrative cheats like this for the duration of the running time, there is a problem.

In its defense, though, I must reiterate two basic points: "Baby Broker" is a television movie designed to run in a very finite amount of time. The script is never afforded enough time to flesh out the characters and situation to any great degree. They are merely pawns running through the situation. Secondly, the film is based on a book. How well it adheres to the source material is an open question. If the action unfolded in this manner in the original, I really can´t quibble with carrying it over into the film version, now can I?

Regardless, in this melodrama, it is Lynda Carter who carries the production. She does the best she can with the available material to get us to buy into the story. Carter projects a thoughtfulness and caring while maintaining a relatively even emotional center throughout. In her defense, though, this isn´t a story about her, nor does it require extensive backstory. Like Cindy and the rest of the characters on screen, Carlin is a chess piece moved around the board.

It´s that board which is the problem, as I´ve already mentioned. The connective tissue which would inform the audience about what´s coming next-especially in the finale-isn´t there. A brief scene laying the groundwork for the climax is included, though the players aren´t introduced and the entire explanation of the "plan" is rushed through without a normal level of explanation. There is a general feeling some scenes exist "just because" at the expense of other ones.

For instance, does it really matter is Carlin´s job is "on the line" when that particular plot point is not given an iota of importance in the remainder of the film? And what about Dean Stockwell, reduced to the role of a thug. Yes, he is Robert Westfield´s (Gould) supposed partner in the babies for sale game, yet he disappears for the bulk of the running time, only to reappear to be the Big Bad Man. Aside from money, there is not motivation provided for any of the characters.

That´s the problem with "Baby Broker." Despite tackling a worthwhile subject with competent actors designed to shed light on a serious problem, the story can´t work the audience into enough of an emotional lather to really care. The more interesting story to be told would be from the perspective of the pregnant teenagers or even attorney Westfield. How is it he cooks the books, so to speak, to cover mental illness and other barriers to adoption. Similarly, how does he find both the family who want a child and the people who want to get rid of them.

"Baby Broker" focuses solely on getting to a certain end point; it doesn´t take the time to make sure everyone is still following along. It´s a limitation of the genre as a whole and not necessarily of this particular production.

VIDEO:
The fullscreen transfer looks, to be honest, hideous. The best analogy I can make is it´s VHS quality. And perhaps that´s a bit too nice. Grain permeates every single scene, while white and black spots regularly pop up. Certain scenes are entirely too dark; the converse is true, also. Light pouring in through windows radiates into the action at times, causing an ethereal glow to them. Details are hard to come by because of the grain. I´d doubt any work went into the restoration of the picture. There is an odd white dashed line across the very top of the frame throughout the entire movie, as if the picture has been moved down ever so slightly. I can´t imagine quality control didn´t catch it.

AUDIO:
The English mono track doesn´t contain as many flaws as its technical counterpart, but it still could use some work. The sound field is flat without any dynamic effects to speak of (but that´s also to be expected). Dialogue is occasionally overrun by the synthesizer-heavy score while higher octave noises find themselves distorted at roughly the same frequency. A handful of scenes feature audio drop outs during establishing shots; it´s obvious since people are walking up stairs with no foley accompaniment. No subtitles are included.

EXTRAS:
The feature is divided into 12 chapters. Otherwise, unsurprisingly, no extras.

PARTING THOUGHTS:
"Baby Broker" wants to be an Afterschool Special for grown-ups, altering them to new dangers in the world. To a certain extent, it succeeds in that quest. More than anything else, though, it is a relic of a bygone time and a way of scheduling for television networks. There´s nothing new in the film and it doesn´t increase our understanding of the black market baby selling business. That may be its biggest detriment.

Under discussion:

I Dreamt Under the Water  (2007)

After the supposed love of his life, Alex, dies after a night of drugs, Antonin finds his world crumbling around him. His mother leaves to move back with her family and the young man finds himself hustling on the streets of Paris. But all is not as it seems when he meets Juliette. Though Antonin loves her and she claims to love him, there is a seedy part of her past and present which isn´t out in the open, something that will rock Antonin to his core.

I can´t wrap my head around "I Dreamt Under the Water." Does it want to be a look at the downward spiral a young man goes through when everything he knows is gone? Does it want to be a meditation between being gay and bisexual? Is its sole intent to titillate and tease the audience without ever delivering the goods? Or does the French film aspire to be more than all of those combined, failing in the process? Judging by the theatrical trailer included in the bonus features, I´d have to conclude titillation was at the forefront of the film´s purpose.

That trailer runs just over 6 ½ minutes in total and is perhaps the most sexually graphic film advertisement for a non-porn production in history. I only mention this now, as opposed to later on in the Extras section to hone in on one point: if you cut together a trailer involving the genitalia of both genders, a transsexual, a close up of a freshly deflowered anus and other such images, doesn´t it stand to reason these body parts should play a major role in the film? To be honest, the trailer piqued my interest. What kind of story was going to be wrapped around all of this?

Co-writer and director Hormoz lacks the gumption to take the story where, I think, he wants it to go. There was a perverse need at some point in the writing process to make the narrative user friendly, to reign in the camera from showing the truly seedy images it wanted to. "I Dreamt Under the Water," at its core, is about sex and drugs and how both mold a person into the being they are. In the absence of the trailer, "Water" might have accomplished the goal. With it, though, the production is a massive let down.

The chief narrative problem is the lack of time given to any one relationship or plot point. We get from the first reel Antonin feels a deeper connection to Alex than just friends, yet we´re never given a reason. Is it purely physical? Is there something in their shared past which draws Antonin to Alex? We know they´ve never actually had sex and Antonin hasn´t had another gay sex experience. There´s no reason to like either of these characters, let alone root for either of them. (Good thing, too, because Alex doesn´t stay in the picture very long.)

The verbal explanation of Antonin´s feelings for Alex never add up to his actions. He doesn´t attend the funeral? (Not a spoiler, read the back of the box.) He does little more than sulk for his dead friend? I don´t get it. If this person is an unrequited love, every fiber of his being should be shaken. It´s not, as far as we can tell. Maybe it´s enough for some audience to take Antonin´s word for it, that he really is distraught and teetering on the edge. The evidence is hard to come by: the young man doesn´t dive into the world of hustling because of the death-its due to his mother leaving-nor does he take up drugs-he is adverse to them, as we see late in the film.

"I Dreamt in the Water" continues like this, with obvious questions never being answered and relationships being forged out of nothing. And that´s why the eerie netherworld it inhabits is so damn frustrating. With an engaging lead actor (Hubert Benhamdine) and a production crew seemingly ready to create a provocative film, the story flat lines in a hurry. There is a distinct lack of warmth, of caring, of empathizing with anyone on screen. The most sympathetic character turns out to be Baptiste, one of Antonin´s tricks and an eventual employer (and boyfriend?).

The look of the film makes up for all of the narrative's problems. There are very few brightly lit scenes in the film, especially near the finale. The object, I suppose, is to make it hard for us to see what´s going on, just as the world is becoming harder for each of the characters to navigate. Despite the darkness, there is also a gritty brilliance to the production design. This isn´t a story about rich-or even middle class-people trying to make it in the world; it´s about the poor, the downtrodden, the ones society has effectively given up on. Hormoz, for his part, makes us feel as though we´re standing next to Antonin at every juncture, seeing what he sees the exact way he sees it. There is no delineation between what the audience knows and what the character knows.

VIDEO:
Whatever I may say about the film itself, the 1.78:1 anamorphic transfer looks good. Not good in the conventional sense, but good as in adding to the overall depressed feel of the film. There is a layer of quite noticeable grain from beginning to end, adding a sense of grittiness to the narrative. It works in this film because of the subject matter. Colors don´t pop off the screen; they´re not designed to. Instead, they are muted, a pall cast over them. One problem of note is an annoying line of distortion on the right hand side of the screen. In dark scenes, it is non existent; it turns green when a red floods that side of the screen.

AUDIO:
I was similarly impressed with the audio track (French 2.0). It´s nothing spectacular, yet it does what it needs to do with a minimum of issues. Dialogue is mostly clean and free of distortion (outside of one yelling match near the end) while the sound elements are mixed at appropriate levels. There is a slight bit of barely audible hissing in quiet scenes; again, it´s nothing to be worried about, really. The English subtitles are big and clear enough to be seen with no problems.

EXTRAS:
The aforementioned trailer for this film is included, along with those for other TLA product: "Bangkok Love Story" (3:16), "The Houseboy" (2:37), "Amnesia: The James Brighton Enigma" (2:48) and "Boy Culture" (1:46).

PARTING THOUGHTS:
I don´t understand how "I Dreamt Under the Water" is being touted as sexually frank, brutal or savage. It´s more by the numbers, not daring enough, all hype and no payoff. The underlying relationship-Alex and Antonin-is never explained or exploited for any story value. Their scenes together are remarkably few and dialogue-free, making it even harder for the audience to create a bond between them. I haven´t even discussed Juliette or Baptiste in any real detail and they both merit more screen time than Alex.

Under discussion:

Re-Cycle  (2006)

The Pang brothers (Oxide and Danny) have a flair for the visual, as evidenced by two-thirds of "Re-Cycle." Writer Tsui Ting-Yin (Angelica Lee) is thrust into the world of the abandoned , bringing her face to face with old toys, her ancestors and discarded stories. This dreamscape is a stunning visual representation similar to that of hell in "What Dreams May Come." Stairways lead to nowhere as Ting-Yin finds herself confronting a decision she made eight years ago.

"Re-Cycle" is classified as a horror movie, but as with the best in any genre, the film and filmmakers twist the definition to redefine the genre. Yes, the film is designed to scare the bejesus out of the audience at times, but it also wants us to think. What exactly happens to the objects we discard? The rocking horses from our childhood or a blender thrown out because a new one took its place, for instance. Unusable characters from stories, dead family members, forgotten loves…they all inhabit the same universe. That is the greater message the Pang´s are trying to bring out.

Indeed, when the action switches from a conventional thriller featuring human shapes slinking behind doors and around the corner, "Re-Cycle" finds its legs. The first third or so is designed to build Ting-Yin and, to be perfectly honest, it´s a bit of a drag. We´ve seen the movie the Pang´s put on screen before, the one where the main character is terrorized or scares herself silly. Simply, it´s not fun. Marginally scary, but not noteworthy.

What had been done here is to make a cursory nod towards traditional horror and twisted the idea on its head. And it works wonderfully, but not for the reasons which immediately spring to mind. What the story does is put us in the position of being thrown away, not needed anymore. It´s a place we don´t think of very often, considering the objects we throw away are inanimate. That place relies very heavily on the melding of computer graphics and existing sets.

In all honesty, the visuals are the reason to spend nearly two hours with "Re-Cycle." It´s a hyper-stylized world filled with levels of abandonment. A run down town, a cemetery, pieces of an amusement park, all with their own color schemes, not to mention hazards. And herein lies a problem. This film is presented in its original Cantonese language. As such, the English subtitles provide an imperfect translation to the limited dialogue in the film. And because of the overreliance on the visual aspect of the film to explain exactly what we´re seeing, much of the "Re-Cycle" is left for the audience to decipher.

We don´t necessarily "get" the subtleties the Pang´s present in the level with ancestor abandonment, for example. There´s an abstract concept at work no one bothers to identify, explain or even talk about. I´m not even entirely sure there´s anything here outside the desire to showcase the translation of the imagination to the screen. There´s a flimsy plot-if it can actually be called a plot-which leaves one crucial piece of information out of an early conversation that would explain the rest of the film. (I´m referring to the dinner scene, in particular.) Ting-Yin doesn´t follow any kind of coherent storyline; she doesn´t begin at any place emotionally with a clear destination in mind.

Even at nearly two hours, "Re-Cycle" isn´t anything more than a chase film, maybe a quest picture depending on how we define it. It´s a story with a definite end point, a "treasure" to keep our eye on. Our main character wants to get home. It´s a false objective, though. She isn´t trying to learn about herself or stuck in the past. At least not in any way we can see. So in the next to final scene, the big emotional payoff, the story melding together doesn´t mean anything to us. It feels like an artificial climax to the film not grounded in anything we´ve seen to this point.

There is a potentially riveting concept wrapped in CGI flashiness at work in "Re-Cycle." Everyone involved simply became to happy with what they could do, hoping it would cover up the deficiencies in the story.

VIDEO:
This is a tough one. The 2.35:1 anamorphic transfer fails to pop off the screen in any manner, no matter the locale or color palette. I´d chalk it up to the layer of very visible grain throughout the film, but I never got the feeling anything we saw was supposed to jump out at us. This is very nearly a color-deficient film, working in shades of brown, gray, yellow and-in one sequence-red. Details are hard to come by, thanks to the distortion. Blacks aren´t allowed to reach their full depth either, coming off as some form of gray instead.

AUDIO:
Now here´s something we don´t normally see from Image Entertainment: a DTS track on a release. Coupled with the Cantonese 5.1 and 2.0 mixes, "Re-Cycle" sounds very good. Obviously, the DTS is the preferred way to go, though there isn´t much difference with the regular 5.1 variation. None of them get much to do until we enter the Abandoned Land, so to speak. Once there, the speakers rumble to life time and again, bringing forward deep bass and every conceivable noise to make us jump in our seats. I can´t criticize the audio performance in any way. English and Spanish subtitles are included.

EXTRAS:
It´s odd. With as many layers the brothers tried to put into "Re-Cycle" and the amount of technical know-how which went into the visuals, the extras are relatively bare. (The extras have a collective "play all" function.) The first thing listed in the Special Features menu is the original theatrical trailer (1:28). Of note is the lack of dialogue and an English voiceover to summarize the film. Then there´s a poorly named "Making Of" (15:44), a collection of film clips and filmmaker interviews with next-to-no useful information about the film itself. Additionally, the clips and soundbites are reused multiple times, along with a generic bumper with the name of the film. I wonder if these were originally used to promote the film on television and were packaged together for the DVD.

A series of deleted scenes (8:46, 5 in total) comes next. One in particular seems to have made it rather far in the editing process: the abandoned love sequence. It has final music, lacks any camera identifiers and looks ready to drop into the finished product. A quick "CG Rendering Comparisions" (1:40) flies by much too quickly, with shots of the incomplete sets with a green screen and then adding the CGI layers on top of it. The last two features-"Cast and Crew Q and A" (8:25) and "Gala Premiere" (16:17)-are useless features designed to hype the movie and it´s accomplishments. Trailers begin when the disc is started: "Then She Found Me" (2:33), "Far North" (1:38), "Taxi to the Darkside" (2:26) and "Crashing" (1:40).

PARTING THOUGHTS:
There is enormous potential within the "Re-Cycle" story, all of which takes a backseat to the admittedly beautiful looking visuals. It´s a waste, pure and simple in the grand scheme of things: a tale of two different movies never coming together to form a coherent whole.

Under discussion:

Ghost Town  (2008)

There is heart in "Ghost Town." It might not be terribly deep or revolutionary or explored as thoroughly as it could have been, but its there. Co-writer and director David Koepp saves it for the final scene, a sequence between Tea Leoni and Ricky Gervais which allows the film to go out on a positive note. See, Frank (Greg Kinear) was cheating on Gwen (Leoni) and, through a twist of fate, is killed by happenstance. He has unfinished business on Earth, so he asks Bertrum Pincus (Gervais), a man who was technically dead for a couple minutes and can see dead people with similar unfinished business, to stop Gwen from marrying a seemingly good guy. The problem with Pincus, though, is that he's not a people person. To put it mildly.

Much will inevitably be written about the first Hollywood starring vehicle for Ricky Gervais. And all that press should be positive, based on his performance here. Gervais is eerily at ease playing a recluse, someone who says all the wrong things at the worst possible times. There is never the sense the actor is trying to be funny or something he's not. There is a natural emotion within him for the part. When he walks in on a fellow dentist (Aasif Mandvi) and a patient looking for torture techniques, Pincus begins by asking if he's from one of those scary places. We get the innuendo (Mandvi the actor was born in India); any normal person would have caught themselves before uttering such a line. It just slips out of Pincus' mouth, his brain catching up afterwards.

There is an attempt at explaining why Pincus is the way he is. A girl he was in love with left him for another man, leading to a life of anti-social behavior. He steals cabs, purposely closes elevator doors, has no compassion for his patients or fellow man...that sort of thing. To him, talking to someone is to risk his emotions again. Of course, that much is never said, so the script wants us to fill in the blanks. That would be a problem in other films, but not here. "Ghost Town" is a comedy which doesn't reach too far for the humor. You won't find an Adam Sandler gag here; rather, it's more restrained, slightly more sophisticated and sublime than most entries in the genre. Even "Burn After Reading," I think, has more potty humor laughs than "Ghost Town."

When Kinear and Gervais share the screen, a palpable dichotomy emerges. Here is Pincus, a man who doesn't want anything to do with people, and Frank, a man who is most at home being the center of attention, the ringleader if you will. Whether on purpose or by accident, the script presents these two men (to illustrate the difference perhaps?) as two parts of the same coin. The actors play off one wonderfully in either the comedic moments or in the serious ones. A banter crosses between them, engaging the audience and allowing us to feel comfortable with a ghost and man who can talk to ghosts. In other words, comfortable with the characters.

"Ghost Town" finds itself rushed, though, when Leoni's Gwen is given screen time. The theory is she can begin to take a liking to Pincus, "forcing" her to break off the engagement with Billy Campbell's Richard. Previous in the film, we see the dentist be downright mean to Gwen (this is obvious just by seeing the trailer). So why would it ever strike him as a possibility she'd dump the civil rights attorney and shack up with a stodgy dentist? I don't know and I suspect it's one of the questions Koepp and writing partner John Kamps don't want us to think about too much.

Why? Simple, really. The boy chases girl part of the story flashes by entirely too fast. What aspect of Pincus does Gwen find remotely amusing? And how does she forgot about being stuck in the rain with a package when he takes her cab? How about that elevator door he purposely closes? Um, yeah. Who cares. One moment she rips him to shreds; the (seemingly) next, they're talking about his ex Sarah. It's the quickest "frenemy" conversion in movie history.

To be sure, it's a minor problem in the grand scheme of the entire production. By the time it rears its ugly head and we realize what's going on, the story has us in hand. At only 102 minutes-it feels shorter-"Ghost Town" could easily have added a subplot or two based around all the ghosts looking for help. At least in regards to those stories, I'm divided. Is "Ghost Town" better for keeping its eye on the proverbail ball or should it have edited a scene or two earlier in order to allow potential comedic moments where Pincus introduces himself to strangers? (This isn't a spoiler because, let's face it: movies of this nature usually end with the protagonist making an abrupt about face and becoming a Really Good Guy.) I'd have to commend the script for not meandering, no matter how ripe with potential side stories might have been. It is a shame, though, that Alan Ruck (Cameron of "Ferris Bueller" fame) is relegated to a bit player.

I´d still have to recommend "Ghost Town" even with the issues I´m bringing up. There´s a charm to the production, an offensive inoffensiveness if you will, entertainment most of the family can enjoy together. A script problem here or there really isn´t that big of a problem as long as the audience is laughing, now is it? The film rates a 7 out of 10.

Under discussion:

Burn After Reading  (2008)

Here´s a prediction for you: Brad Pitt will get an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor this year. In the latest flick from Oscar winners Joel and Ethan Coen (last year´s "No Country for Old Men"), Pitt plays Chad Feldheimer, a dimwitted, overly enthusiastic gym trainer. He and fellow trainer Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand in a wonderfully insecure performance) run across a CD with top secret government information. Well, at least they assume it´s top secret government information. These two youth obsessed wackadoos find a name (Osborne Cox, for those keeping score) and try to blackmail the ex-government analyst. And that´s not even half the story.

What makes "Burn After Reading" so deliciously entertaining is the way each of the A-list actors (Pitt, Swinton, John Malkovish, McDormand and George Clooney) inhabit their roles so completely, with so much gusto they never come across as characters in a movie. These are people we could conceivably see on the street, with all accompanying foibles and eccentricities. Take Pitt, for example. Normally a dramatic actor, here he morphs into a man child, snapping gum, rocking out to his iPod and obsessed with his body. Pitt doesn´t need to utter a word to completely form the character in front of our eyes.

Much the same can be said for the rest of the cast. Simply by looking at them, we know their personalities, which helps the Coen brothers to no end in creating the narrative. The script needn´t bother with introducing us them. Instead, it can dive right into the plot. (And it´s a dumb plot at that, filled with infidelity, moronic halfwits and incompetent government officials.) Just when that plot can´t possibly get any more topsy turvy-don´t worry, no spoilers-the Coen´s keep a rein on the action, making sure it doesn´t get out of hand for the audience.

In the spirit of disclosure, this isn´t the usual run of the mill "comedy." "Burn After Reading" is more refined, getting its laughs not from pratfalls and pies to the face; rather, the punch lines in each scene tend to be quiet. We´re forced to look for them and comprehend the humor at the same time. There is one exception roughly halfway through the film. It´s a doozy, perhaps the funniest moment in the movies all year. Therefore, this isn´t a movie for every audience. The dark humor, lack of many "obvious" laugh out loud moments…this is a tough sell for the audience, especially so close to the release of "Tropic Thunder."

Which isn´t to say this isn´t a worthy, almost brilliant production. Why almost brilliant? Because of the characters. More precisely, the way they´re written. Simply, none of them are remotely likeable. Swinton´s Katie Cox is a cold hearted bitch; her lover on the side Harry (Clooney) is in the running for most infidelities in 96 minutes; Litzke is desperate to bank enough money for four different cosmetic procedures; Osborne is a loose cannon in every sense of the term. There´s not a single likeable person worth rooting for in the main cast. (Richard Jenkins as the gym manager with a crush on Linda is the most sympathetic, thanks to the actor and the character. He´s also hideously out of place in the production, surrounded by nutcases on every side.)

The thing with the plot-and narrative purists are going to hate this-is the CD means nothing in the long run. The Coen´s fashion a story about the people with the information as a side note. See, they don´t really care it at all. It is vastly more entertaining to delight in Pitt´s performance or his interaction with McDormand and Malkovich than it is to really worry about "classified" government data. I believe the Coen´s know this. They don´t focus too heavily on this side of the plot, opting to showcase their actors.

We´re not supposed to take anything in "Burn After Reading" seriously. Not the cheating, not the deaths, not the beatings, not the dichotomy between people trying to get out of relationships and the one trying to get into a coupling. No, this is a farce of the first order, ridiculously inappropriate for much of the running time, but filled with sublime comedic performances from actors we never would have thought capable. They are the focus of the film, obviously. We´re supposed to see "everyday" people in them. The woman insecure in her looks, pining for a lover. The seemingly happy couple, both cheating on one another. A miserable man always on the verge of a breakdown. We get the comedy from their simple, seemingly benign everyday interactions. Granted, they are exaggerated for effect, but the point remains.

The audience is on the same page as the writer-directors from frame one, thanks to an extreme zoom in from space all the way down to a close-up of Osborne´s perfectly polished shoes on a perfectly polished floor in a perfectly lit intelligence headquarters. Not a word is spoken; all we see are feet. Yet it´s funny in some way. I´m not even sure why it works like it does. All I know is that it does. I think that´s the greatest power of "Burn After Reading": it works when, by all rights, it shouldn´t. Filled with unsympathetic characters, a nonsense plot and no obvious comedic edge, I´d wager we´re going to be hearing a lot about this movie come Oscar time.

An unexpected hit and the second honest to goodness Oscar contender of the year, "Burn After Reading" comes wildly endorsed with an 8.5 out of 10 rating. And guys, don´t sit down. You´ll understand after you see the movie.

Under discussion:

Batman: Gotham Knight  (2008)

Six different stories.  Six different directors.  Six different looks for the Caped Crusader.  Batman: Gotham Knight is an anthology of short films-loosely connected-which center not on the crime fighter, but on the people around him.  How cops see him.  How a group of children relate their encounters with him.  And his inability to put other people in the line of fire.  With vastly different animation styles, Batman is reimagined: angular face, clawed hands, a shadow, an actual bat, Japanese anime character...until his final incarnation.  The one we identify with the most.

But about the short films: they are dark, brooding and dangerous. Gotham City is the GC of the Chris Nolan films, not the 1960s television series.  Not even Batman Beyond or Justice League Unlimited showed a reality as depressing as the one here.  The character Deadshot is a major villain here, something not done on any in any previous story.  Why?  By definition, Deadshot kills people.  Graphically.  Bloodily.  And that's a key difference for this Batman.  He exsts in a real world, not a cartoon one.

The question remains, though, if this compilation is any good.  Yes, mostly.  "Working Through the Pain" is arguably the weakest segment; it involves some training for young Bruce Wayne.  In a word, it is the most anime of the vignettes.  Bright, splashy, almost too comical for what comes before and after it.  The best part is "Crossfire," a story about two cops from Lieutenant Gordon's unit.  It's not about Batman, per se, yet shows a side of the cops we don't normally see.  Even they question his intentions (it's also the darkest tale, but not by much).

That distinction (darkest) goes to "Deadshot."  Exquisitely detailed and excitingly told, Batman tracks down the assassin who has entered GC.  There is a dichotomy not fully explored here, between th overreliance on guns and a vow never to use them.  However, we're here to see animated carnage.  And blood, gunshots, battles and the unexpected are what we get.  With each segment clocking in around 10-14 minutes, even an off-kilter idea goes by rather quickly.