Normally, I’m a fan of director Ridley Scott, so I had eagerly anticipated the theatrical release of his latest film, Kingdom of Heaven. But the mixed feedback from early reviews and initial public reaction turned me off to the film. I waited to see it until the movie made a quick transition to DVD, and then I understood the cool reaction it had received in theaters; Kingdom of Heaven seemed to be an epic film with no heart and little point. I couldn’t bring myself to care for the characters or their predicament.

Now one year after the theatrical release we get the Kingdom of Heaven: Director’s Cut; with almost an extra hour of footage. This is almost a completely different movie; character arcs that weren’t even hinted at before are exposed and existing ones filled out. Now the characters’ motivations are evident, we know them and understand their decisions. Suddenly what had been an empty, swords and sandals pictures has turned into a sophisticated story on the relationship between people, their faith, and morality.

With the Director’s Cut, Kingdom of Heaven has evolved from a mediocre swords and sandals film into a don’t epic tale. Don’t pass over this revised version of the movie, regardless of what you thought of the initial release.

I just got back from the 12:01AM showing of Sin City, and it was well worth the effort. In a sentence, this was the Pulp Fiction of comic book movies, and I imagine many knock-off films will follow this flick as well. Don’t be mistaken, if you’re not into gratuitous violence and scantily clad women, this movie is not for you.

First, the visual style of the film captures the much of the impact of Frank Miller’s original graphic novels, and the effect is lush and compelling. Viewers who are drawn in by the visuals will not be disappointed, as the effect plays well throughout the movies 100 minute runtime. Much like Pulp Fiction, Sin City is presented as a series of related story vignettes, oddly the resulting narrative seems to move somewhat more slowly than that 100 minutes would imply. Perhaps contributing to the leisurely pace is the voiceover narration presented by the main characters; the effect plays very much like the narrative side text of comic books, and keeps the viewer firmly sided with the “good guy”. (Note: the concept of a good guy in Sin City is a decidedly subjective judgement). Fans of the comic book will There’s a lot to like in Sin City, hard-bitten actors, lovely ladies, casual violence, but there’s more things keeping this movie from being a hit with mainstream moviegoers.

The first few minutes are peppered with needless topless shots of (admittedly beautiful) women, but this seems to be used to . And while the action eventually gets fast and furious, there’s a gradual build to a crescendo of guns and mayhem that may put off some viewers. When the violence does peak, it keeps itself firmly rooted in comic book stylized gore that is more humorous than appalling, which may appease some and frustrate others. If there’s one thing going for Sin City is Frank Miller’s plots twist and turn and keep the proceedings interesting as well as entertaining. Unfortunatly, the dialog is typical comic book fare, and suffers from hackneyed turns of phrase and over the top melodrama — resulting in the occasional unintended laugh from the spectators. Along with the clichéd dialog, we have the traditional two-dimensional comic book characterizations — with only a few notable exceptions. Clive Owen and Micky Roukre do more than one might imagine with their respective parts, and Bruce Willis soldiers bravely with his somewhat one-dimensional character. Of the bevy of beautiful actresses gracing this movie, stand-out performances are somewhat harder to come by with Rosario Dawson and Alexis Bledel both doing wonderful jobs.

To paraphrase my friend Kevin, who once commented about my movie going habits, “He is as likely to come home with teenage-romantic-comedy-nonsense as German Expessionism, and relish both (on the same night)!” Living up to my billing, I really enjoyed Sin City, flaws and all. Fans of the books will have no problems shelling out for the experience, but those with young children, an aversion to comic book conversions, or not interested in Tarantino-esqe — not only do his films influence Sin City, but he guest directs — movies are best advised to stir clear.

I ♥ Huckabees is an eclectic “comedy” about a man in search of the meaning behind a seemingly innocent set of coincidences. This off-beat, slightly humorous movie is good for a chuckle or two, and might fuel some pseudo-philosophical discussions in coffee-houses after viewing, but don’t believe the packing propaganda about it being hilariously funny. Possibly seeing the movie in a theater, with a larger audience would have led to more laughing out loud, but on DVD the comedy definitely comes across more subdued.

Jason Schwartzman does a good job leading this ensemble cast including: Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin, Jude Law, Mark Wahlberg, and Naomi Watts. The script is smart, and has some good moments, but the whole proceeding seems to suffer from a lack of cohesion. While the premise of an existential detective agency is a neat concept, the rest of the story, characters, conflict, and indeed most of the plot are only briefly sketched out. This serves to keep the movie moving quickly, and it never becomes tedious, but I would have rather come to care about one or another of the characters more at the expense of losing some of the “existential” schtick.

The writers are aware that they are badly abusing the original concepts of french existentialism. These existentialists are proactive, and intimately involved with their fellow man. Fundamentally, classic existentialism was about accepting the world, and your moral value was defined by the way you dealt with all that life threw at you.

In the end, I ♥ Huckabees is a fine evening’s diversion, and worth a rental, but only pseudo-intellectual movie buffs need to purchase it. (Yes Virginia, that means me.)

Ok, I basically enjoyed Catwoman. I mean really, Halle Berry strutting around for 90 minutes in a tight-leather outfit; I was going to enjoy it for that reason alone. But frankly, it wasn’t that bad. I think most people who saw it took the movie too seriously; I saw it as part of the same campy spirit that the original TV show enjoyed, and less like the melodramatic movies of the 90′s.

Undoubtedly, Michelle Pfeiffer’s portrayal of Selina Kyle (aka Catwoman) in Batman Returns was vastly more nuanced, foreboding, and impressive than this latest rendition. But let’s face facts, they were not trying to build on that performance or even the history of the previous character. The new Catwoman has: a new name (Patience Phillips), a new boyfriend (Tom Lone), and a new outfit . I think the failures of this movie mostly stem from the choice to strike out in a different direction from the source material. Instead of pulling directly from 40 years of existing plot and dialog, the director and producers took a chance on creating a new story arc for our heroine, and that was a tricky proposition. In leaving behind the old baggage the writers also left behind the emotional pathos and character interactions that had been developed over those last 40 years.

Besides being crippled with a bad plot and mediocre dialog, Catwoman. suffers from bad budget decisions — apparently, after paying Ms. Berry her salary the producers couldn’t afford a decent villain. Hollywood’s current facination with super-hero stories has come with larger-than-life villains played by larger-than-life actors. Since Jack Nicholson as the Joker, we’ve enjoyed Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, and Ian McKellen strutting their stuff as super-villains. Sharon Stone and Lambert Wilson are just out of their depth trying to keep this company as the real stars of the superhero epic. And besides, their form of evil just doesn’t compare to world domination or the eradication of mankind.

The result is the new Catwoman. comes across as glib and untroubled, even in passing from death to rebirth. The whole production feels contrived, plastic, and inevitably trivial. We don’t really care about the heros, villains, or the impeding “doom” that is about to be unleashed. Add to the fact that the threat to mankind presented is pretty trivial — ok, totally trivial. All in all the movie feels like a modern sequel to the original series, which suffered from the same flaws. Add a “blam!” here, and a “bloop!” there, and there would have been no question of this version’s heritage.

Bottom line, enjoy it for what it is, a 90 minute diversion starring an incredibly attractive woman. If you want a more melodramatic and compelling version of, then stick with the previous version.