Year of the Fish is a film festival picture that opened in Seattle (and presumably elsewhere) over the weekend and that rolls Chinese folklore, modern-day issues and a Cinderella love story into one. The result is mixed, but given the obvious small budget and limited scope, it is decent enough.

Writer/director David Kaplan, who, according to IMDB, has made several modern-day fairy tale adaptations already, employs a pseudo-animated visual style – in other words, it looks like he filmed the movie with real actors, and then pressed the button on his video editing software that applies a pastel glaze to everything. The result is like the animation in A Scanner Darkly, only much more rudimentary. I’ve never been a fan of this style, and don’t believe it’s a trend that will survive into the future as it’s more distracting than anything else. At the same time, for a low budget film such as this, it might be the smart move, as it probably saves in makeup, lighting and other costs that enhance the look and feel of bigger productions. If Kaplan used this technique for pure artistic sake, however, it was not a good move.

While overall I didn’t have a problem with the direction, there are a few parts that I didn’t like at all. In one scene, Xian meets this freaky old woman who turns out to be a spirit of sorts; when Xian turns around a moment later, the woman is gone. Kaplan then puts a circle around the area to prove to us that she has indeed vanished. Subtle, I think not. He also employs the use of a Chinese bell to emphasis certain moments in the film; I’ve heard this before, but I didn’t like it then and I didn’t like it here. The bell, while I’m sure traditional, is rather cringe-inducing when watching a modern day movie set in New York.

The writing and acting are okay, though what ends up being the central part of the movie – the romance – is woefully dull. The problem is that Kaplan doesn’t get to the romantic element until the final act, and it wasn’t until the last few scenes that I realized the movie was supposed to be a quasi-adaptation of Cinderella. The relationship between Xian and Johnny (Ken Leung, who “Lost” fans will recognize as Miles from the latest season) is underdeveloped to say the least, and not once did I feel any kind of chemistry between the two. This fact alone pretty much kills the movie.

Beyond its flaws, the general narrative and plot of the film are sound, and the performances are good enough. I like Leung as an actor, and Nguyen holds her own. For what it’s worth, you get used to the painted-over effect after a while. Still, Year of the Fish lacks power, and in absence of that, needed a strong relationship to propel it forward. It doesn’t have that either, and what is left is a valiant effort that just falls short of its desired goal.

The official Kabluey synopsis is as follows:

Inept Salman (Scott Prendergast) comes to help his sister-in-law (Lisa Kudrow) tend to her homicidal toddlers while Salman’s brother is off fighting in Iraq. Salman must take a humiliating job as a giant blue corporate mascot to help make ends meet and hold the family together. Packed with a parade of delightful comedy character actors, “Kabluey” is a hilarious, unique and heartfelt comedy.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to review only half of a movie/mini-series, especially when the first half is the uninteresting part. It’s been a while since I’ve read the book or watched the original movie, but I’m pretty sure a lot of the stuff in the first part of A&E’s version is made up to serve as filler. The added material, which expands the search in the quarantined town and shows more of how the infection came to be, is not that bad in its own right. The expanded plot works naturally in terms of the story’s progression.

Unfortunately, by the time the first half of The Andromeda Strain comes to an end, the movie still hasn’t dived into the exciting part, which, needless to say, is the part based directly on the book. If you’re unaware of what The Andromeda Strain is about, the story follows a group of scientists in a high-tech, underground facility who are trying to discover a cure to an alien virus that kills quickly and mutates just as fast. The facility, designed to safeguard against contamination of the outside world, becomes a trap when the virus is unleashed. The scientists have to move from one floor to the next to save themselves and stop the facility’s nuclear core from self destructing, which, contrary to the intended purpose, would cause the virus to become even stronger.

When Part One ends, the scientists have yet to be put in danger. This is a major problem. Nothing particularly interesting occurs in the first half, even though it contains a lot of deaths, a possible nuclear strike and more. The power of The Andromeda Strain is its claustrophobic, breakneck suspense, and the A&E series doesn’t reveal any of that in its first half. What does this tell me? Either people will lose interest after the first half, or, as I would recommend, just watch the second half on Tuesday, May 27th. I’m sure they’ll have a nice little recap at the beginning.

Unfortunately, I can’t comment on the second half of the series. From a production point of view, the first half is good but not great. The mini-series stars Benjamin Bratt, and in general the acting is pretty good for a TV movie. Neither Bratt nor the rest of the cast will blow you away, but they pull things off well enough. The production seems to have a fairly decent budget, though it definitely feels like a TV movie at times. Oddly enough, with so many added minutes, the setup to the infection could have been done better. Some of the characters who die make some really weird decisions (if a satellite crashed right next to you, wouldn’t you call the police rather than load it into the back of your truck and then proceed to open up its shell?). TV movies always seem to focus on elements that shouldn’t be focused on, while neglecting normal storytelling techniques that could really enhance even the most basic of screenplays.

I do believe The Andromeda Strain could really become something in the second half if it sticks true to the novel, but the first half isn’t particularly memorable.

Also, don’t forget to enter my Andromeda Strain contest – I’m giving away a prize pack that contains the original 1971 DVD, the 2008 A&E DVD (not yet released), the Crichton novel and more.

The direct-to-DVD remake of George A. Romero’s Day of the Dead. Wow.

The movie really isn’t a remake of the Romero original, as it bears little resemblance to that film. The original was a continuation of Romero’s two classics and featured a bunch of characters tucked away in an underground bunker. This new Day of the Dead is your standard zombie flick; what starts off looking like an epidemic of the flu turns out to be a cannibalistic nightmare. Several unsuspecting characters find themselves at the center of a shit storm, and you know the rest. Why this movie is actually allowed to be marketed as “based on the motion picture from George A. Romero” is a bit astounding. Other than being a zombie movie, the two movies are far removed.

As one might expect from a direct-to-DVD release, the movie isn’t anything you should rush out to buy, rent or see. This is no theatrical Dawn of the Dead remake, let me tell you. Hell, it’s not even Land of the Dead. It’s your run-of-the-mill zombie film, with so-so writing, quasi-cheap special effects and so on and so forth.

That being said, it is a step above other direct-to-DVD releases, and I have to wonder if with a little more budget and a little more attention to detail this movie could have gone to theaters. It was clearly made with the intention to go straight to DVD, as the makeup, film quality and script aren’t good enough to take the film to the next level. Still, if you like zombie movies, Day of the Dead is tolerable. It has a lot of action, a fair amount of gore and, for the type of movie it is, surprisingly decent acting.

Suvari holds her own and the rest of the cast do what they’re supposed to. Nick Cannon isn’t particularly good, though he was clearly written with the badass token black guy in mind. Ving Rhames even is in the movie, obviously homage to the Dawn of the Dead remake.

The movie suffers from some unnecessary visual effects; I’m not a big fan of zombies being able to jump long distances through the air, climb on ceilings and so on and so forth. The zombies also sound like dinosaurs, another unnecessary move. Ultimately, Steve Miner, who has directed such quality B-grade films as Halloween H20 and Lake Placid, was given a low budget and tasked with making a direct-to-DVD feature. There is nothing here to suggest otherwise.

Sadly, I just looked on IMDB I see that the budget for the movie is $18 million. That’s not a lot these days, but considering that Shaun of the Dead was made for only $4 million, it actually is surprising that the movie looks a lot better. The decision to go with special effects over quality makeup was clearly a bad one.

The new Dawn of the Dead isn’t as bad as I was expecting, and in fact is moderately entertaining, but a few major but doable tweaks could have gone a long way. Fans of the original will be disappointed.

Hell, Cate Blanchett is the only reason people went to go see I’m Not There, the officially weird but surprising excellent metaphor to Bob Dylan’s life. After all, Blanchett plays one of six versions of Dylan in the film, and if it’s hard to play the opposite sex, Blanchett doesn’t sweat a drop. The movie noticeably picks up its pace when she arrives on camera, and turns in one of the most dazzling performances ever captured on film.

As for the others, there’s not much competition. Ruby Dee in American Gangster? Seriously? That film lost its Oscar steam a long way back, and the only thing going for her is that the Denzel Washington/Russell Crowe film is about to arrive on DVD (but when are votes due?). I don’t remember a single thing about Dee’s performance, and there doesn’t seem to be much of a reason for her nomination other than a lack of good supporting female leads this year.

I was not a huge fan of Saoirse Ronan in Atonement. I absolutely loved the movie, but Ronan seemed a bit out of her element. OK, she still does a pretty good job (I noticed more the second time I saw the movie), but an Oscar-winning job? I don’t think so. [Correction: I completely confused Ronan with Romala Garai - two odd names, you know. I wasn't a huge fan of Garai, but in fact thought Ronan was terrific as the young Briony. Behind Cate Blanchett, Ronan would be my pick]

Gone Baby Gone was another very good film, and Amy Ryan did a very good job portraying a loser of a mother. That being said, when I was watching the movie, I was never blown away by her performance. I’m not too surprised she was nominated, but she sure as hell isn’t going to win.

The best competition for Cate Blanchett is Tilda Swinton, who plays a stone cold corporate executive in Michael Clayton, starring George Clooney. She has a relatively small role, but she is commanding in every scene; way back in October or whenever I saw this film, I thought at the time that she could be a front runner for an Oscar. Still, compared to Blanchett, Swinton isn’t nearly as memorable; and I haven’t heard any buzz about her, either.

Overall, these nominations don’t surprise me too much; there was a lack of good supporting actresses in 2007, and these are probably the best of the bunch. Allison Janney in Juno is the only other person I can think of off the top of my head who could have been up for the award.

Here are the movies you should see:

• Atonement
  The best movie of 2007 so far, though I’m still holding out hope for There Will Be Blood…
• Juno
  Funny and oddly powerful, this will have females going “awwwww…” (seriously, there were several) and guys cracking up. Also has a potential Oscar winner starlet in the form of Ellen Page.
• No Country for Old Men
  Still one of the front runners for Best Picture of the Year. An awesome thriller, even if the ending stumbles a bit…
• I Am Legend
  If you want mindless entertainment, go see this one. Some people haven’t liked it, but it’s a tense thriller, at least until the final act. Will Smith is also great in it.
• American Gangster
  This one is still playing in many theaters, and while it doesn’t blow one away, it’s still quite good.
• Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
  Impress people by seeing movie slightly off the beaten path. Luckily, it’s still a pretty slick crime drama.
• The Golden Compass
  It is a bit rushed and could have benefited from a better director, but if you don’t mind anti-Christian themes, The Golden Compass is a lot better than what critics give it credit for.
• National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets
  I can’t believe I’m putting this one on my list, but despite the fact that it sometimes doesn’t make much sense or isn’t even slightly plausible, going in with low expectations meant that I actually found this one pleasingly entertaining.

Movies I haven’t seen but plan to shortly (because I hear they’re good)

• Charlie Wilson’s War
• The Great Debaters
• The Kite Runner
• The Savages
• Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

Movies to avoid at all cost

• Sweeney Todd
  Yeah, this one just sucked. I like musicals, but no one told me that Sweeney Todd was going to be a boring movie with some of the worst music I’ve ever heard in my life.
• Fred Claus
  I didn’t see this movie, but it just looked bad.

On January 11, 2008, we get In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, a Jason Statham-starring film. Hell, even if Uwe Boll wasn’t directing the movie, I can tell from the title that it’s going to suck.

On January 25, 2008, we get Seed, also from Freestyle Releasing.

And on February 1, 2008, Postal, based on the video game, comes to theaters from – you guessed it – Freestyle Releasing.

What is Freestyle thinking? Are they just trying to dump these all at once so they don’t have to worry about Boll anymore? Somehow, I’m guessing they have more sinister plans in mind. I’m pretty sure that the soul of Adolf Hitler himself – if he had a soul – has returned and inhabited the body of the President of Freestyle Releasing. What other explanation could it be?

I would not be surprised if these releases turn into limited releases, or get pushed back, but it’s pretty shocking to see that three movies from the same director are coming out within a month of one another, let along from Uwe Boll, who is regarded by many as the worst director ever.

Boo, Freestyle Releasing! Boo!