The holiday movie roundup, part 1

January 3, 2009

This post is what happens when you see too many movies in a really short time span and are so busy with other things (including my new blog, City of Champion) that you just can’t give each film the review it deserves.

SEVEN POUNDS

The trailer for this film is very cryptic–it doesn’t really tell you what the movie is about.  Usually that’s a good thing, because most movies are ruined because the trailer tells too much.  But in this case, Seven Pounds is a confusing film–it’s 90% first act, zero second act and 10% third act.  It’s frustrating because the audience is in the dark about what is going on the entire length of the film, until the end when everything is revealed.  The story is rather simple, but the execution is muddled and not enjoyable to watch.  The entire film is a downer, even the ending (which is supposed to make you feel good).

What’s good about it? Rosario Dawson’s performance as an artist waiting for a heart transplant is effective.

What’s bad about it? If your idea of a good movie is watching Will Smith cry and writhe in anguish, hoo-boy, you’ve hit the jackpot.

Perfect for: fans of depressing movies.

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL

Keanu Reeves stars as a dude who looks human but is clearly not.  Yeah, there’s a stretch.

This lame remake of the 1951 Sci-Fi classic (which I admittedly have not seen) has aliens landing in New York City (of course!), primed to destroy mankind in order to save the earth from pollution.  (The same kind of thing was done in last summer’s The Happening and it didn’t work so well there, either.)  Jennifer Connelly co-stars as a widowed scientist who helps Reeves escape from the evil military people who are trying their darndest to protect the country.

What’s good about it? It’s not boring.

What’s bad about it? The special effects are so-so.  Reeves is terrible (as usual), as is Jaden Smith (Will Smith’s son), who plays a bratty tween.  (Something tells me there’s not much acting in his performance.)

Perfect for: Keanu Reeves fans.

MARLEY & ME

Watching Marley & Me, I realized that there is an art to making a broad, crowd-pleasing film.  Director David Frankel (who directed 2006’s The Devil Wears Prada) has crafted a film that is nearly perfect in terms of pacing and accessibility.  Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston have genuine chemistry.  I’ve never said this before (and hopefully never again), but you’ll laugh, you’ll cry.

What’s good about it? See above paragraph.

What’s bad about it? If you hate crying in movies, stay away.

VALKYRIE

There was a lot of negative buzz surrounding Valkyrie (it originally was slated to come out this past summer, then it was pushed back to February 2009, the bumped up to Christmas 2008…oh, and it stars the poster boy for Hollywood eccentrics, Tom Cruise), but the good thing is that the movie itself is actually good.  Really good.

In this World War II-era thriller, Tom Cruise (in a winningly low-key performance) stars as Claus von Stauffenberg, a colonel in the German army who plots to kill Hitler and stage a military coup.  It’s a great edge-of-your-seat movie, expertly directed by Bryan Singer (who directed Superman Returns, X-Men and The Usual Suspects).

What’s good about it? SPOILER ALERT: The events of this true story take place in the summer of 1944, and Hitler didn’t die until 1945.  (It’s history, kids.  Look it up.)  But even with that knowledge, I could not stop asking, how does this end? A good indicator of a good film is when you know the ending and you still wonder what’s going to happen.

What’s bad about it? SPOILER ALERT: Hitler wins.

Perfect for: Anyone looking for a good thriller.  And anyone wondering if Tom Cruise is still worth seeing in a movie.

Review: ‘Australia’

December 18, 2008

Baz Luhrmann’s first film since 2001’s Moulin Rouge! has all the trappings of a sure-fire hit, with its attractive leads, money shots of rugged landscapes and immaculately designed sets and costumes.  But something in Australia is missing, but after sitting in the theater for nearly three hours, I don’t care what.

What’s it about? I’m not 100% sure, because for the first half of the movie I couldn’t understand what all these Aussies were saying.  (Like the superb Irish film Once, this one needs subtitles even though it’s in English.)  But this is what I gather: Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) is a rich British prude who comes to Faraway Downs, her husband’s money pit of of a ranch in the Australian Outback, to sell the property and bring her husband home.  Upon arrival she discovers her husband has been murdered, supposedly by an Aboriginal mystic named King George (David Gulpill).  It turns out that the ranch could actually turn a profit, should Sarah  be able to get her 1500 head of cattle to Darwin.

With the help of the rough and tumble Drover (Hugh Jackman, in full romance novel cover mode), Sarah and her hired help (including Nullah (Brandon Walters), the 10-year old half-white/half-aboriginal grandson of King George) drive the cattle across the unforgiving Outback.

Just when you think the movie’s over, however, there is an enitrely different story that drags on for the last hour: Japan bombs Darwin, and Sarah, Drover and Nullah are separated and–SPOILER ALERT–reunited in the end.

What’s good about it? Walters gives a fine performance, and there’s some beautiful cinematography.

What’s bad about it? Well, there’s not a lot that is bad per se (barring the fact that the movie is far too overlong), it’s just that there really isn’t anything great about it.  Australia reportedly cost $130 to make; when a movie costs that much, it should knock my socks off.  I am sad to report that my socks stayed on my feet the whole time.

The film feels like a glossed-up remake of 1985’s Out of Africa (one of my favorite films), but lacks any real dramatic weight.  Australia is cinematic cotton candy; Out of Africa is meat and potatoes.

Perfect for: Swoony Hugh Jackman fans.

Netflix this: ‘The Nativity Story’

December 14, 2008

I must confess: I planned on liking this movie before I even saw it.  As a Christian and as a movie addict, The Nativity Story seemed like the right amalgamation of spirituality and cinema.  I was in the mood to watch an uplifting film about the Christmas story, especially since I tried to watch the abismal Rankin-Bass special Nestor the Long-Eared Christmas Donkey the other day.  (Bastardizing Santa and Rudolph is one thing, but stay away fom the birth of Jesus.)

I shied away from The Nativity Story because when it was released theatrically in 2006 it got lousy reviews (Rotten Tomatoes’ Tomatometer has it at 38%) and it only grossed about $44 million worldwide.  Quite a pitiful sum, when you consider that the target audience is all of Christendom (that’s a lot of people).  So I added it to my Netflix queue, wanting to get into the Christmas spirit in a medium that speaks to me.  (I’m not big on candy canes or tacky sweaters.)

It could be my innate bias towards such a film, but I found The Nativity Story to be a compelling and, yes, moving  portrayal of a story I’ve heard and read numerous times.  This is a film where you know what’s going to happen.  The key is to enjoy the journey of how they arrive at the final destination.

What’s it about? Regardless of your faith or your devotion to it, there’s a pretty good chance you know the gist of the story.  Set in the year before Christ’s birth, Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes) is told in a vision that she’ll give birth to a child that will be the Messiah the prophets have proclaimed would redeem the people of Israel.  Pretty controversial, considering that her betrothed husband Joseph (Otto Isaac) is still her betrothed (read: they haven’t consummated the marriage).  Despite persecution and King Herrod’s (Ciaran Hinds) constant attempts to locate the prophecied Messiah.  Add some shepherds and the three wise men, and you’ve got yourself The Nativity Story.

What’s good about it? This is one of those films where you can tell that meticulous research was put into this film.  You get a sense of the everyday life of living in Nazareth.  You get a better understanding of the political climate.  You have a little more context for why people did what they did back then.  There’s attention to detail and there’s sense of scope from seeing a studio-funded production.  And at a hour and forty-one minutes, The Nativity Story doesn’t overstay its welcome.

And while there are a lot of dramatic holes to fill with a movie based on scripture, screenwriter Mike Rich does a good job of developing the relationship between Mary and Joseph.  If anything this movie is the story of how they fell in love.  It added a nice human touch to a story so immersed in the divine.

This is the type of film I want to watch every year and make it part of my family’s tradition.

What’s bad about it? I wanted to like this film, so I don’t have much to say here.

Perfect for: Anyone needing a detox from innocuous Christmas tv specials or made-for-tv movies.  Oh, and the 2 billion Christians on earth.

DVD Review: ‘Gremlins’ – Yes, I’m blogging about ‘Gremlins.’

December 11, 2008

I have a love-hate relationship with Gremlins.  It’s a stupid movie.  I know this.  Yet, for some reason I cannot help but enjoy watching this movie.  Perhaps my affinity for Gremlins stems from not being allowed to see it when it was released in theaters.  I was seven, and the commericals (and the above trailer) refrained from actually showing what the fiendish critters looked like, which meant I didn’t think it would be that scary.

My parents wouldn’t let me see it, although my uncle (who, being a mere eight years older than me, was more like an older brother than an uncle) told me all about the movie.  The closest I came to actually seeing it was owning a t-shirt with Gizmo on it.  So yeah, not that close.  I don’t remember when I did, in fact, watch Gremlins, but I remember I loved it.  (I was twelve when Gremlins 2 came out, and I saw it twice in the theater.  Jealous?)

I had been waiting for quite some time to buy Gremlins, but never felt right about paying actual money for it.  Then Target had it on sale for $4, and that’s very close to no money, so I bought it.  And I’m happy/sad to say, I’ve enjoyed watching it again.

What seven year-old WOULDNT want to see this?

What seven year-old WOULDN'T want to see this?

What’s it about? Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligan) is a putz-ish bank teller whose dad is a putz-ish inventor.  Dad goes on a business trip and brings home a critter called a Mogwai named Gizmo (voiced by Howie Mandel–yes, that Howie Mandel).  There are some rules to follow when keeping a Mogwai: 1) keep it out of bright light; 2) don’t get it wet; 3) don’t feed it after midnight.

Billy accidentally spills water on Gizmo, which causes the little critter to reproduce asexually.  So now Billy owns five Mogwai.  The putz.  Then he accidentally feeds all of them (except Gizmo)  after midnight, which causes them to turn into little monsters who wreak havoc on the entire town.  Smooth move, Peltzer!

What’s good about it? The scene where Billy’s mother (Frances Lee McCain) is home alone with the Gremlins is effectively scary.  And gory!  (This film, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, prompted the MPAA to introduce the PG-13 rating.)

The film walks the fine line between dopey comedy and tepid horror, but does so with such panache, you can’t help but accidentally watch the whole movie.  And the final showdown between Stripe, the head Gremlin, and Billy is enjoyable, if for no other reason than to see Stripe shoot Billy with a crossbow.

What’s bad about it? It’s silly and gross.  (This may also be a good thing.   But I’m not the boss of you, so make up your own mind.)

Perfect for: I have no idea.

This is funny: ‘Don’t I Know You?’

December 11, 2008

I don’t find a lot of web videos that funny.  But I stumbled upon this a few weeks ago and can’t stop recommending friends to check it out.  So here, friends.  Check it out.

Netflix this: ‘Edward Scissorhands’

December 9, 2008

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Hulu – Edward Scissorhands: A Good As…“, posted with vodpod

Aside from the occasional cold, I don’t get sick very often.  But last week I was violently ill.  I spent a lot of time in bed.  Watching movies.  It was simultaneously terrible and awesome.

One of the films I watched was Edward Scissorhands, which I had first seen eighteen years ago in the theater.  (And no, I wasn’t a little kid.  But yes, I had to be driven to the theater to see it.)  I’ve loved the film ever since.  But have you ever forgotten how much you actually love a movie?  Such was my experience with Tim Burton’s 1990 film.

edwardposter1What’s it about? A man-made oddity named Edward (Johnny Depp) lives in a mansion on a hill, above the mysterious world known as Suburbia.  When local Avon representative Peg Boggs (Dianne Wiest, in what is probably her best non-Woody Allen film role) comes knocking, Edward is whisked away into a world of identical-looking houses, perfectly manicured lawns, bowling on TV, and desperate housewives.  Peg’s husband Bill (Alan Arkin) takes to Edward like he’s one of the family (which means being agreeable if not slightly despondent).  Edward’s “specialness” comes home is hands made of scissors, which the ladies of Suburbia, led by queen bee Joyce (Kathy Baker), are enfatuated with.  His talent for making cool shrubbery morphs into crazy wild dog haircuts and then into bizarre hairstyles that all the ladies love.

Edward pines for Bill and Peg’s daughter Kim (Winona Ryder), but doesn’t know how to vent his frustrations with his unrequited love.  It’s not long that the one-two punch of Kim’s jerkface boyfriend Jim (Anthony Michael Hall) and the gossipy housewives being to take their toll on Edward.

What’s good about it? Tim Burton is, first and foremost, a director who puts style above everything else, and Edward Scissorhands is no exception.  Visually, it’s a marvel–from the big abandoned Mansion (which is more of Burton’s trademark) to the pastel-colored blandness of the suburban landscape.  Acting-wise, this is one of Burton’s best films.  Danny Elfman’s score is iconic–music from Scissorhands was used in trailers for years afterward.  Wiest, Arkin and Baker give wonderful performances as people trapped in a bland and empty word and they don’t even know it.  But the film really belongs to Depp, who, with this film, established himself as an actor willing to take creative risks (and we all know how that story panned out).

What’s bad about it? There are a few gaping plot holes, but you don’t watch a Tim Burton film looking for 100% coherence (Planet of the Apes, anyone?).  It’s all style over substance, but what style!

Perfect for: Johnny Depp and Tim Burton fans.

Review: ‘Rachel Getting Married’ – One of the Best of 2008

December 9, 2008

I love the tagline in the trailer for Rachel Getting Married:  “This is not your family.  But it is your family.”   I love it because the family portrayed in the film is nothing like my own, yet I identified with these people so strongly.  Jonathan Demme’s first narrative feature since 2004’s The Manchurian Candidate is a testament to the power of family, and no matter how much you sometimes can’t stand the people you’re born with, they’re yours, and you’re theirs.

What’s it about? Rachel Getting Married is a story of a young woman who tries to make right so many wrongs, and still can’t forgive herself for her drug-induced negligence that led to a terrible accident years before.Kym (Anne Hathaway), a former model, checks out of rehab for the weekend to attend her sister Rachel’s (Rosemarie DeWitt) wedding to Sidney (Tunde Adebimpe).  Kym’s one of those unpredictable hurricane types who can’t help but to storm through people’s lives and leave nothing but a path of destruction.   Amid numerous guests who parade around the house all weekend, the family does its best to keep the airing of dirty laundry to a minimum, but Kym has a way of bringing out the hurt in others (and not always intentionally, either).

What’s good about it? Demme’s film is shot like Lars Von Trier’s 2000 film Dancer in the Dark–hand-held camera work with long takes (similar to the Dogme style of films), with performances so raw you’d swear you are, in fact, watching a documentary.

Anne Hathaway’s performance is more than an attempt to shed her Disney princess/safe romantic comedy persona; it’s an actual, Oscar-worthy performance that gives me hope that down the road fthat she’ll take on other diverse and convincing roles.

Also Oscar-worthy is DeWitt’s performance of the titular sister, who’s had to suffer in silence while Kym’s antics sucked all the energy from their parents and doesn’t want her sister to ruin her wedding.

Hathaway and DeWitt execute that sisterly bond with the utmost precision–they love and resent each other simultaneously.

This is one of those films that makes you realize how important family is.  You didn’t choose these people, and sometimes, if you weren’t related you might never have associated with them at all.  But that’s the  the blessing/challenge of family: to connect, to love and to be there for each other.

What’s bad about it? There’s some language and a very brief sex scene.

Perfect for: fans of The Family Stone.


Review: ‘Four Christmases’ – The Case of the Missing Third Act

November 29, 2008

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Hulu – Movie Trailers: Four Christmases“, posted with vodpod

The pairing of Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon in a comedy about family (not to be mistaken for a family comedy) is about as appealing as a peanut butter and tuna fish sandwich.  Separately, they’re fine.  Together?  Not so much.

And thus the joyless experience of watching Four Christmases begins.

What’s it about? San Fancisco couple Kate (Witherspoon) and Brad (Vaughn) are completely enfatuated with each other.  They’ve been a couple for three years now, and each Christmas they find an excuse to avoid visiting their respective parents (all of whom are divorced) so they can take an exotic vacation for the holidays.  Thick fog grounds their flight to Fiji, and while attempting to reschedule their flight at the airport the two end up on the local news.  All four parents just happen to be watching the same newscast, causing their cell phones to ring and ring and ring and ring.  and now Kate and Brad must spend quality time with relatives they really don’t like.

First on their list of visits is Brad’s white trash father Howard (Robert Duvall) and his UFC-enthusiast brothers Dallas (Tim McGraw) and Denver (Jon Favreau).  Brad is beat up his brothers.  Zaniness ensues.

Second is Kate’s mom Marilyn (Mary Steenburgen), a cougar-type who’s never met Brad and can’t keep her eyes off of him.  Marilyn and sister Courtney (Kristen Chenoweth) delight in digging up Kate’s past (She was fat!  The other kids taunted her!  They thought she was a lesbian!).  Inexplicably, Kate takes a pregnancy test, only to have to retrieve test applicator (Thing you pee on?  Pee reader?  I have no idea what the actual term for it is) from a bratty neice in the inflatble trampoline emporium known as a Jump Jump.  Oh, and Brad and Kate somehow get chosen to portray Joseph and Mary in Marilyn’s boyfriend’s (Dwight Yokam) church play.  Wacky and zany mix-em-ups ensue.

Next it’s on to Brad’s mom’s (Sissy Spacek) house, where Brad is still uncomfortable that his high school buddy (Patrick Van Horn) is now Mom’s live-in boyfriend.  A game of Scattergories ensues.  It’s not that zany, but it sure is unfunny.

By this time Kate and Brad have seen other sides to their significant others, and their three-year infatuation with each other has come to a screeching halt.  (In regular relationships, this happens much, much, MUCH sooner.)  Kate visits her dad (Jon Voight) without Brad as Brad visits his father again.  Lessons are learned.

What’s good about it? The movie is 82 minutes.  And there are some funny lines here and there.

What’s bad about it? This is one of those soulless, mean-spirited Christmas movies marketed in a way that makes you think you want to see it.  The Christmases in this film are a mere excuse to tie four family visits into one day (it could very well have been called Four Easters or Kate and Brad are so unlikeable, as are all their extended family members.  The pregnancy test was an invitation to raise the stakes, but it is dismissed with such nonchalance that you’re scratching your head as to why it was even introduced (other than a reason to have Witherspoon chase her neice in a Jump Jump).

What’s worse, THE MOVIE HAS NO THIRD ACT!  The movie, while humorless, follows a standard story arc, and at the point where Kate and Brad learn that Nobody’s Perfect and Like It Or Lump It, Your Family Is All You’ve Got, you expect their newfound knowledge to be put through one more test that will make or break the relationship.  Instead, [SPOILER ALERT] the film does the “one year later” thing and you see them on New Year’s Day with their newborn baby, and somehow they avoided not telling any family members about the pregnancy.  And lo and behold, a news crew ambushes them because their bundle of joy is the first newborn of the year!  And the cell phones ring and ring and ring and ring AGAIN!

So apparently Kate and Brad didn’t learn ANYTHING.  Perhaps they would have if there was a third act.

Perfect for: the Two and a Half Men crowd.

Playing Catch-up, part 2: More movies I’ve seen of late

November 22, 2008

THE BAXTER

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “The Baxter Trailers (2005) – AllTrail…“, posted with vodpod

A good friend of mine recommended I take a look at The Baxter, Michael Showalter’s 2005 comedy about a putz who tries to win back his fiancee from her high school sweetheart.  She noticed that I had not posted about The Baxter, and I told her I was hesitant because I really did not like the film.  (She was okay with it–she watched The Devil Wears Prada per my recommendation and hated it.)

The film feels like a big inside joke, like you need to be part of the New York improv/sketch comedy scene to enjoy it (writer/director/star Showalter is part of Stella, along with Michael Ian Black and David Wain; Black and Wain have small parts in The Baxter.)  Elizabeth Banks is the fiancee, Justin Theroux is the old boyfriend, and Michelle Williams is the girl Showalter wants to be with.  With the comedic pedigree behind The Baxter, you would think the film would actually be funny.  The only bright spot is a cameo by Paul Rudd, who can’t help but infuse energy into any film he’s in.

CHANGELING

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Hulu – Movie Trailers: Changeling“, posted with vodpod

Clint Eastwood has become one of Hollywood’s most prolific directors; since 2003 he’s directed five films (including Changeling) and he still has another one–Gran Torino–coming out in December.  His recent films have been real showcases for actors, and Changeling is no exception.  Angelina Jolie plays Christine Collins, a single mother in 1928 Los Angeles whose son goes missing.  The LAPD, in need of some good PR, recovers her son…only it’s not her son at all.  (He’s three inches shorter.)  When Christine persists in refuting the LAPD’s claim, she’s thrown into a mental hospital against her will.

This is an exhaustive, heart-wrenching drama that’s not easy to watch.  Jolie’s performance is Oscar-worthy, and Eastwood’s direction is deliciously spare and restrained.  But Eastwood’s got to lighten up.  With Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima and now Changeling, Eastwood has become the King of Despair.  Doubtful if Gran Torino will buck the trend.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Hulu – Movie Trailers: Quantum of Solace“, posted with vodpod

I LOVE Casino Royale.  Hands down, it’s the best James Bond film.  Rebooting a franchise is always a risk, and Casino Royale gave James Bond a certain gravitas that the prior films (obviously) lacked.  It was dark.  It was intense.  And Daniel Craig’s Bond was a bit of a sociopath (after all, he’s a killer).

Quantum of Solace, however, is a much weaker sequel (the first in the series, really; this one’s a continuation of Casino Royale, not a standalone story).  The Villain?  Weenie.  The Girl?  Uninteresting.  The Action?  More of the same, but far less exciting.  This may also be the only Bond film that had locations that I don’t want to visit: Haiti?  The Bolivian Desert?  Russia?  Blech.

The film is watchable, but it definitely is missing something.  And coming in at around 105 minutes, Quantum of Solace is probably the shortest of 007’s adventures.  I wonder, however, what wasn’t good enough to make the final cut.

Playing Catch-up

November 17, 2008

My life is kinda’ busy right now.  I make no apologies for having plenty to do.  I refuse to write a “sorry I’m such a terrible blogger” post, but I will say that I’ve seen a lot of movies lately but do not have the time to write full-blown reviews for each one that I’ve seen.  (I might be busy, but I can always make time to watch a movie.)

So here are some quick reviews on the stuff I’ve seen of late (in no particular order).

THE TV SET

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “The TV Set (2006) Movie Trailer – Mov…“, posted with vodpod

This is one of those films where you’re led to believe you’ll be watching a comedy because of the insane things people do and say.  However, The TV Set, while expertly acted (particularly by Sigourney Weaver as the executive from Hell), is more informative than entertaining, cautionary than humorous.  David Duchovny plays a TV writer struggling to get his dramedy The Wexler Chronicles produced.  The network loves it, but wants changes.  And more changes.  And then some more changes. PERFECT FOR: People who love behind-the-scenes types of movies.

APPALOOSA

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Hulu – Movie Trailers: Appaloosa“, posted with vodpod

I had somewhat high hopes for Appaloosa; Last year’s 3:10 To Yuma was my top movie of 2007.  Sadly, Ed Harris’s second directorial effort lacks the heart and intensity of Yuma.  Harris and Viggo Mortensen are Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch, hired guns given charge of the town of Appaloosa, New Mexico, to rid it of rampant crime at the hand of Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons, who seems terribly out of place despit his best to muffle his British accent).  Renee Zelwegger shows up as a two-bit hussy masquerading as an old-fashioned kind of girl, eyes always fixated on the nearest alpha male.  Some interesting moments, but stoic performances from Harris and Mortensen (a deliberate choice, I’m sure) make Appaloosa watchable, but not memorable.  PERFECT FOR: Western fans.

NETFLIX THIS: BIGGER, FASTER, STRONGER

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Bigger, Stronger, Faster Movie Traile…“, posted with vodpod

Bigger, Faster, Stronger follows director Chris Bell as he tries to make sense of the widespread use of steroid use in America, and in the process upends everything you thought you knew about it.  While much emphasis is places on how steroids have (artificially) built up America’s heroes (like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone), the film also tells the very intimate story of his own family–Bell’s older and younger brother are both on steroids.  The scene where Bell’s mother discovers her sons’ steroid use is heartbreaking.  “There is a clash in America,” Bell says, “between doing what’s right and being the best.”  Bigger, Faster Stronger is not only educational, but highly entertaining.   PERFECT FOR: People who want to like Michael Moore but can’t stand his smugness.

*Sigh*  I’m out of time.