Movie Review Spongebob Squarepants Sponge Out of Water

Spongebob Squarepants Sponge Out of Water (2015) 

Directed by Paul Tibbitt 

Written by Jonathan Aibel, Glenn Berger 

Starring Tom Kenny, Antonio Banderas, Matt Berry 

Release Date February 6th, 2015

Published February 5th, 2015 

How does a film so shamelessly appeal to the tastes of tots and stoners alike and not wind up doomed to be assailed by the culture warriors? By becoming a capitalist commodity first and an anarchic, tripped out, cartoon second. That is the journey of "Spongebob Squarepants" which innocently invaded popular kids culture in the early 2000's and became an unassailable pop titan. 

The freedom of success has allowed this Nickelodeon product to evolve in ways that no one likely imagined. From what was a minor distraction for kiddies a strange cult classic of stoner nostalgia has emerged. Over time the tots who loved Spongebob's seemingly innocent shenanigans were joined in front of the television by their cereal slurping, red-eyed older brother who laughed at the jokes that the little ones just missed. 

Sure, the creators of the series maintain the innocence at the show's heart but their claims to innocence are certainly challenged by a product that has grown increasingly weird in most recent and slightly controversial incarnations. It's a strange evolution that today culminates in the ultimate evidence of the show's sneaky stoner appeal, "The Spongebob Movie: Sponge Out of Water." 

Sure, on the surface this is merely an attempt to return Spongebob Squarepants to the pop ether and make gobs of money while doing it. But, watch the film and the Dali-esque, dizzying imagery comes roaring out at the audience in ways only those on psychotropic stimulants can truly understand. As someone who's never experienced a drug induced freak out, I can only imagine it is something akin to the time travel trip taken in "Sponge Out of Water" by our hero Spongebob and his unlikely pal and former enemy Plankton. 

If you thought Peter Fonda's swirling, twisting vortex freak out in 1969's "The Trip" was trip inducing, wait till you get a load of the wall of sight and sound that takes Spongebob and Plankton through time and space. Only a true stoner, wacked out on the best Maui-Wowie and grooving to Kubrick's "2001" could truly appreciate the sites created herein. I'm not kidding, these scenes are really messed up. 

Things really get tripped out when Spongebob and Plankton, on the run through time and space to escape having been accused of stealing the secret recipe for Krabby Patties, find themselves in a future world run by a talking Dolphin named Bubbles. Bubbles is voiced by the brilliant British comic Matt Berry in full Douglas Reynholm bluster. Throwing Berry into a mix that also includes Antonio Banderas as a pirate named Burger Beard, is really the last piece of evidence needed to prove that the makers of Spongebob are indeed attempting to bridge the gap between Nickelodeon comedy and Cheech and Chong. 

Looking back I realize I am making this sound like a bad thing. In reality, it's more innocuous than anything. Despite the bleating of many conservatives, there isn't anything truly dangerous about stoners. The fact that they can be as entertained as little children by the same form of entertainment is only subversive in the eyes of those who see smoking marijuana as some sort of societal ill. 

There are many more damning things that people could be doing aside from getting baked and watching "The Spongebob Movie: Sponge Out of Water." Things like Sub-Prime Mortgages or murder for hire schemes against their employers or ironically attending WNBA Games are certainly less worthy efforts than getting stoned and laughing hysterically as a talking sponge battles Antonio Banderas as pirate named Burger Beard. 

I guess my main point is that we should just be honest about the appeal of "The Spongebob Movie: Sponge Out of Water" and stop acting like it's just a kids movie. The fact is, Spongebob has a foot firmly planted in two separate but equal satirical worlds that appeal equally and differently to two very specific sets of audiences and there is nothing wrong with that. 

Let's let Spongebob's freak flag fly free and not be so uptight and silly as to believe that just because stoners enjoy a kids show that kids will automatically grow up to be stoners. This isn't a nature or nurture argument over the future of our children, it's just a silly cartoon that happens to be tripping balls and delighting children all at once.

Movie Review Shrek the 3rd

Shrek the 3rd (2007) 

Directed by Chris Miller

Written by Jeffrey Price, Peter S. Seaman, Aron Warner

Starring Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Banderas, Justin Timberlake, Eric Idle

Release Date May 18th, 2007

Published May 17th, 2007 

Shrek may have began its film life as a veiled slap at Disney’s fairy tale past, courtesy of Dreamworks honcho Jeffrey Katzenberg, but the film's success and the subsequent success of its sequel have shown that the big green ogre has a life and identity of its own. Sure, the shots at Disney\ 's classic fairy tales remain as Shrek offers its third installment, but the success of Shrek the 3rd comes entirely from these wonderfully familiar and lovable characters.

Shrek the 3rd finds our heroic green friend in line for the throne of Far Far Away. The king (John Cleese), turned into a frog in Shrek 2, is near death and proclaims Shrek as the next king. That is, unless Shrek can find another more worthy heir. The only thing Shrek fears more than becoming king is becoming a father. Unfortunately, he has no control over that one, Fiona (Cameron Diaz) is pregnant.

Facing fatherhood and royalty, Shrek takes up the task of locating the next in line for the throne, if he is going to be a dad, at least he can do it from his slime covered hovel in the swamp. For that to happen he has to find Fiona\'s cousin Arthur (Justin Timberlake), Artie to the kids who pick on him. Artie is the resident punching bag at his private school when Shrek shows up to tell him he could be king.

Meanwhile, with Shrek away from the kingdom, the evil Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) has raised an army of fairy tale villains to assault the kingdom and proclaim him the new king and set a trap for Shrek, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas).

The first Shrek without the guiding hand of writer-director Andrew Adamson, moved on to the Chronicles of Narnia series, Shrek the 3rd suffers from typical sequel atrophy. This is not necessarily the fault of new directors Chris Miller and Raman Hui, rather it\'s more likely the problem of some 7 different writers who took a swipe at this screenplay.

The problems with Shrek The 3rd aren\'t deathly. The first 20 minutes or so are an awkward hodgepodge of humor that is a little adult for child audiences. It\'s not so inappropriate that parents should be wary, but it could lead to some awkward questions. After that however, the film settles in and allows these familiar characters and what we love about them to lead the way and deliver the laughs.

Credit Directors Miller and Hui and their platoon of writers for dialing back on the product placement jokes that made Shrek 2 look like a non-stop billboard. Shrek the 3rd dispenses with the product placement jokes, with storefronts like \"Versarchery\", in the first few minutes. Shrek the 3rd is still heavy on pop culture but is far less precious about it than Shrek 2.

Shrek The 3rd also has a better brain than Shrek 2. The relationship between Shrek and Artie has more depth than you expect and the characters are allowed to explore their issues in ways that deepen the characters and their bond without bogging down the plot. The pace clips along quick enough to put audiences back on the streets in under 90 minutes.

Shrek 2 delivered louder and more consistent laughs than Shrek the 3rd.  The second sequel could use an infusion of bigger laughs and more laughs that rise from the plot as opposed to the stand up comedy one liners that provide many of the giggles in Shrek the 3rd.

Neither Shrek sequel has risen to the magical level of the first film which remains fresh and funny in a brilliantly subversive fashion. Each of the sequels has been a step down in quality, a function of simple sequel fatigue. Thankfully, the first film set such a high standard that a step down in quality here and there still places the Shrek sequels above most other animated films.

Shrek the 3rd is not as great as the original or as funny as the second film but your kids will still love it and you definitely will not be bored by Shrek the 3rd.

Movie Review Shrek 2

Shrek 2 (2004) 

Directed by Andrew Adamson, Kelly Asbury, Conrad Vernon

Written by Andrew Adamson, Joe Stillman, David N. Weiss

Starring Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Julie Andrews, Antonio Banderas, Rupert Everett

Release Date May 19th, 2004 

Published May 18th, 2004 

In 2000, Shrek came out of nowhere and became a box office phenomena. While only spending one weekend at the top of the box office, the film’s buzz sustained it at the box office to the tune of $267 million domestically.

More important than the film’s box office was its quality. One of the rare and wonderful examples of what is possible when animation technology meets talented voice actors, producers and writers. An animated film with as much appeal to adults as to children. The sequel cannot be asked to meet that same lofty standard. That it doesn't spoil our memory of the first film is good enough.

As we rejoin our friends shortly after their wedding, Shrek (Mike Myers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) are on their honeymoon. The opening of the film is a terrific sendup of those romantic comedy montages set to some silly pop song with Shrek and Fiona cavorting in a meadow, running toward each other both being chased by pitch fork toting mobs.

Once back in the swamp, they are reunited with Donkey (Eddie Murphy). They are informed that they have been invited to the kingdom of Far Far Away where Fiona's parents King Harold (John Cleese) and Queen Lillian (Julie Andrews) wish to throw them a royal ball to celebrate their marriage. Shrek is convinced it's a bad idea but Fiona insists they go, even allowing Donkey to join them for the long journey that is best described "Are we there yet?”

No surprise to Shrek, when they arrive and are not greeted with open arms by the King and Queen. There is more to this story than the King's objecting to his daughter marrying an Ogre. It seems the King had cut a deal with the Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders) that promised Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) would save Fiona from her castle and marry her, thus becoming heir to the throne. The King owes Fairy Godmother for some yet to be revealed reason and so he must get rid of Shrek and allow Charming to take his place.

For this, the King buys the services of a legendary Ogre killer named Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) whose efforts are less than successful. From there, Shrek and Fiona are separated and various miscommunications and mistaken identities serve to keep them apart. Shrek, Donkey and their new friend Puss in Boots must find a way to get Fiona back.

It's not a complicated story, it's a simple setup for the scatological humor that drips from every scene. Each computer-generated frame of Shrek 2 has some kind of satirical jab, even more than the original film. It almost reeks of desperation as if the producers and writers of Shrek 2 felt something was missing from the first film and were going to cover it up with excess jokes.

There is something missing from the sequel though I can't quite explain what it is. Part of the problem is that Shrek's look and animation isn't as special as it was back in 2000. Since then we have seen Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo and Ice Age and even live action films like Van Helsing and Spider-man that have made us comfortable with computer animation. It's not that special anymore, it's still impressive but not as mind blowing as the original.

Shrek 2 is not as funny as the first film but it is still funnier than most. Credit the terrific voice cast who project every line of dialogue all the way to the back wall of the theater. Especially good is Antonio Banderas who really tears into the role of Puss In Boots with tremendous comic fervor. Banderas sends up his Mask Of Zorro titular role and the script hints at something that other Zorro movies have used as subtext, something that the kids in the audience won't get but parents will likely pick up.

The other new voices are also well cast. John Cleese picks up the pompous, overblown King role where his good friend John Lithgow left it in the original. Jennifer Saunders makes a terrific villain and even knocks out a rousing showstopper tune near the end. Sadly, Julie Andrews is underused with little to do in the underwritten role of the Queen.

The film’s best assets are still Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz and Eddie Murphy. These terrific comics know how to deliver a punchline and the way the animators incorporate the actors' physical traits into the animated characters adds to the feeling that they are really inhabiting these characters. Listen closely however and you might hear Myers dropping out of his Scottish accent, but that is a minor quibble.

To ask Shrek 2 to recreate the magic of the first film is asking way too much. The best it could do was not taint our memory and that it does it justice with funny references to everything from Spider-man to The Wizard Of Oz to Raiders of The Lost Ark. That it does not fall to sequels and exist merely to capitalize off the original’s success is a testament to the creative team behind it. They put forth an effort to tell a story rather than slapping together a money machine meant to print money off our fondness for the first film.

Movie Review Spy Kids 3D Game Over

Spy Kids 3D Game Over (2003) 

Directed by Robert Rodriguez 

Written by Robert Rodriguez

Starring Darryl Sabara, Antonio Banderas, Carla Gugino, Alexa Vega, Ricardo Montalban, Sylvester Stallone, Mike Judge 

Release Date July 25th, 2003 

Published July 26th, 2003 

Robert Rodriguez's original Spy Kids was an ingenious marriage of kids movies and James Bond action-fantasy. It was safe enough for kids with just enough to appeal to parents and with its low budget, was a huge box office hit. The second film was slightly less successful in its appeal to wide audiences as well as box office, but was still a big enough hit to justify another sequel. That sequel is a gimmicky jump into the realm of video games, Spy Kids 3D.

You may remember 3D, the failed experiment from the 1950's and 60's that was last used to try and revive the Nightmare On Elm Street horror franchise. That film was also produced by Dimension films so maybe they just had a bunch of those glasses just laying around and that inspired them to do this. Whatever the inspiration, it was a bad idea when it was first used and with the advances in technology these days, it's a bad idea in Spy Kids 3.

As we join the story, Juni Cortes (Daryl Sabara) has quit being a secret agent and is now a small-time private investigator solving cases about missing dollies for a buck apiece. All the while his former spy bosses are trying to get him to come back and help on an important case. Juni's sister Carmen (Alexa Vega) has been taken hostage inside a video game called Game Over.

When Juni hears that his sister is in trouble, he returns to save her and joins her inside the game. Once inside it's time to put on our 3D glasses and watch as Juni battles fellow game players in games that resemble Tron crossed with Robot Jox. Juni, with the help of some other kids trapped in the game, go in search of Carmen and a way out of the game. They must also figure a way to shut down the game without releasing its maniacal creator, the Toymaker (Sly Stallone), who has been imprisoned inside the game world for years. Toymaker is holding Carmen hostage and hopes to use her to get himself out.

Also helping Juni is his grandfather (Ricardo Montalban), a former secret agent who was left in a wheelchair because of the Toymaker. In the game world though Grandpa can walk, run and fight crime like he used to. Juni and Carmen's parents, played by Antonio Banderas and Carla Gugino, are nowhere to be found until a quick cameo near the end of the film. Also in cameos are a number of well-known stars George Clooney, Alan Cumming, Mike Judge, Cheech Marin and Salma Hayek. Most surprising is a cameo by Elijah Wood that was met by a surprisingly loud cheer. The cameos are the film's most appealing moments.

The 3D is an unnecessary and highly annoying gimmick, I had a headache from the first time I put on the glasses all the way to the end of the film. However, what's worse is the film’s trite family movie cliches. Where the first two Spy Kids movies were like cinematic cotton candy, Spy Kids 3D is brussel sprouts. Good for you but not very tasty. The film is filled beginning to end with after school special messages about teamwork, family, tolerance and forgiveness.

That's all well and good if it's couched in an entertaining story but Spy Kids 3D doesn't have a story. It has cheesy 3D environments that have long been rendered useless by the advances in computer technology. The CGI characters in films like Shrek and Finding Nemo are far more impressive than anything ever done with 3D. I would rather see Spy Kids in computer animation than the ugly 3D environments created for Spy Kids 3D.

Maybe director Robert Rodriguez was too distracted with his next film Once Upon A Time in Mexico to worry about making Spy Kids 3D. You can see from Mexico's stellar trailer that that film had his full attention. Spy Kids 3D is a throwaway gimmick sequel to a series that hopefully has seen its final adventure.

Movie Review: Femme Fatale

Femme Fatale (2002) 

Directed by Brian De Palma

Written by Brian DePalma

Starring Rebecca Romijn, Antonio Banderas, Peter Coyle, Gregg Henry

Release Date November 6th, 2002 

Published November 5th, 2002

Whether you like Brian De Palma or not you have to respect a director who so often presses the boundaries of good taste, decency and filmmaking. So many of De Palma's films are unqualified classics simply for his willingness to push the envelope of filmmaking style and trashy storytelling. Films like Dressed To Kill and Raising Cain are such wildly fantastical slasher pictures that the viewer doesn't know whether to laugh or recoil in horror. Even when De Palma's risk-taking style fails (Snake Eyes), the failure is at least memorable.

Who can't remember that awesome 5-minute tracking shot at the opening of Snake Eyes with De Palma's voyeuristic floating camera following Nicholas Cage through an Atlantic City casino? Pure style. In Femme Fatale the De Palma's trademark stylishness is in place but much like Snake Eyes, it's a memorable failure.

The femme fatale of the title is Laure Ash played by supermodel Rebecca Romijn-Stamos. Laure is a professional thief who, with the help of two nameless black guys, plots to steal a million dollars in diamonds. In typical De Palma style the diamond heist is a trashy, exciting plot as the diamonds in question are being worn by a model attending the Cannes Film Festival. In fact, the diamond and gold outfit is basically the only thing the model is wearing. 

This is no trouble for Laure who has already made contact with the model and is planning on seducing the diamonds right off the models body. In a scene only De Palma could write, Stamos seduces the woman and has sex with her in a bathroom stall, and then uses the model to help her double cross her collaborators and walk out with the diamonds herself. The less I tell you about the diamond plot the better.

From there Laure has to get out of the country before her partners find her which leads her into a mistaken identity plot where she is confused for a grieving widow and taken in by the girl’s parents. While in the care of her pseudo parents she happens across a plane ticket and passport belonging to her lookalike. Boarding the plane with her new identity, she meets an American businessman played by veteran character guy Peter Coyote.

Cut to seven years later, Laure has married Coyote whose character is returning to Paris as the new American Ambassador. As Laure attempts to fly under the radar to avoid her past, her low profile attracts the attention of the French tabloids. One of the papers hire a paparazzi photographer played by Antonio Banderas to capture a photo of the new Ambassador's wife. He of course gets the photo, which is not surprisingly seen by her former partners. This sets off a chain of events that have Laure posing as an abused wife to lure Antonio into a plot she has designed to bilk her husband out of ten million dollars. Whatever happened to the diamonds is anyone's guess.

It’s not surprising that Stamos is the film’s biggest problem. As an actress, Stamos makes for sensational eye candy but she is completely overmatched as an actress. That is likely the reason why though she is the lead she has far less dialogue than her co-stars. She is never once believable as the badass manipulator that the character is supposed to be and she never projects the intellect a character like this would need to make it as far as she does.

De Palma is in rare form with his trashy take on classic Hitchcock. There is De Palma's legendary use of tracking shots and his unique use of amazing French architecture. The colors that saturated the France of Amelie are dimmed by rain covered streets in Femme Fatale but are nearly as vivid. De Palma is in love with his camera, floating it everywhere and using extensive close-ups to raise the tension of the film. If Stamos' performance weren't so chuckle-inducing, Femme Fatale could have been a style-over-substance cult classic. As it is, Femme Fatale is a missed opportunity for the director who lives for every opportunity, successful or otherwise.

Movie Review Frida

Frida (2002) 

Directed by Julie Taymor

Written by Clancy Sigal, Gregory Nava

Starring Salma Hayek, Alfred Molina, Geoffrey Rush, Valeria Golino, Mia Maestro, Antonio Banderas

Release Date October 25th, 2002

Published November 2nd, 2002 

Less than two years ago, there were three Frida Kahlo film projects competing to get to the screen first. One of the films was to star Jennifer Lopez and, according to rumors, made it as far as costume and makeup tests. Another was to star Madonna and was rumored to have made it as far as location scouting. The one that finally was made stars Salma Hayek, is directed by Julie Taymor, and will go down as THE definitive telling of this brilliant artist's profound life.

In 1922 Mexico City, schoolgirl Frida Kahlo is joined with some male school friends in spying on visiting artist Diego Rivera as he paints a nude model in the school auditorium. It is the first time Rivera and Kahlo meet but certainly not the last. Before these two amazing artists finally come together, fate intervenes by way of a bus accident that almost kills Frida, but instead leaves her nearly crippled. After a year of painful operations, treatments, and endless days in bed, Frida is finally well enough to walk again and is ready to seek out Rivera to show him her art.

While she is desperate for Rivera's opinion, she cannot necessarily trust his positive assessment based on his well-known appetite for sleeping with beautiful young artists. Nevertheless, Rivera's honest love of her work begins a relationship that, though troubled, will last a long time.

Rivera, as played by a nearly unrecognizable Alfred Molina, is a proud Communist, politician and artist. Rivera is a passionate, talented artist with appetites as big as his talents are and Frida matches him all the way. However, no matter how much they respect and love each other Diego can't keep from cheating and, out of necessity for revenge, neither can Frida. Salma Hayek's performance is remarkable. Vibrant and intelligent she captures the essence of not only the legend of Kahlo but also her art. Hayek communicates from deep within herself from where the art that ended up on the canvas came. During the many years she was bedridden by her injuries, Kahlo lived inside her head, and her wild imagination, combined with her spirited life with Rivera, are what fueled her amazing works of art.

Director Julie Taymor (Titus) makes an awesome statement with this film, showing herself to be an artist to watch. Taymor--the renowned Broadway director--proves that she is also a film director we will be talking about for years to come. What is so astounding is that she takes a simple biopic and brings it to life with a wild imagination that Kahlo herself would have appreciated. The hardest part of making a film about an artist is how to show the work of art in progress. 

In Frida, Taymor chooses to go inside Kahlo's mind and allow the audience to see the painting as the artist imagined it. Through the use of some astonishing animation, the makeup and effects come to life and then melt on the canvas before our eyes. This is a truly imaginative and lovely idea, worked to near perfection.

I have always had a major pet peeve about films made in Mexico, which is that is that for some reason they always lack color. For the most part any film of Mexican or Spanish heritage seems to be washed out in a brown hue that makes everything look like it is covered in dirt. This film does not do that. Instead, it takes advantage of color, painting the screen with gorgeous color from the architecture to the costumes and, of course, to the paintings.

The film is not perfect. For one thing, I was disappointed that it was done in English instead of Spanish, a decision that seemingly was made entirely based on box office. For the purpose of artistic integrity, a film that centers around Mexican artists should be done in Spanish. It seems that Miramax, the film's producers and distributors, did not trust the audience to be intelligent enough to appreciate a film with subtitles, and accordingly, we get a film shot in Mexico City with street signs in the native language where the characters speak English.

That minor complaint aside, Frida is a remarkable film; truly beautiful and magnificent. Frida Kahlo's life was one that was well lived and well portrayed by Salma Hayek who deserves an Oscar nomination. Frida is one of the best films of 2002.

Movie Review: Ballistic Ecks vs Sever

Ballistic Ecks vs. Sever 

Directed by Kaos 

Written by Alan B. McElroy 

Starring Antonio Banderas, Lucy Liu, Gregg Henry, Ray Park, Talisa Soto 

Release Date September 20th, 2002 

Published September 19th, 2002 

Well I must admit I was growing complacent. After a series of good movies mixed with some average and below-average movies, I had forgotten about Hollywood’s ability to make truly horrible films. In the past month or so Hollywood had lulled me into a trance of average movies that left no impression, good or bad. The new movie, Ballistic: Ecks Vs Sever, woke me from this trance with the loudest, dumbest, most idiotic movie this side of Rollerball. The byzantine plot of Ballistic is too ridiculous to explain. From what I was able to deduce, Lucy Liu played Sever and Antonio Banderas played Ecks. Other than that I am at a loss to explain the stupidity that passes for a plot. 

There is something about a weapon that was stolen from a lab in Germany. The microscopic weapon can cause heart attacks if it gets into the bloodstream, I think. There is something about a little kid that Sever takes as a hostage, something about Ecks' wife who he thought was dead but wasn't and Gregg Henry as the villain named Gant. The amazing thing about Gant is the audience has no clue why he does what he does. The movie teases that he is some public official but for the life of me I can't figure it out. 

We know Gant and his men can manipulate the local law enforcement of Vancouver, British Columbia, though we don't know why. Gant's men interact with the FBI but it's implied that they aren't with the FBI. There is some organization called the DIA. Whatever that is, the move never explains. We do know Gant wants this weapon, the heart attack weapon. The trailer is a better source than the film if you want to make sense of the weapons ability. Apparently you get it inside someone then it lays dormant until you press a button and it kills him or her. How do you get it inside someone? You shoot them. Of course that kind of defeats the purpose of the weapon doesn't it? 

Maybe you can rationalize that somehow, but how do you explain that the weapon is made of metal. So you have given the head of state a heart attack but your weapon is inside the body and easily detected in the autopsy, once again defeating the implied purpose of the weapon, which I believe is supposed to go undetected. It doesn't matter. Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever is a mess, which is appropriate because a guy who was credited as Kaos directed it. The irony is thick. The film is essentially a series of large explosions and that's it. The story is nonexistent, the script is a joke, the actors are completely lost and that is the only thing the audience can really relate too. 

Poor Lucy Liu and poor Antonio Banderas. While they deserve to be criticized for just being involved in this mess, I don't blame them for its failure. Both stars are attractive and charismatic. Unfortunately the director doesn't care. The only thing Kaos is interested in is getting to the next explosion ASAP. 

The director especially abuses Lucy Liu. Liu is an actress, yet in the films entire running length Lucy has 7 lines of dialogue. SEVEN. I counted them. That is less than Arnold Schwarzenegger in Hercules in New York and he could barely speak English then. Why hire an actress like Liu for a role that could have easily been filled by a stuntwomen? 

Stuntman Ray Park is also singled out for abuse, he has more dialogue than Lucy Liu and his character only exists for the purpose of being killed by Liu in a karate fight. Then there is Gregg Henry as the villainous Gant. Henry does his job in workmanlike fashion, oozing slime and dripping with evil. Gant actually gives us insight into which star got top billing. You see, whichever star kills Gant is the one with top billing. I will leave the mystery.

The most amazing thing about Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever is the director’s ability to combine an incomprehensible plot with plot devices more predictable than a calendar. That is a true accomplishment. Is Ecks Vs Sever the worst film of 2002? I'm not sure. Rollerball, Fear Dot Com and Tart have strong arguments for that title. Ecks Vs Sever will be near the top of the list that is for sure.

Movie Review Once Upon a Time in Mexico

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003) 

Directed by Robert Rodriguez 

Written by Robert Rodriguez 

Starring Antonio Banderas, Johnny Depp, Salma Hayek, Mickey Rourke, Eva Mendes, Willem Dafoe

Release Date September 12th, 2003

Published September 11th, 2003 

The Auteur Theory states that the director is the author of a film. The auteur is a director whose sole artistic vision is fully realized with little compromise. Many of our most prominent directors can fit the definition of an auteur, but few can live up to the definition as much as Robert Rodriguez can. In his latest film, Once Upon A Time In Mexico, Rodriguez is credited as writer, director, producer, cinematographer, editor, production designer, and composer of the film's score. He did everything but key lights and hold the boom mic. If that is not realizing a singular vision, I don't know what is. And that singular vision is a spectacular shoot'em up that may be light on story but makes up for it with style.

Antonio Banderas returns to the role of the nameless mariachi player from El Mariachi and Desperado who dispenses justice and tunes from a killer guitar case. Having gone into hiding after the death of his wife (Salma Hayek in flashback) and child, the mariachi is brought out of retirement to kill the man who killed his family, General Marquez (Gerardo Vigil).

The mysterious man who brought the mariachi out of retirement is a shady American CIA agent named Sands (Johnny Depp). Agent Sands is carrying out a thin-ice tap dance that is playing a number of Mexican factions against each other, with Sands ending up 10 million dollars richer. He has hired the Mariachi to kill General Marquez and the General to kill the unpopular Mexican President. Sands has a major drug dealer named Barillo (Willem Dafoe) to finance the General and an ex-FBI agent (Ruben Blades) to kill the drug dealer.

Confusing? Maybe, but it doesn't matter because Johnny Depp is so damn cool. Whether the plot makes any sense or if the scheme works or doesn't work, makes little difference to Robert Rodriguez or the audience because it's all about Depp. Like a plot magician Depp does parlor tricks that make your plot reservations disappear. Whether it's Rodriguez's quick witted script or Depp's stylish delivery it all works and it's all so cool.

For his part as the lead, Banderas slips comfortably back into his Mariachi costume. It's one of the rare roles in which Banderas seems comfortable. Maybe it's because it's his third go around in the role or maybe it's his friendly director, but Banderas realizes the potential stardom that so many have expected of him, but only in this role. Any other role and Banderas appears lost.

This film's place in the El Mariachi/Desperado, line is unclear to me; it's been too long since I've seen those two films. Luckily, there is no need to remember the first two films beyond the vaguest details. Flashbacks with Salma Hayek as the Mariachi's wife are effective in providing backstory and are as stylish and cool as the scenes that surround them.

One of the things that makes Rodriguez's multi-hyphenate performance possible is the way in which he takes advantage of the most modern film technology. Using a top-of-the-line Sony digital camera, Rodriguez becomes the first filmmaker that I have seen use digital in a way that transfers to regular film stock without looking awful. His shooting style is just as impressive, entirely handheld without looking handheld. This makes Once Upon A Time In Mexico, an important moment in digital and independent filmmaking. See it for Johnny Depp. Respect it for the true independent spirit at work in its creation.

Movie Review The Spongebob Movie Sponge Out of Water

The Spongebob Movie Sponge Out of Water (2015) 

Directed by Stephen Hillenburg

Written by Stephen Hillenburg 

Starring Tom Kenny, Clancy Brown, Matt Berry, Antonio Banderas, Bill Fagerbakke, Rodger Bumpass

Release Date February 6th, 2015 

Published February 5th, 2015

How does a film so shamelessly appeal to the tastes of tots and stoners alike and not wind up doomed to be assailed by the culture warriors? By becoming a capitalist commodity first and an anarchic, tripped out, cartoon second. That is the journey of “Spongebob Squarepants” which innocently invaded popular kids culture in the early 2000’s and became an unassailable pop titan.

The freedom of success has allowed this Nickelodeon product to evolve in ways that no one likely imagined. From what was a minor distraction for kiddies a strange cult classic of stoner nostalgia has emerged. Over time the tots who loved Spongebob’s seemingly innocent shenanigans were joined in front of the television by their cereal slurping, red-eyed older brother who laughed at the jokes that the little ones just missed.

Sure, the creators of the series maintain the innocence at the show’s heart but their claims to innocence are certainly challenged by a product that has grown increasingly weird in most recent and slightly controversial incarnations. It’s a strange evolution that today culminates in the ultimate evidence of the show’s sneaky stoner appeal, “The Spongebob Movie: Sponge Out of Water.”

Sure, on the surface this is merely an attempt to return Spongebob Squarepants to the pop ether and make gobs of money while doing it. But, watch the film and the Dali-esque, dizzying, imagery comes roaring out at the audience in ways only those on psychotropic stimulants can truly understand. As someone who’s never experienced a drug induced freak out, I can only imagine it is something akin to the time travel trip taken in “Sponge Out of Water” by our hero Spongebob and his unlikely pal and former enemy Plankton.

If you thought Peter Fonda’s swirling, twisting vortex freak out in 1969’s “The Trip” was trip inducing, wait till you get a load of the wall of sight and sound that takes Spongebob and Plankton through time and space. Only a true stoner, wacked out on the best Maui-Wowie and grooving to Kubrick’s “2001” could truly appreciate the sites created herein. I’m not kidding, these scenes are really messed up.

Things really get tripped out when Spongebob and Plankton, on the run through time and space to escape having been accused of stealing the secret recipe for Crabby Patties, find themselves in a future world run by a talking Dolphin named Bubbles. Bubbles is voiced by the brilliant British comic Matt Berry in full Douglas Reynholm bluster. Throwing Berry into a mix that also includes Antonio Banderas as a pirate named Burger Beard, is really the last piece of evidence needed to prove that the makers of Spongebob are indeed attempting to bridge the gap between Nickelodeon comedy and Cheech and Chong.

Looking back I realize I am making this sound like a bad thing. In reality, it’s more innocuous than anything. Despite the bleating of many conservatives, there isn’t anything truly dangerous about stoners. The fact that they can be as entertained as little children by the same form of entertainment is only subversive in the eyes of those who see smoking marijuana as some sort of societal ill.

There are many more damning things that people could be doing aside from getting baked and watching “The Spongebob Movie: Sponge Out of Water.” Things like Sub-Prime Mortgages or murder for hire schemes against their employers or ironically attending WNBA Games are certainly less worthy efforts than getting stoned and laughing hysterically as a talking sponge battles Antonio Banderas as pirate named Burger Beard.

I guess my main point is that we should just be honest about the appeal of “The Spongebob Movie: Sponge Out of Water” and stop acting like it’s just a kids movie. The fact is, Spongebob has a foot firmly planted in two separate but equal satirical worlds that appeal equally and differently to two very specific sets of audiences and there is nothing wrong with that.

Let’s let Spongebob’s freak flag fly free and not be so uptight and silly as to believe that just because stoners enjoy a kids show that kids will automatically grow up to be stoners. This isn’t a nature or nurture argument over the future of our children, it’s just a silly cartoon that happens to be tripping balls and delighting children all at once.