Love Birds

I wish there were a cookbook for life.

—Kate (Catherine Zeta-Jones)

Alas, even the title is trite. No Reservations, from its first frames, offers up a decidedly tiresome life lesson plan for Kate (Catherine Zeta-Jones), who is introduced in mid-flight of fancy, describing the ideal way to prepare quails—with truffles. Kate is (you guessed, of course) a chef, and not a little bit of a control freak as well. She’s describing these “love birds” to her therapist (Bob Balaban), who listens with the sort of partly patient, partly distracted patience affected by most therapists in the movies. Kate remains fixed on her recipe, passionate and determined, it seems, to avoid his gaze. “Why do you come to see me every week?” he asks at last. Ah, she says haughtily, because her boss insists.

Cut to Kate at work, her apron tight around her waist, her staff at the ready. Her boss, Paula (a woefully used Patricia Clarkson), watches with visible tension. Kate’s a “magician” in the kitchen, but short-tempered. When one diner insists his foie gras isn’t cooked “properly,” she charges out to his table to instruct him. He ends up leaving, his date looking embarrassed, so you know Kate’s probably at least partly right, but Paula sees the business problem: “You can’t make a scene every time someone criticizes your cooking!” she says, asserting that she only keeps her on because, she almost sighs, “You’re one of the better chefs in this city.”

One of? Kate fumes. At her Greenwich Village apartment (just a couple of blocks from the restaurant), she has no messages, no pet, no life. She wakes at 4:30am to shop, where she pretends camaraderie with the guys at fish market while wearing her I’m-so-down-to-earth cap and black jacket. Kate beams. If Paula thinks she’s too exacting, at least Fish Vendor Bob (Fulvio Cecere) appreciates her diligence!

Of course, she can’t keep up this lonely careerism and superiority. And so, by the end of this day, Kate’s life is changed dramatically and by great contrivance, when her sister dies in a car wreck, leaving her legally and emotionally responsible for nine-year-old Zoe (Abigail Breslin). She’s the sort of kid who wears striped socks and multi-colored layered outfits, not quite funky, but adorably independent-minded and thoughtful, in other words, just the sort of kid who will help to warm up Aunt Kate. The process takes a series of wholly unsurprising turns. First, the mourning: Kate locks herself in the freezer at work and weeps, at which point Paula rightly tells her to go home. For an instant, the movie looks like it might consider the pain of loss, even the sisters’ relationship. But no.

Second, the upset: Kate returns to work to find a new sous-chef, Nick (Aaron Eckhart). He’s all cute and cuddly in the kitchen, singing opera, telling jokes, entertaining the staff, and above all, not sweating the customers. Though Kate calls him a “crazy man” (in her kitchen no less), Paula calls him “exuberant.” It’s obvious what will happen next, even if you haven’t seen the tighter, more architectural film this one remakes, Sandra Nettelbeck’s Mostly Martha (2001). Copying that film’s plot pretty exactly (though it does remove one complicating character altogether, namely, Zoe’s father), No Reservations changes the tone by way of simplification.

Glossy in the most tedious sense, it reduces each plot point to the glib shorthand that characterizes most U.S. romantic comedies. Zoe’s confusion and sadness are telegraphed by internal framing (Kate watching her from eth doorway); Zoe’s won over when Nick slips her a bowl of pasta (her aunt has been making inedible fancy food); Kate remembers her sister in slow-motion haziness, instigated when she rereads a letter describing her “gorgeous” baby. And oh yes, Zoe’s name means “life.”

Nick’s role in Kate’s rehabilitation is equally bland. Trying to make up for forgetting her at school one afternoon, Kate grants her one wish, which is, of course, to invite Nick for dinner (trained in Italian cooking, he makes pizza). As soon as Kate insists, “I’m not a dessert person,” guess whose Tiramisu changes her mind? And when she suggests to her therapist that “There has to be someone better suited to this: how do their minds work?”, it’s not long before she and Zoe have a breakthrough over their shared judgment of a punk-girl agency babysitter.

As conventional as the storyline may be, it’s still troubling, for two reasons. One, it assumes Kate, so powerful, self-confident, and driven, must be “softened.” And two, it achieves this end by granting her a ready-made nuclear unit. That No Reservations can’t imagine an alternative for such an odd and admittedly difficult individual makes all the energetic food-loving seem a little sad—more sublimation than revelation

Check Out Hypemeter and Movie Info of I Know Who Killed Me on AskMen.com

Even before recent tabloid events exploded across the cultural wasteland, Lindsay Lohan’s movie future was in dire straits. After viewing her latest big screen adventure, “I Know Who Killed Me,” who could’ve predicted a bust for alleged cocaine possession, vocational self-destruction, and a general display of young Hollywood stupidity would be the career highlight of her weekend.

Aubrey Fleming (Lindsay Lohan) is a bright college student recently abducted by a serial killer who enjoys severing the limbs of his female victims, sending her parents (Neal McDonough and Julia Ormond) into panic mode. A short time later, someone resembling Aubrey is recovered, but the young woman claims she’s Dakota Moss, a stripper and all-around hellraiser. With confusion in the air, Dakota sets out to solve this crucial mystery of identity, hoping to find Aubrey before time runs out.

“I Know Who Killed Me” is an insistently amateurish mystery/thriller/horror/comedy. I’m not sure where to even begin describing how awful the movie is, but Lohan’s barely-alive performance is a good start.

You often read the description “talented” next to Lohan’s name in the press, and this summer’s “Georgia Rule” found a ripe emotional arc the actress rode to impressive results. After viewing Lohan’s sleepy, baffling performance in “Killed,” I’m beginning to question if the praise heaped on her wasn’t premature.

“Killed” offers Lohan her first me-and-only-me starring role, presenting the actress a chance to play bookish and virginal, along with slutty (though she plays the strip scenes practically in a parka, you know, just like a regular stripper would) and dangerous. Lohan’s interpretation of the material is to perform the dual role sluggishly, hoping the rest of the film will be wicked enough to cover her lackluster Univision-level reactions and fruitless attempts at expressing pain. She’s just dreadful in the film, completely comatose where another actress would’ve leaned into the varying speeds of the screenplay more assertively.

Frankly, blaming Lohan for this turkey is cruel. From the buffoonish opening moments, “Killed” is obviously a lost cause and gets worse as it stumbles along. Director Chris Sivertson is shoving the material into nourish overtones, especially when the focus is on Dakota and her sultry pole-dancin’ ways. Using Lynchian imagery to shape “Killed” into a surrealist nightmare, Sivertson is in way over his head, and it leaves the artsy touches looking foolish in a picture that soon dissolves into a bloody, lumbering “Saw” rehash. All the owl symbolism, color coordination, robotic body parts, and blazing neon can’t hide the fact that every decision made in the execution of this feature film was a poor one.

There’s an ending to “Killed” that I can’t honestly recall a mere hour after watching it. I’m sure it had a twist and some explicit violence but I don’t believe it possessed an actual resolution. My mind was elsewhere by this point in Dakota’s investigation, recalling a time when the name Lindsay Lohan meant an expectation of quality acting and the promise of a passable feature. Perhaps those days are over.

It’s been a long time coming. And those of us that have stuck with Harry Potter over the course of his decade-long publishing life, have been anticipating the events of “book seven” since the very beginning. So, does the conclusion live up to ten years worth of expectations? Without a doubt!  In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, J.K. Rowling has delivered an emotionally-charged, action-packed, and completely satisfying conclusion to the magical Harry Potter series.[SPOILER WARNING: It should go without saying since you’re reading a review of the book, but some spoilers for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows are mentioned beyond this point. We’re not giving everything away, but the structure of the novel and key plot points are discussed. You’ve been warned.]

With each novel in the boy-wizard series, Rowling seems to have evolved her characters along with her storytelling. Each book saw Harry, Ron, Hermione and friends changing and growing older, as Rowling’s style matured in tandem. There’s no doubt that she’s grown as an author over the course of the series, but the evolution seems more like an intentional effort to have the complexity of the book itself mirror the state of the characters and the world they live in. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the culmination of all this. Far from the simple story of an orphan boy living under the stairs, we’ve now come to an epic showdown between the forces of good and evil. Appropriately, Hallows is a very different book than any of the previous ones. The sense of humor, wonderment, and charm that are present in many of the previous books is largely absent here. There are light moments, of course, but the time for cracking jokes about booger-flavored jelly beans is over. This is war.

- Scholastic

Rowling’s writing style reflects the gravity of the events in her fantasy world, as she takes an overall get-down-to-business approach with her prose. That’s not to say the book is overly straight-forward. And there are certain passages — like the conversation between Harry and another character “at the close” — that read more like epic poetry than something out of a modern-day fantasy novel.

The book is 36 chapters (759 pages in all) and seems to be presented in four movements. The action begins with Harry’s departure from the Dursley’s, but let’s just say it’s not exactly a trip to Platform 9 3/4 this time. We then follow Harry, Ron and Hermione on a quest through the English countryside, hiding from Death Eaters and in search of Voldemort’s remaining Horcruxes. The action then turns to the mystery of the Deathly Hallows — a trio of legendary relics that have fascinated curious wizards for ages, including Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald. Finally, the action comes to a gut-wrenching, edge-of-your-seat climax with the Battle of Hogwarts. Blood is shed, lives are lost, and Harry and Voldemort face-off once and for all.

We had high hopes that Rowling would leave no stone unturned in this last installment, and sure enough she manages to answer every single question and illuminate the secrets behind every mystery. What’s the deal with Snape? Does Dumbledore have one last trick up his entombed sleeve? You’ll find out.

- Bloomsbury

Beyond just resolving outstanding issues, the author brings the entire series full circle by giving most of her memorable characters from the saga some sort of role to play in the finale — everyone from Buckbeak the Hippogriff to Professor Trelawny sees some kind of action. And even after wrapping things up with a fine finish, Rowling delights by including a flash-forward epilogue that further satisfies our curiosity with a 30-something glimpse of the surviving heroes.  She does all of this without ever making it feel cliché or forced.

In the end, things turned out a lot like we had anticipated, but Rowling kept us guessing right up until the very end. To her credit, Harry’s world is one where the specter of death looms over everyone — just like our own — and we’re never entirely sure about the safety of anyone.

The conclusion of Harry Potter’s story is a masterfully told tale of love, loss, hope and the triumph of good over evil. And with this paramount work, J.K. Rowling secures her place in the pantheon of classic fantasy authors like J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis

Australia, July 25, 2007 - The four-fingered, little yellow family from the ‘burbs has been kicking around on TV screens for a long time now. The show has outlasted virtually every other animated series ever and is completely ingrained in the mindset of just about everyone over the age of 15. The Simpsons Movie had to happen - it was always on the cards - but its timing was always a critical factor. Now, in this heinous year of the lord 2007, Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie have finally graduated to the big screen and mostly it’s a success.

Irrespective of what anyone says in reviews or around the water cooler, the fact is, if you’ve stuck by the series since the early 90s, you’ll be paying for your ticket out of sheer curiosity. And rightly so - your purchase is completely justified because you probably won’t care that the final film is really only as good as the best episodes to come out of the last four seasons of the show. It comes close to capturing the spark the show had in its prime, even, but it doesn’t quite nail it.

Let’s start with the basics - motivation. Of all the ideas to be spitballed and brainstormed around the coffee table (and after a reported 100 drafts of the script), Groening greenlit the following very-timely concept: Springfield is on the brink of an environmental disaster after pollution and contaminants have wreaked havoc on the lake. Homer is the straw that breaks the proverbial horse’s back after the fat, yellow jackass dumps a silo full of faeces into the basin. Eventually, word gets back to the President of the United States (amusingly, Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken control of the oval office) and Springfield is dramatically quarantined under a massive translucent dome.

Uh oh. You know where this is going. And it’s equal parts funny and painful.

Even after all these years, the show’s characters still shine. Lenny and Carl get their moments in the spotlight and to great effect. There are some instant classic one-liners from Ralph “I like men now!” Wiggum, the production team take a traditional stab at the Fox network with a very funny scrolling text bar advertisement during a purposely drawn out scene, there are some pretty entertaining cameos from Tom Hanks and Green Day, and even now-worn slapstick moments feel fresh again.

The TV series has recently had a few issues with the quality of its scripts and thankfully, we’re mostly impressed with the consistency of the film’s writing. We’re of the opinion that this is easily the best stuff to come from the house of Simpson since season 12 or 13. It’s impossible not to laugh while watching Homer and his new pet pig share an awkward moment in front of the TV, followed by the line “Maybe we should kiss… just to break the tension.” That’s one for the pages of ‘All-time great Simpsons one-liners’.

The quirky and occasionally violent relationship between Bart and Homer still guides a lot of the film. However, there are a few strange sub-plots that don’t really gel as well as they should. After feeling mistreated by Homer and his constantly negligent, half-arsed parenting, Bart suddenly feels like becoming part of the Flanders fold. Hmmm. And Lisa falls in love with a young Irish environmentalist with a knack for music. Ultimately, both plot threads really end up petering out at the end of the film, and we can’t help but wish that all the screen time these segments were given were instead devoted to providing more excellent cameos from classic characters. Comic Book Guy turns up several times in fairly flat, unfunny moments, but there’s a distinct lack of Principal Skinner, Ms. Wormwood or many of Bart and Lisa’s cohorts. There were very few surprise cameos either from past incidental characters. For instance, how cool would it have been to see Scorpio for a quick nod to one of the all-time great episodes?

That said, the film manages to hold itself together and keep the plot on the right side of silly and saccharine through to the end of the movie. This raises one major point of criticism: the length - or lack thereof - of the film itself. Including credits, the film barely weighs in at 75 minutes, which goes by in a flash. Sure, some might argue that Groening and company hedged their bets and ensured that only the best 75 minutes finally made it to the screen, but after all the hype, rewrites, cameos, support and anticipation, it just feels a little underwhelming.

One of the more impressive sequences, aided by subtle CG worth that never distracts.

The cynic in us also wonders if some of the celluloid left on the cutting room floor was done in order to bolster the inevitable DVD release’s extra features - but we’ll have to wait and see on that one. This is a case of a film where ‘more is more’ - we could’ve watched a dozen more characters get their funny-on in vignette moments that brought the overall length up to a more respectable 90 minutes.

The Simpsons Movie’s brevity largely points to the biggest issue we have with, not just the movie, but the most recent series in general. There isn’t enough build-up or continuity in the jokes, and situations come across as miniature skits, rather than a well thought out build-up with a great punch line. That’s something that the earlier, arguably superior Simpsons seasons excelled at - having small sub-plots that were more than just filler, ala Lisa’s largely pointless romantic subplot that goes nowhere and adds little to the story or her character. However, because the jokes and gags come at you so quickly, this is a film that likely will improve with repeated viewings.

The quality of the animation is definitely a step up from the TV series. The animation team employed some subtle GC techniques that never look out of place against the traditional style of the series and film. There are even a few ‘whoa’ moments, such as massive crowd shots and smooth, rotating camera effects - seen in Bart’s very funny nude skateboarding sequence.

This is a key moment for the film. It demonstrates that the team isn’t afraid to push the bad-taste-o-meter just a little bit farther than usual. You do get to see Bart’s yellow twig and two berries. You’ll hear a little bit of swearing, see Otto getting blotto with a bong and sense an overall maturing of the tone of the series. It’s not on the same level as South Park - not nearly - and nor should it be. It’s just bringing the humour up to the age level of fans who’ve stuck around since the birth of the show.

We’re truly relieved that The Simpsons Movie doesn’t suck and it definitely treads lightly on a property that is held near and dear to the hearts of many 20-somethings. The movie mostly works pretty well, but at the same time, it’s really questionable if this was worthy of a cinematic release. It never feels quite as profound or epic as it should for a film as oft-demanded and anticipated as this was. Sure, it’s funny and definitely harmless and good-natured, but it’s also the sort of release that easily could’ve gone straight to DVD or been run as a two-parter on the boob-tube. Of course, that’s all moot now; our biggest hope in that case is that, as Matt Groening winds down the TV series, he starts work on a bigger, longer and even funnier sequel. There’s a lot of untapped potential, after all, and who could dare deny the world more cinematic Simpsons?

The Simpsons Movie opens today in Australian cinemas.

Shoaib Mansoor’s debut Khuda Kay Liye is a remarkable film. Premiered recently, it is the director’s very successful effort to revive Pakistani cinema. With an intense and at times controversial plot, storyline and dialogues, film stars Shan, Iman Ali, Naseeruddin Shah and Fawad Khan were at their best.

Rohail Hyatt of the Vital Signs fame has mixed the background score of the film. The soundtrack is as soothing to the ears as the movie to the heart and mind. The film aroused great curiosity ever since it came into production. Hats off to Shoaib Mansoor for having crafted a plot straight from his heart –– a plot common people can relate to and learn from.

The story of the film revolves around two pop musician-brothers in Lahore, one of whom (Fawad) becomes very religious under the influence of an extremist Maulvi Sahib. The other (Shan) goes to America to study music and gets unlawfully detained after the 9/11 tragedy. It is also the story of young Mary (Maryam), a British girl of Pakistani origin, who is brought to Pakistan by her hypocritical father and married off against her will in the Northern Areas and held captive for years.

The film is a respite from the typical horrendous Lollywood flicks. The youngsters as well as the senior members of the cast have done a remarkable job with the original acting and dialogues.

The only point where one slightly disagrees with the director is the fact that the most vital and significant role in the movie was given to Naseeruddin Shah, undisputedly the finest actor in the subcontinent, but an Indian. But then again, from the moment Shah appears on screen and delivers his bit of dialogues, the audience is thoroughly mesmerised.

All in all, Khuda Kay Liye is a film all Pakistanis can relate to, but it also has its controversial side as well. The stories that are shown remind us of real life happenings and it seems that every character in the film is someone we’ve all encountered at some point or another in our daily lives.

There were definitely moments in the film, which made one happy, sad, frustrated, and angry and triggered many other emotions. The way Mansoor has captured the underlying themes of our society and religion in a very subtle and professional manner, is astounding. Here one hopes that more new directors will step in to create masterpieces such as this for the revival of our nearly dead cinema. This is a film that will definitely change the way people think. Watch it over and over again until it sinks in!

- Review by Rabail Qadeer Baig (DAWN)