We've moved!

You're favorite film review blog has outgrown its breeches and moved on up to its own site. So please bookmark www.theautomaton.com as the new movie tirades.

In Theaters: "Fast and Furious" good for fans

Prequel to Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift, in theaters now is Fast and Furious, the fourth film in the series. With Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, and a few other original cast members, this latest installment certainly gets immediate points for not going cheap.

The most important question to ask is: How did this one stack up against the others, since it should be assumed that - if you didn't like the first three - you're likely not going to like this one.

The answer is that it compares very well as an action movie, though it is a little darker than the first three both literally and figuratively and so ends up showing off a little less: fewer custom cars and outrageous mods. It fits with the plot, however, which requires "sleeper" cars without much flare.

The acting and circumstances are about as believable as elsewhere in the series, meaning that over-analyzing plot devices is mutually exclusive to enjoying the film. While several of the actors in it have proven their merit elsewhere, Furious is all about well-crafted action, fast cars, and danger around ever corner. In that, it excels, if only in that.

So if you liked the previous films, you'll enjoy Fast and Furious. If you've never seen any of them, this one's not a bad place to start, as you really won't get lost by seeing it first.

It's tough to say whether this is one of those films you really need to see on the big screen. I could see it looking just as good on a nice home theater, since most of the visuals are fairly obvious. Either way, it's good fun and carries on the Fast and Furious torch quite well.

DVD: "The Burrowers" digs another hole

What is it about the old west that so hard to make scary? I mean, it's kinda creepy in its own right really, so what's the problem? You've got rampant and very visual sicknesses like small pox, open forests full of wild creatures, low lighting, "wild" Natives who chant and portray borderline magical practices amid superstitious settlers. If you can't find horror potential in that, you might want to give up writing and try underwater basket weaving.

And yet new-to-DVD flick The Burrowers proves that this is a horror formula that just isn't working for dammit all in Hollywood.

The concept is intriguing enough: a settler family goes missing, and despite Natives being blamed, it's some older, darker beings who travel underground that are snatching people and burying them alive. The acting is quite good, despite a few botched accents here and there. The camera work and music are decent as well, and yet I'm not so much scared as I am bored.

I can't necessarily tell you what it takes to make a good western/horror, but films such as The Cellar, The Missing, and now The Burrowers can surely show you how not to make it work. Maybe it's having "the" before the title that flags it for failure, since the movie that blended the genres best is titled Ghost Town from back in 1988.

So while Burrowers isn't a good western/horror, it's not a bad film. If you have nothing better to do some lazy afternoon, it has enough entertainment value to make it worth a cheap rental - just don't get your hopes up for being scared or finding the storyline even a little disturbing.

In a comic book, I could see the plot working, but apparently such stories just don't translate well to the big screen.

DVD: "Twilight" book or movie?

There was some mild hesitation in either reading or watching new-to-DVD Twilight. I mean, if you couldn't tell by my writing, I'm neither female nor a tween. I compromised by listening to the audio book before watching the film, and I'd already had a taste of Meyer's writing style from her new book The Host.

Instead of offering a conventional review, however, I'll tackle this one from the angle of how the movie stacked up to the book, which is much fairer. After all, it's not as if someone who refused to read the book would suddenly find the movie fascinating, and yet people who've read the book are likely curious about the film if they haven't watched it already.

What is - in my mind - one of the most important factors for a novel-turned-movie is pace: does the film progress as the same rate as the book? In Twilight, I would have to say Yes. Sure, the very lengthy introduction of characters from the book certainly plays on much longer than in the movie, but it builds similarly. That and no one save for the aforementioned tweens would want to see the first three hours of a movie being little more than a roll call of the main players as it is in the book.

Next, and equally important, is how the characters are portrayed. You wouldn't want to see a favorite character of yours from the novel suddenly acting out-of-character: a reserved hero being cocky or a sexy temptress acting coy and insecure. In this way, the film had several characters spot on, to include the big ones: Bella, Edward, and a very well played Charlie Swan (Bella's father). There were a few off-kilter, such as oddly-nervous Jasper, who - in the book - is graced with extreme charisma and grace.

Finally, how well does it follow the story line. Again, seeing a scene take place that is nowhere in the book or - worse - is a deal-breaker for sequels (such as when Eragon easily dispatches the Ra'zac in the film interpretation of the book, despite the Ra'zac's key role in the book sequels).

In this capacity, Twilight the film does quite a good job, seeing as how certain scenes such as the final battle are off-screen in the book - a real no-no in film, of course. In other words, I thought that the additions in the film added pieces that Meyer seemed to glaze over in either a display of reserved writing or an attempt to keep what is largely a romance novel away from too much action.

So despite some more tepid reviews, and the inevitable laments of tweens who thought the two hour film should have been five hours, I would have to say that the movie does an excellent job of representing the book. That said, if you like the book, you will likely enjoy the film and vice versa.

A cool IMDb score of 6.1 is likely due more to that fact that tweens don't vote on the site and largely male, 18-35 years old do. And who among that demographic would admit to liking it? Um...besides me, I guess.

Day of the 'Dog: "Population 436"

There is a kind of sad joy in watching bad horror flicks, which - if I had to guess - comes from a desire to mollify the horror by being able to chuckle at the campy effects or guffaw at the poor acting. This is what I expected when I happened upon today's 'dog Population 436.

To my delight, however, it stands out from the typical horror fare right away, with an opening scene full of foreshadowing amid a perfectly timed sequence of events. I have to admit, I've grown partial to Jeremy Sisto after seeing him in horror flick Wrong Turn and Six Feet Under.

Why it deserves 'dog status. Well, it's not a truly terrifying concept nor amazing acting that sets Population apart. It's really the creative movement of the camera to give Sisto's character a constant and tacit feeling of isolation and distance, as well as subtle visual clues and spot-on timing that make this movie unique and worth your time.

Picture The Wicker Man except not sucky. Particularly if you're into mysterious settings with a collective, hidden agenda, his film will have you steeped in the paranoia and asking yourself what you would do in the same situation.

IMDb's 5.9 rating is a little low, in my opinion, but the fact that only 3,600 people have voted speaks to how little play Population has really gotten. So forget seeing the latest horror fiasco at the theaters (they all look good in the previews) and give Population 436 a try.

In Theaters: "Adventureland" a quality flick

I think I would have seen new-in-theaters Adventureland regardless of what others thought of it, since I am a huge fan of Superbad. But admittedly, it didn't hurt when I heard from my favorite movie blogs that it's pretty exceptional.

So despite the student tickets creeping up to $8, my wife and I checked it out last night. Unlike most comedies, this is one that I actually would suggest watching in the theater because of the excellent use of filters and light to convey tacitly everything from era to time of day with great care.

While there aren't many belly-roll laughs in Adventureland, it's carried along smoothly by a pretty amazing cast - each of which is completely believable in their roles. This speaks to solid direction as well as acting, of course.

The theme - a post-bac and still inexperienced young man finds that the only job he qualifies for is working at a lower-echelon amusement park - is far more realistic than the typical drivel, where college inevitably leads to everyone getting his dream job (after graduating from his dream college, of course).

The pace can be a little slow, but you get the feeling that it's very much meant to move at that pace, not that it isn't tightly edited or forcing too many of those Brown Bunny moments of silent contemplation.

Since the genre is certainly not new, Adventureland has been compared to many films: Dazed and Confused, Say Anything. But the angle is really unique enough that you won't likely find yourself making comparisons, but just enjoying what was a well-crafted, well-acted film that has something for any adult aged viewer.

New to DVD: "Paul Blart: Mall Cop"

Right when Happy Madison Productions comes on the screen for new-to-DVD Paul Blart: Mall Cop, I know I'm not watching an Oscar-winning film. But I also figure that there's a good chance that the movie is going to garner a few good laughs, and probably have some replay value.

I mean, no one really knew what the heck to think about Billy Madison when it came out, but then you just kept watching it over and over until it spawned a litany of one-liners and character clones.

While I'll not give Blart Madison status, there are some characteristics that put it outside the typical feel-good slapstick.

First of all, it doesn't have that much slapstick. If it's nothing but Kevin James slipping on stuff or banging his head for 90-minutes, I would have lost interest quick. Fortunately, James is given some room and plays a mall cop perfectly - the comedy being the sort of sad irony that makes "The Office" so great rather than the paper-thin characters of most Rob Schneider Happy Madison flicks.

That said, almost everything that occurs is completely predictable, and it just fills out the 90-minutes before getting tired. Another ten minutes would have really hurt it, so good editing deserves some credit. While I think IMDb's rating of 5.5 isn't far off the mark, it's a solid 5.5 and not a mediocre score because something that should have been awesome was ruined. Instead, this is a so-so flick making you laugh a little and feel good. Nothing wrong with that.

The free-running is pretty sweat too.

Watchmen a twisted treat

After finally seeing Watchmen in theaters, I have to say that I was a little surprised in general, though pleasantly. I was expecting X-Men, but got a cross between Sin City and Mystery Men. While many moments contained the raw, edgy action of City, there were other moments of unintentional comedy.

While the film is crazy long, the pace is such that it feels like it's right, or else something would have been left out. It progresses much like a comic book or graphic novel, with disjointed sections and sometimes rough transitions, but nothing that you can't put together as time progresses, despite the Nancy Drews thinking that talking in the theater is alright so long as they're revealing some wholly obvious plot twist in case the brain-dead among us missed it.

The look and feel of the film is top shelf: great use of color, effects, and sound. The inevitable CGI doesn't ruin your immersion like in many lower-budget flicks. The role of Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach is amazing, and worth the price of admission alone.

That said, Watchmen is not for everyone. If you're expecting Sin City or Batman then you may leave disappointed, as there is as much time spent on story and character development as there is on setting up the next action sequence.

But if you're patient and can suspend your disbelief a little at some less-than-likely loose ends, Watchmen is sure to entertain and warrants a couple of views to fully soak in its message and the depth of its story and characters, assuming you can check your impatience and your political leanings at the door.

New to DVD: "Role Models"

The latest Paul Rudd film - Role Models - sports a cast with which it's hard to miss the mark, both Rudd and Sean William Scott - a team that could make you laugh just standing there. And the premise isn't bad, since there's nothing more entertaining than a good meltdown scene (Jerry McGuire, Nothing to Lose) followed by the chance to corrupt young adults by showing them the majesty of the slacker MTV generation.

There is a little of the inevitable moralizing along with the hilly cycle that ends on an up-note, but it doesn't overshadow the humor. However, the film is not nearly as tightly crafted as it really should be. I mean, this isn't going to win any awards or be immortalized, but neither is The 40-year-old Virgin, though that doesn't stop Virgin from being amazing.

Sometimes when the writing is okay and the actors rely on the hits keepin' on a'comin' even a small element of lag can turn a good comedy into a drag. Models does have some slower moments that its overall charm smooths over, but still leaves a slightly pitted road.

Models is worth renting for some pretty solid laughs peppered throughout, but don't count on it leaving you reeling or breaking any comic ground. If a few good chuckles and some entertainment is what you're after, Models will do you just fine.

Theater: "Taken" steals the show

I'll open with the obvious: Taken's plot has been done before. Man of Fire (the original and the remake), The Limey, Get Carter - even Hardcore borders on the same premise: someone goes missing and a bad-ass breaks medieval on all who stand in his way to finding her.

But recycled plots do not mean the film is poorer for it; look how many times the whole wayward tourists has been done, the vampire love story, or the penitent assassin. The question is whether it's done well, and in Taken's case, the answer is an emphatic Yes.

Liam Neeson is an ex-007 type who's trying to reconnect with his daughter, but when she's kidnapped while on vacation in Europe, Neeson has to conjure all his past experience to track her down and make those behind it pay.

Neeson's character, Bryan, is not warm and fuzzy, nor is he the tragic hero a la Washington's character in the aforementioned Man of Fire remake, but your heart and mind are invariably with him from the very beginning as he's the only one who can see the forest for the trees. The film does this well - where the viewer can see things coming much like Neeson sees them, but like other characters cannot. That's not to say there aren't twists: any film with as many Mexican stand-offs is bound to surprise you at some point.

Mostly, I think Taken appeals because we would all like to believe that there is someone out there who cares about us enough to make the kinds of life and death sacrifices and decisions that Neeson makes, or that we ourselves would be willing to make those decisions and take those actions if the ones we love were in the same grave danger.

Either way, it's easy to identify with the passion and desperation in the film, making the non-stop action that much more compelling. While not so full of visuals to mandate a viewing in the theater, this is one you're not going to miss.

Day of the 'Dog: "What Planet Are You From?"

There is very little about today's 'dog - What Planet Are You From? - that doesn’t meet the criteria for great comedy. There's both clever and original situation comedy as Garry Shandling is an alien sent to Earth in order to breed via a prototype reproductive organ (his race never needed such anatomy before).

The writing is witty and well-timed, with no glaring moments where a certain joke or situation has been stretched too thin. Plus, while I like Shandling as a comedian, I am by no means a huge fan, and you certainly don't have to be to enjoy the film.

So why didn't most people like it? It did receive a pretty mediocre 5.4 IMDb rating with few votes, to boot. Which is a real tragedy when you consider how many belly-roll laughs the movie has - moments where you're likely to pause it to get a chance to catch your breath. Annette Bening is (as usual) very good as the alien's "mate."

I suppose it might be due to the very adult and sometimes awkward subject matter - sex, mostly - of the film that caused it to be ignored by most and given a "meh" reaction by many others. While there are no moments even half as cringe-worthy as the most tame Borat sketch, perhaps the candidness of sex and procreation were a little much for the mainstream to latch onto, despite the cleverness and otherwise well-formed comedy.

So let's say that if you are comfortable with films that contain a little more "adult" comedy, then Planet is a real gem that got an undeserved bum rap, and is sure to bring many good laughs (not to mention some wonderful one-liners).

DVD: "Zach and Miri Make a Porno"

There's something oddly satisfying about being a fly on the wall to down-on-their-luck, indolent and uncouth figures such as the two main characters in Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Maybe it's the catharsis of seeing someone else's dreams having not come true, seeing their witty retorts to inevitable judgments of peers, and the all-around downward spiral that you know will eventually lead to salvation (or at least vindication).

In this way, Zack and Miri (played by Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks) are totally believable and highly hilarious, evidenced by the near-flawless high school reunion scene, with a great cameo by Justin Long.

After this point, though, and before the speed picks up before the end, is where I could see Zack and Miri losing some people...though not me. You have to like the particularly lewd but witty comedy of Kevin Smith in order to fully appreciate the more subtle laughs of the film's middle, which relies upon lots of pop-culture references and '80s kids winks and nods that are priceless...if you like that kind of thing. Frankly, though, you shouldn't even bother renting Zack and Miri if you don't.

That said, there is some serious skills being laid down by Banks, who is so completely believable and passionate as Miri. While Jason Mewes was awesome as always, it was Banks who stole the show.

When I first saw Knocked Up, I really enjoyed it, but wasn't ROFL as the truncated lingo of our texting culture might say, and yet - when I saw it again just a week ago - I was instantly re-hooked and found it even more entertaining than before. Perhaps Zack and Miri will have a similar effect; I wouldn't be at all surprised.

But on my first viewing, I'd give it a solid 7.0 with some definite replay quality. This is one you'll likely pop in with some friends even after you've all seen it many times.

Throwback Thursday: "Nobody's Perfect"

Who knows what it was with the '80s and dressing up dudes like chicks and vice versa (Just One of the Guys, Sleepaway Camp, Tootsie), but this week's throwback Nobody's Perfect has got to be among the funniest.

Starring Chad Lowe, who you might remember from CBS School Break Special "No Means No" (hilarious in retrospect), is a love-struck freshman in college who cross-dresses so he can get to know his object of affection. Already a convincing chick, he's coached by clever and likable partner in crime Patrick Breen.

Sure, it's largely situation comedy, but it's well-written with lots of clean laughs (anything that can have cross-dressing and not make one sex joke after another is doing well).

What made it stand out more in my mind is that I must have watched it 1,000 times when I was younger due to a shortage of blank VHS tapes, but even though Perfect had scarcity power, it's still a decent flick. And what it lacks in original plot devices it makes up for in acting and excellent casting.

So put down that copy of Ladybugs and check out Nobody's Perfect. Good for a few laughs and a fitting family movie (the PG-13 kinda family). Just don't watch it so many times that the tape breaks, or it will remain hardwired to your brain like it is mine.

Day of the Doc: "The Obama Deception"

The Obama Deception is another documentary by acclaimed conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, the guy who brought you Terrorstorm: A History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism. What I should preface with is that the doc isn't really about Obama at all, and really does smack of a non-partisan agenda, so don't think that you wouldn't want to see it if you are a lefty or would agree with every word if you're a righty. It's about the power behind the throne, according to Jones.

While I found Jones' 9/11 stuff half interesting, half complete reaching, it and Deception have some notable qualities that your average viewer might like:

1. The films are very well put together. The editing, sound, and especially the graphics are top notch. I'm not sure if it's the same guy putting together all of them, but they are excellently crafted.

2. It's abnormal. We're in a society where 24/7 news can have you all caught up after a month-long news fast in about an hour. However, it's largely the same types of stories on the same subject matters. No matter what you might think of the infowars stuff, at least it's different.

3. It makes no apologies. These films seem to communicate the message of: "I may have been way off the mark 99 times, but if I'm right that one time in a 100, you're gonna wish you'd listened," which is very different from mainstream media. Sure mainstream media is full of crap most of the time, too, but it's not really trying to connect the dots to make a big picture, but just kind of taking this hands-off, we're just here to give you info sort of stance.

While many documentaries end up getting bogged down in repetition and the majesty where's off after about an hour, most of Jones' stuff is about 2 hours long, and is genuinely interesting the whole time. While I'm not sold to the point of molding an aluminum skull cap or checking the skies for black helicopters, some of the things he covers about global warming and the Fed warrant further investigation and are pretty insightful.

So, embrace your inner paranoia and check out The Obama Deception on DVD, no matter how you feel about Jones or Obama. At the very least, you'll be entertained and informed by something other than your typical media.

Day of the 'Dog: "Behind Enemy Lines"

Let me get right into why people think that today's 'dog - Behind Enemy Lines with Owen Wilson and Gene Hackman - is mediocre at best and horrific at worst. It isn't John Wayne's army, where heroes are hard, dedicated, iron clad men who would sooner cut out their hearts as bad mouth the US of A.

Face it: most war movies might as well have cast Sgt. Slaughter in the lead, draped in an American flag, a Coke in one hand and a machine gun in the other, a Marlboro cig hanging from below a handlebar mustache of ass-kickery. We don't like the idea that there are people in the military like Wilson's character, Lt. Burnett - reluctant, selfish men who aren't too keen on dying and like to question the efficacy of seemingly redundant missions during a seemingly redundant war (Bosnia).

I'm not dogging on The Duke - I'm up for a Wayne-a-thon as much as the next guy, but I can also appreciate a little flip side of war, and I don't mean violence. Plenty of war films ascribe to the idea that more gore must mean more truth - let's show 'em what war's really about by having some guy picking up his body parts and asking his sergeant "paper or plastic?" Dissension is an unpopular model for showing that other side, but is done exceptionally well in Lines. Not every solider has to be an ate-up Rambo type (despite pilots being notoriously that way).

Okay, so there must be some other reasons why Lines made Day of the 'Dog besides the clever back-talk of snarky Wilson. Well, consider this:

1. The cinematography is first-rate. Everything from shot angles to slow-mo to the use of color and shadow are just awesome. Lines is one of those movies I would be alright watching with the sound off, maybe having it in run on loop in the background like gangstas do Scarface.

2. Owen Wilson is great in this very atypical role. If you like Wilson in other leads, then you'd definitely like him in Lines.

3. The story isn't exactly deep, but it does present an oft-neglected facet of our recent war history - that of our Clinton-era involvement in Bosnia.

So while IMDb flamers have pondered whether Lines is the worst war movie ever, and the overall 6.1 score speaks to its generally poor reception, just remember that blind or unrealistic patriotism does not a good film make, nor the opposite a film not worth seeing.

So check out Lines and make your own mind up as you enjoy the smashing visuals, clever dialogue, and unique point-of-view. Realistic? Not so much. But an awesome ride with a novel conductor? You bet.

DVD: "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" fills the Disney mold

Alright, if you've seen the previews for Beverly Hills Chihuahua, then you know that Citizen Kane it ain't. However, if you're looking for something cute, then new-to-DVD Chihuahua could be just what you're looking for.

So what are some staples of a cute movie:

1. Happy endings, check. It's Disney, so you know it uses the very typical (but harmless) norm, storm, warm formula.

2. Comedy, check. There are a couple of good laughs in Chihuahua, though the humans are - as is typical in animal movies - little more than extras.

3. Good pace, check. This I would argue is most important because what cute movies lack in story and depth should be made up in pace, and not necessarily action. Chihuahua has some slow moments and very transparent scenes, but few scenes that last uncomfortable seconds beyond when they should have ended - the third-rail for cute movies.

4. Not too much tragedy, check. Cute movies shouldn't have so much gloom and then only have everyone happy in the denouement. Evident in complete downer flicks such as Rookie of the Year and Curly Sue, having too much conflict makes any happy ending only mildly cathartic and doesn't' wash away the gloom of an entire film. Chihuahua only takes itself somewhat seriously, and so avoids too much of the inevitable down cycle.

So, while I'm sure reviews at large put Chihuahua right up there with The Real Cancun so far as cinematic quality, just relax and understand that it's a cute Disney flick meant to entertain and garner a chuckle or two.

Throwback Thursday: "When Harry Met Sally"

Just before writing this review is, indeed, the first time I've seen When Harry Met Sally, and the fact that most people say "Really!" to that statement is a testament to the 1989 film, today's throwback.

The movie opens with Harry and Sally as recent college grads, and I find Billy Crystal's character mildly annoying - the whole collegial nihilist thing incites eye rolls and groans (perhaps largely because I was a collegial nihilist at one point) or because I find Crystal quite annoying when he's really trying to be, which - for an actor - I guess is kind of a compliment.

However, the film is really about how the two of them grow as people, getting past all of the hopes, fears, and realities that we've all encountered in one form or another. And the movie portrays this growth without sap or a lack of believability. This is where it really begins to grow on me.

Plus, the timing, script, and camera work are really top-notch, with inventive interludes, and good dynamics between Harry and Sally's friends. It's pretty clear throughout that it is not a rushed film, but clever and well thought-out.

While the laughs are numerous, you also really grow to care about the cast, making When Harry Met Sally a rare romantic comedy that both sexes can enjoy equally.

Day of the Doc: "Steal This Film"

Steal this film is a documentary about digital piracy and file sharing, two subjects that people often feel as fervently about as they do the death penalty, and for largely the same reasons.

The doc opens with a wonderful statement about intellectual property, comparing it to oil as the new corporate cash cow of the information age. Now I'm sitting on the edge of my seat, giving it my full attention. Alas, this is about as exciting and poignant as the doc gets.

It's well shot, but poorly cut, with cut scenes to random b-roll like the atomic bomb or an old video about computers from the '70s, though I can't figure for the life of me how they tie in. Most of the film is about the case against Pirate Bay, the largest bit torrent host on the Web.

I've read about the case several times before (it was between the US and Sweden and now is relegated to Sweden so far as I gather). The case in interesting, but not quite interesting enough to fill the one-hour doc.

There are some good minds sounding off during the interviews, but the most pertinent things being said are also the most brief, largely overshadowed by what I have to assume is an attempt to lay down some historical groundwork for where file sharing began.

The social and economic implications of digital piracy and file sharing should be of far greater interest to the average citizen than they are, with most people forming knee-jerk opinions about it and regurgitating RIAA and MPAA propaganda as evidence. However, while there is certainly more ground to cover on this topic, I'm afraid that Steal just doesn't do it much justice.

There's still certainly something to be gained from this short film, but it really represents only the tip of the iceberg, and it's the submerged 90% that still seems untouched by films and media in general.

DVD: "Australia" brings the Outback back

Based on the enormous cardboard stand-up for Australia that I came across in the theaters, I didn't really know what the movie was going for. It looked kinda like a Romancing the Stone meets Crocodile Dundee with a splash of Legends of the Fall.

In the way, the ads were right on - Australia does try hard to convey an epic story: heroes and villains, beginning in media res, agony and ecstasy. It largely succeeds, but the tone is very intentionally storybook, with over-acting, highly crafted slo-mo and close up shots, which might lose some viewers who would take it as too silly or youthful.

The moral situations are - indeed - transparent as the characters are pretty obvious, but that's not to say they lack depth. The aboriginal characters - particularly young Nullah - are the heart of the film.

The direction is sometimes ambiguous, since it's just as much a story of a time in Australia's history as it is a linear tale of a man and a woman in love, but the meandering feels good, not to where you find yourself checking the clock to see when it's going to end.

The visual scenes, many of which are CGI while others offer a broad scope of Australian landscape, are well done, with few moments that break away and feel contrived as happens in many lower-budget films that try for the same scale.

The film is long and requires a sharp ear to keep from missing anything (and due to the sometimes-heavy accents), but is perfect for a lazy afternoon or romantic evening where you want to be taken away for a couple of hours, have a few laughs and a few tears, and come away feeling pleased - though perhaps unchanged - by the whole experience.

Not as cheesy as a Harlequin Romance, but not as haunting as Legends of the Fall, but either way worth the rental.

Day of the 'Dog: "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"

Few are fence-sitters when it comes to steampunk action film The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, with many claiming it is a great flick and even more claiming it is a weak attempt at a niche genre. But let's look at the facts here:

1. There's tons of action. I think there are more bullets flying in this flick than the Predator many-gun scene, and that's a lot of lead.

2. The interpretations of classic Victorian literary characters is inventive, and insightful, particularly how Dorian Grey is portrayed - an excellent twist on a classic figure that kinda makes sense.

3. Great special effects. While there are some continuity issues here (as with many comic book flicks) little can be said indicting the excellent use of CGI.

So, why is LXG under-appreciated? Well, while the characters have some depth, most are largely two-dimensional - again pretty typical of comic book film. Some movie-goers also have a hard time with the steampunk alternate world concept, and cars and solar-powered subs in the 1800s is a little more than they're willing to accept.

Perhaps some small mention of what innovation allowed technology to advance in that direction would have been appropriate early on.

However, LXG is a solid action film that's no more outlandish than your average shoot 'em up, and is appropriate and entertaining for a broad audience while having enough wink and nod period references to keep the interest of Victorians - history and literary buffs alike.

So I say ignore the mediocre 5.4 IMDb rating and give LXG a try. You might just find yourself pulled into the story enough to check out the graphic novel and the wealth of others like it - many of which are the contemporary crown jewels of the comic book industry.