It's Hollywood 's tried-and-true romantic comedy style meets India 's musical cinema tradition with Jane Austen thrown in for good measure. In "Bride and Prejudice", director Gurinder Chadha (who also helmed 2002's "Bend it Like Beckham") brings together a Hollywood plot with her own Indian cinematic sensibilities to create a hybrid that is quite enjoyable, as a whole.

When I first saw the trailer to this movie, I was skeptical. It seemed ridiculous. Firstly, the title: unnecessarily clever. Secondly, it looked formulaic. Well, I mean, it should look formulaic because it's based on an 18 th century novel, but beyond that it looked like the thousand other romantic "opposites attract" movies that are made each year. It almost screamed "He's a snobby American, she's an intelligent Hindu, can they get along?!" Not exactly my kind of movie. Thankfully, the infusion of a different cinematic style made it more interesting than it would have been otherwise.

Here's the plot, for those who haven't read Austen's "Pride and Prejudice", which the movie follows fairly closely in terms of structure. There's the Bakshi family, who lives in Amritsar , India and owns a modestly successful business. Lalita Bakshi (played by international star Aishwaryn Rai) is the second of four sisters in her family, and is as intelligent as she is uninterested in marriage. She meets Will Darcy (Martin Henderson), an American hotelier in town to scope out and possibly purchase a hotel on the coast for his company. Darcy's discomfort with India and its customs annoys Lalita. Her dislike only grows when she gets to know Johnny Wickham (Daniel Gillies), a discontented former employee of Darcy's with stories to tell.

In the meantime, Lalita's mother (Nadira Babbar) is trying to set her up with Mr. Kholi (Nitin Ganatra), an Indian accountant from Beverly Hills with monetary wealth but little to claim in the charm department. What will become of Lalita and all her many suitors?

I must admit that I was surprised when the first song started and the characters began singing. It seemed anathema in the beginning to see whole crowds of people burst into song. I've seen Indian movies before, but never on the big screen. I soon got used to it though, and enjoyed the experience by the end. The characters made the movie a pleasure to sit through. Nitin Ganatra should get an Oscar for his Mr. Kholi character, a completely annoying yet loveable character that the audience couldn't get enough of. In addition, fans of the ABC series "Lost" will be pleased to find Naveen Andrews (Sayid) singing and dancing as Balraj, a friend of Darcy's who falls for Lalita's older sister Jaya. I think Lalita's mother's character probably was portrayed as more prodding and desperate than the average Indian mother attempting to marry four daughters, but her character was likeable nonetheless.

Now for the bad parts. Any audience member can tell that the writers focused more on character development, which helped make the movie enjoyable but not as good plot-wise as it could have been. Certain scenes were inspired, while others should have been marked for revision. The songs themselves weren't outstanding - although "No Life Without Wife", a song sung between the four Bakshi sisters, is still securely lodged in my brain after nearly a week. Chadha does a good job of making sure the comedy aspect is present, but the romance is a little more tenuous. Lalita is a hypocrite in a sense. She chides Darcy for his wealth and misunderstanding of India , but her family has a servant. She goes from hating him to loving him far too quickly-within a matter of days-which lowers the believability of the romance as a whole.

Finally, things work out far too conveniently. "I'm Will Darcy. Oh no, here I am in one of the biggest airports in the world, and look who's here going on the exact same flight with me at the exact same time: my love interest and her family. What a coincidence!" It's these deus ex machinae that bring down the film and make you step back from the plot and say "Wait a minute".

Overall, I would say this is more of a rental than a big-screen view. The hybrid Hollywood-Hindi style is interesting, and I'd like to see more movies that experiment with it. I think America could use a taste of another culture's cinematic triumphs. I just don't think this is the movie to begin that trend.

I will tell you straight out, this is not a particularly fascinating movie by any stretch of the imagination.  It doesn't have a lot of action.  It doesn't have a lot of suspense.  It doesn't even have a lot of women (which makes me wonder if the three are connected.)  What it does have is Kevin Kline as an ancient history teacher at a prestigious boy's academy.  Well, there's this new kid, the son of a senator, who comes in and makes things difficult for our hero.  Kevin Kline takes the boy under his wing and gets him to work hard to try to become Mr. Julius Caesar, the name for the winner of a trivia game that is held at the academy.  The kid makes it, but at the competition, Kevin Kline realizes that he is cheating.  Unable to accept that, he asks the kid a question that he knows he will get wrong.

 Other things happen, the kid becomes a man and invites Kevin Kline back to host a rematch, morals and advice are handed out, and so forth, ad infinitum.

 There are some funny parts to this movie, I will give it that.  I especially enjoyed Kevin Kline's character's attempt at playing baseball, and the subsequent events.  I also enjoyed the references to the Roman Empire, as I am fascinated with that particular period in human history, and actually know a fair amount relative to the common man.  Otherwise, the movie is not overly notable, except that according to an area code stated in the movie, it should take place around where yours truly calls home.  In the end, we realize that cheating is bad and honesty is good.  Wait, we knew that already?  Damn.

Premise:
FBI Agent Terry McCalib (Clint Eastwood) is on the trail of a serial killer who addresses him directly through code at each of the murder scenes.  One night, after one such incident, the killer hangs around behind a group of reporters, and Terry gives chase to him, never seeing his face.  Not in shape, he suffers a near-fatal heart attack right after he is able to successfully shoot the killer in the back.  However, he only injures him and the killer gets away.

2 years later, Terry has finally received a new heart, and later finds out from the donor's sister Graciella (Wanda De Jesus) that the donor was murdered.  Graciella wants Terry to find the murderer now.  Terry soon finds that his code killer has returned, and with the help of Buddy (Jeff Daniels) as his driver, he comes to realize that the key to catching him lies beating within his own chest.  Who is the code killer, and will Terry catch him before the murders begin anew?  All this and more in "Blood Work"

Comments:
Overall, this is an enjoyable piece of cinema.  Fans of Clint Eastwood will see him in top form, both directing and acting.  However, the plot becomes predictable after the screenwriter (Brian Helgeland) doesn't spread out the exposition of the killer's identity, and thus it is wholly unsurprising when the killer is revealed.  About halfway through, I knew who the killer was.  Heck, they don't even give you much of an alternative after awhile.

I have another comment.  What's with comedians suddenly doing suspense thriller/mystery movies?  Robin Williams in "Insomnia" (2002) AND "One Hour Photo" (2002), Kelsey Grammer in "15 Minutes" (2001), now Jeff Daniels in Blood Work (2002).  What's next?  Tom Green as Professor Moriarty in another film adaptation of "Sherlock Holmes"?  Andy Dick in "The Hardy Boys"?  HORATIO SANZ AS JACK RYAN!?  THIS MUST END HERE!

 Well, in any case, this movie's worth a viewing, if only to make yourself feel better when you figure it out before ol' Squinty McEastwood does.

Favorite Lines:
None that I can remember specifically.

A Review by Senior "Goldmember" Correspondent Jackson Brody.

Premise:
While everyone's favorite swinging spy with bad teeth is fooling around on a movie set (executing certain pop stars), his archnemesis returns to Earth after being in space for three years (what he did in space for three years is never explained). Before you know it, Dr. Evil is laying down his next plan to extort money from world organizations by threatening to destroy the planet. But wait, for no reason whatsoever, Austin Powers shows up and finally arrests him. There's much plot after that including Dr. Evil's adventures in jail, exploring Austin's relationship with his father, the introduction of annoying and pointless new character Goldmember, the introduction of capable but hardly used character Foxxy Cleopatra, and the unfortunate re-acquaintance with Fat Bastard.

Comments:
With each new Austin Powers movie, Mike Myers loses a little of the spark, humor, and focus that made the original such a hit. I enjoyed this movie, laughed a lot, and was pleased to see the further adventures of some of the characters I've come to love. However, it felt very clunky and underdeveloped at places. When Austin finally arrests Dr. Evil in the beginning, it's done randomly and without much fanfare. New characters Foxxy Cleopatra and Goldmember just kind of show up and aren't given much to do. This is good in the case of Goldmember ("I'm Dutch, isn't that weird?" Not funny!). Foxxy Cleopatra is an intriguing character with spunk, and oddly enough the most appealing of all the Powers girls. She's not a stuck-up bitch like Elizabeth Hurley's character (Vanessa Kensington) from the first movie, or a bland object for Austin to fall in love with (Felicity Shagwell). Ironically, Foxxy isn't given much of a story and is basically Austin's sexy sidekick. The movie's cast of characters is getting very large, and some of the characters don't have much to do (Basil Exposition, Number Two.) Also, reprising some of the series' old gags does more harm than help (one million dollars comes to mind). The new riff on the Dr. Evil/Scott Evil shh! joke is just nonsensical surrealist babbling. (In retrospect, it's kinda funny but stale nonetheless.)

I'm going to move onto the positives before my opinion causes box office takes to plummet, forcing Mike Myers to sign onto another Shrek movie. (Shudder) There's an awful lot to like about this movie, so it's a shame the end product seems so unfocused and underdeveloped. Michael Caine is perfect as Austin's father, Nigel Powers and is a very welcome addition to the Powers universe. Of the motley crew Myers has assembled, Mini-Me gets the most heartfelt and consistent laughs. Scott Evil goes through some interesting changes throughout the film, and looks suspiciously like Ron Howard at one point. The high point for me in the film is Austin visiting Dr. Evil in a "Silence of the Lambs"-type scenario, and the flashback to Austin and Dr. Evil's prep school days. Moments like this remind the audience why we are so invested in these characters, even though we have to put up with characters like Goldmember and Fat Bastard.

So Mike Myers, when you sit down to write "Austin Powers in Pussyfinger" you should remember a few things: recurring gags don't have to be resurrected every time, use yourself in moderation, if you're going to play a fifth character next time around please let it be Wayne Campbell, and a second draft can do wonders for a script. I really miss the Lucky Charms assassin.

Favorite Lines:
Nigel Powers: There are two things I despise: people who are completely intolerant of other cultures, and the Dutch

Goldmember: Can I paint his yoo-hoo gold? It's my thing...
Dr. Evil: How about no, you crazy Dutch bastard!

Nigel Powers: [Facing a gun-toting guard] Do you know how many anonymous henchmen I've killed over the years? You don't even have a nametag!

Premise:
4 Catholic school boys draw a comic that graphically portrays their hatred of their teacher, a nun named Sister Assumpta (Jodie Foster).  In the meantime, one of the boys, named Francis (Emile Hirsch), finally gets the opportunity to go out (and by go out, I mean make out with in an abandoned house) with a girl named Margie (Jena Malone) he has a crush on.  This girl has a secret though.  It seems her brother has sexually abused her several times.  Francis generally doesn't know what to make of this and pouts quite a lot.  Meanwhile again, the boys steal a religious statue and hide it in a shack.

Then, because one of the boys lets it slip to the girl's brother that he knows about his secret, the brother tells Sister Assumpta about the comic.  After Francis is suspended for being the artist behind it, the boys devise a scheme to place a cougar in Sister Assumpta's office to make her think that the comic has been eaten, when in fact it is back in the hands of the boys.  Seriously.  That's the plot.  Man, I couldn't make that stuff up.

Comments:
As unbelievably crazy as the second half of the story is, I did enjoy the movie.  It provided enjoyment.  Sitting here about a week and a half after seeing it though, I realize that no kids would be supremely stupid enough to attempt to drug a cougar and put it in their teacher's office.  I don't know if this movie is a case of "boyhood fantasies coming true in the form of an independent film" or just a by-the-book case of drug-related screenplay writing.  Some aspects are unclear, although the general plot is there.  For instance, I never really understood how Sister Assumpta found the comic book, although I didn't have a problem with understanding that the girl's brother told her.  Some of the acting is sub par, even for teenage actors.  Some of the situations are just bizarre and, in all sincerity, I don't think a very sensual scene in the girl's bedroom is overly necessary, typical attention span of the American public notwithstanding.

OK, now onto the good things.  As I said, it was enjoyable.  Intermingled with the live-action are animated scenes out of Francis' comic book.  These scenes correspond to what has just happened.  Therefore, Francis writes his comic based on his own experiences.  This provides the audience with a look into his psyche, gives us his point of view on the current situation, and shows the viewer animation that is hella-cool.

For all it's ups and downs, I give "Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys" 3 Annoyed Monkeys Holding Balls.  I think this is fair.  The movie was heralded as (finally) a serious look at teenagers, a coming-of-age flick for our generation (even though it takes place in the 50's).  Well, to that I say pish-posh.  It's all right.  It's worth a sum of money.  But it's not the best movie based on a teenager's life I've ever seen, certainly not the most realistic.

So, in conclusion, if one of your 12 year old acquaintances ever tells you about a scheme to place a large mammal in the office of a Catholic school teacher (both religious and laypersons), please refer him to this movie for possible consequences, including a very sucky, disorienting, animated ending.

Favorite Lines:
(None)

Premise:
Edmond Dantes is an up and coming sailor with a hot fiancee (Named Mercedes) and a count's son (Fernand) for a friend.  He doesn't seem to catch onto the fact that Fernand is green with envy over his up-and-comingness though.  This leads to Fernand framing Edmond for treason, with the help of another ruthless sailor named Danglars.

Needless to say, Edmond is shut up in the Chateau D'If, a prison for traitors.  He stays there for 13 years in bad conditions and is whipped harshly every year on the anniversary of his incarceration.  Sooner or later he discovers a priest living in the cell below him who teaches him Economics, Mathematics, Logic, Grammar, etc. in exchange for help with tunnelling out of the prison.  The old priest also tells of a treasure that's been hidden by the Count of Sparta and gives Edmond a map to where it would be--on the island of Monte Cristo.  Edmond escapes and seeks his revenge on Danglars, Fernand, and Mercedes, who he finds out married Fernand a month after she was told he was dead.

Comments:
There is definitely something happening in Hollywood where a director really sees an original idea so he decides to make an "adaptation" of that original idea.  Then, because the author of the original idea is dead, the credit for that idea goes to the director.  This has been generally the case in the last few years.  Remakes are taking over.

Think about it.  "Lost in Space", "Mod Squad", "Planet of the Apes", "Ocean's 11", "Hollow Man" (Remake of "The Invisible Man"), and "Charlie's Angels'" are just some examples of Hollywood lacking originality.  Come on people, how much money is in the movie-making industry?  Billions?  Billions of dollars in revenues and I get a rehashing of an H.G. Wells classic "The Time Machine"?  Albeit, "Ocean's 11" was damn good.  But what's next?  A remake of Tolstoy's "Democracy in America"?  "I Dream of Jeannie: The Movie"?  "Boy Meets World: The New Class"?  "Sanford And Son Go To the Moon"?!

:::sigh:::

I'm not saying "The Count of Monte Cristo" wasn't a good movie.  It was.  The acting was good and the characters were correctly portrayed, but I cannot give credit to the director for it because, lets face it, it wasn't his plot.  He took the story up to close to the ending nearly verbatim from the novel.  It wasn't even a re-imagining.  I'm just saying that now nobody will think they have to read the book.  I never thought I'd say this, but reading is just as important as watching a movie, and if people are going to think "I'll hold off reading 'Crime and Punishment' until Guy Pearce does a film adaptation of it." then we might as well flush Western Civilization down the tubes right now.

Oh, and here's another thing that bugged me about this movie. You're made to feel like Fernand should get his behind whooped on the spot by Edmond, and Edmond does a pretty good job of keeping his identity hidden, but once Mercedes finds out it's all downhill from there.  She brings in the ethics in a movie that's all about gut instinct.  If someone locked you up in the smelliest harshest prison in the land and then, 16 years later, you got a chance to absolutely completely ruin his life, would you want to hear your unfaithful girlfriend say "No, wait, hold the revenge, you can't do this."?  I know I wouldn't.  Mercedes had no idea what Edmond had been through, so she had no right to tell him to stop. This was none of her business.  It was between Fernand and Edmond, and Mercedes' whining was not appreciated in the least.

And it certainly doesn't help my reviewing when I've got teenage girls behind me shrieking about the awesomeness of the film or the hotness of Guy Pearce.  That just freakin' annoys me.

Favorite Lines:
(None that I can remember)

Premise:
In the "not too distant future" (Next Sunday, AD? Sorry, had to go for the obvious MST3K reference.) a robot named Andrew (Robin Williams) will be turned on, and so will start his 200-year long journey to be human. He is turned on in the home of Richard Martin (Sam Neill) and family. Hallie Kate Eisenberg (AKA Evil Pepsi Girl) has a small yet vital role. He goes through his life, dealing with death, life, and other eccentricities of humanity. In what does not pass for a subplot in the least, the company who made him (NorthAm Robotics) is actually somewhat vaguely evil and sees their robots as household appliances. This doesn't pan out at all, however, because Andrew is self-repairing and eventually meets a man, while on a search for other robots of his make and model, who knows robotics like the back of his hand. His name, Rupert Burns (Oliver Platt). His company name, Rupert Burns Enterprises. Rupert Burns? He certainly does.

Anyhoo, this goes on and on, and Andrew keeps trying to become more human, including shedding his metal exterior for a spiffy new Robin Williams suit. Andrew falls in love with the granddaughter of "Little Miss", the girl who he took care of for Sam Neill's character. Drama ensues, and by the end, Andrew is finally considered human by the "World Congress"

Comments:
First, the good things. I think Robin Williams did a good job in his first role as a robot. I think Oliver Platt was good. Sam Neill...well...Sam Neill's always good. I like the continual evolution of technology that was showcased in the movie, but that's just my scifi-loving self shining through. Umm...I do indeed believe it tried as hard as possible to come off as a serious look at society. And, to be sure, it wasn't about a little boy named David who was searching for his humanity and for a Blue Fairy with an android named Gigolo Joe (whattaya know?!). I would also like to point out that the first inklings of info were coming out about "A.I" when "Bicentennial Man" came out in theaters, so this movie had the "Artificial intelligence trying to become human" first.

OK, now the bad stuff. It was long. Dear god it was long. It felt cartooney at times. I wanted Andrew to succeed, but at the same time I really didn't care either way. It wasn't a very personal thing for me. Whenever a weighty situation would come down questioning Andrew's chances of success, some pun or confusion from Andrew about the basics of society would chase away any thought-provoking material. For a brief time in the movie, robots are treated with disdain by the younger humans in the Martin family, but that soon disappears into history as ridiculous spans of time pass. Albeit, soon after, Andrew gets a human face, but it wasn't developed enough. Overall, entertaining, but will leave you saying "What was the point? I didn't learn anything about my humanity."

Personally, I don't know why androids would want to be like humans anyway. Humans are jealous, vengeful, bitter creatures. Now, a robot trying to be more like dolphins; that's a story.

Favorite Lines:
Rupert: And you want to experience that?
Andrew: Oh, yes!
Rupert: So do I
--Rupert and Andrew discussing sex

"You have no idea what it feels like to be in love with someone that is about to marry someone else."
- Not really a funny line. It just struck me how funny it would have been if Julia Roberts had played the part Andrew was going after, because she was in "My Best Friend's Wedding" and it would be a sly reference to that movie. Sorry, I rant like this in real life too.