Stuart Little 2

Year 4, Day 4 - 1/4/12 - Movie #1,004

BEFORE: Yes, I realize this sequel's main character is a mouse. But I couldn't fit this one into my last rodent chain ("Tale of Despereaux", "Alvin & The Chipmunks 2", "G-Force") and the first film had a lot of cats in it, so I'm hoping for more of the same.

THE PLOT: Stuart and Snowbell set out across town to rescue a friend.

AFTER: Honestly, I forget - why does the Little family treat a mouse like their son, and the family cat like a cat? How come they can understand what the mouse is saying, but not the cat? Yet the mouse can understand the cat, and vice versa. I think I'm overthinking it again - or I'm already cracking up from watching all these talking animals.

It's a kids' movie, it's a kids' movie, it's a kids' movie. I know, but I have to keep reminding myself not to hold it to the same logical standards as an adult film. Though this one was pretty entertaining for all ages, it didn't really dumb down the storyline too much, and it kept the slapstick out of the action sequences (mostly...).

If I had any problem with the story, besides the non-logical nature of a mouse going to school, playing soccer, etc., it's that the Little family seems a little too perfect, a bit too lovey-dovey, with their little family catchphrases, and Mr. Little giving his son these very Brady-ish pep talks. For god sakes, that's DR. HOUSE, and he's wearing a sweater, and kissing his wife, and acting all dad-like!

The voice casting is spot on, once again. You might not realize how, well, mousey the voice of Michael J. Fox (last seen in "Teen Wolf") is, until you hear it coming from an actual mouse. OK, a virtual one, but still. And as a bonus you get to see Jonathan Lipnicki around the time when he stopped being cute, so that's probably when Hollywood decided it was done with him. (Yep, just checked IMDB, he was 12 when this was released, and he's now 21.)

That said, I still found this film to be acceptably entertaining. If you have to watch a film with your kid (or someone else's kid) you could do a whole lot worse. There's still the variation on the "quest" theme - mouse has to get across town, then get back home - but they change it up so many times that you might not even notice. The bird love-interest is a great addition to the cast. Another baby in the family? Not so much.

There's a "Stuart Little 3"? Ah, crap...I'm calling a mulligan on that one.

Starring Hugh Laurie (last heard in "Monsters vs. Aliens"), Geena Davis (last seen in "The Fly"), with the voices of Nathan Lane (last seen in "Joe vs. the Volcano"), Melanie Griffith, James Woods (last seen in "John Q"), Steve Zahn (last seen in "Out of Sight"), and a cameo from Brad Garrett (last heard as a dog in "Garfield").

RATING: 7 out of 10 taxicabs

Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties

Year 4, Day 3 - 1/3/12 - Movie #1,003

BEFORE: Back to work today, so I didn't see the new backyard kitty. But my wife was home and fed her. Yes, it's a her, so if she sticks around we'll have to take some precautions against her having kittens.

Problems with my cable boxes continue - my upstairs DVR is having troubling saving recorded shows. It records them, but then can't save them. Rebooting the box helps, but only for a couple of days, then the problem comes back. Which would only be a problem if my job required me to watch TV at home. Oh, wait, it does. Hoping to have the problem fixed on Saturday, if Time Warner Cable shows up to repair it. My fear is that they'll need to swap out the box and I'll lose 5 or 6 episodes of "Chopped".

THE PLOT: Jon Arbuckle travels to the United Kingdom, and he brings his cat, Garfield, along for the trip. A case of mistaken cat identity finds Garfield ruling over a castle, but his reign is soon jeopardized by the nefarious Lord Dargis.

AFTER: Ah, there's nothing that kids like more than titles that riff off of Charles Dickens novels. Though "A Tale of Two Cities" featured a classic case of look-alikes, the plot here mostly rips off "The Prince and the Pauper" - at least, the parts it didn't steal from "The Aristocats". Yes, only three films into the new year, and things are already getting repetitive.

Once again, we've got an older woman who leaves her inheritance to her beloved cat. And once again there's a stuffed-shirt proper Briddish-type villain who needs to dispose of the feline standing in between him and his perceived rightful fortune. And where "The Aristocats" had some random geese and farm dogs, this film also adds ducks, rabbits, pigs, goats, ferrets, a parrot, and I think some kind of musk ox for good measure.

My 3-year old niece and nephew are going through an animal phase, so that tells me about what age level this film was aiming at. But just because you're making a kid's film, you don't have to make a dumb film, or throw in a bunch of random talking animals just as eye candy.

If you want to read between the lines, there's some stuff here about class struggle, the working farm animals vs. the indoor pet animals, but I suspect I'm overthinking it. This isn't "Animal Farm". On a slightly simpler level, there's the dichotomy between look-alikes Garfield and Prince, the rich cat. Like people, some cats are born of privilege, and others aren't. Perhaps this is on my mind when I compare my spoiled indoor cat to the one living in the backyard.

Of course, since this is a movie, the cats are content to take advantage of their seemingly improved stations - Garfield enjoys the comforts of his new mansion, and Prince enjoys sitting on a hotel couch and watching TV. (They didn't have TV in his castle?) But, eventually (Spoiler alert...) they each long to return to their lives and find a way to switch back, and get slapsticky revenge on the upper-class twit who's so conveniently cruel to animals.

NITPICK POINT: Once again, it's surprisingly easy for Garfield (or Prince) to escape from his owner when necessary. Convenient plot point, or just bad supervision? But whereas that was the WHOLE plot of last night's film, here it's just a small development.

NITPICK POINT #2: Garfield + Odie stash themselves in Jon's luggage to get to the U.K., thus neatly avoiding weeks of quarantine. But no one x-rayed the bags? And they lasted 12-14 hours without food, water, or air?

NITPICK POINT #3: Again, Garfield is supposed to be LAZY. One would think this condition to be heightened after days spent pigging out and living in the lap of luxury. But again, he seems incredibly agile (and very animated...) when the plot calls for it. Still, out of character.

Starring Breckin Meyer, Jennifer Love Hewitt, voice of Bill Murray (all carrying over from last night), plus Billy Connolly (last seen in "The Last Samurai"), Roger Rees (last seen in "The Prestige"), Ian Abercrombie (Mr. Pitt from "Seinfeld"), and the voices of Tim Curry (last seen in "Kinsey"), Bob Hoskins (last seen in "The Cotton Club"), Sharon Osbourne, Jane Leeves (last seen in "Miracle on 34th St."), Rhys Ifans (last seen in "Pirate Radio") and Vinnie Jones (last seen in "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels").

RATING: 5 out of 10 oil paintings

Garfield

Year 4, Day 2 - 1/2/12 - Movie #1,002

BEFORE: I started watching films about cats, and as if on cue, a new stray kitty has moved into our backyard. We've got two cat houses out back, they're plastic tubs with holes cut in the side, and they're insulated so strays can survive the cold winter. This little tortoise-shell colored cat has taken up residence, which is fine since we haven't seen our last backyard cat, Condoleeza, in quite some time. I'm not sure if this is a boy or girl cat, but either way we might have to catch it and neuter it if it's going to stick around.

THE PLOT: Jon Arbuckle buys a second pet, a dog named Odie. However, Odie is then abducted and it is up to Jon's cat, Garfield, to find and rescue him.

AFTER: This film was bound to live or die based on the casting of Garfield's voice - I remember the old TV specials where Garfield's voice (OK, thought-voice) was done by Lorenzo Music, who was also famous for voicing the unseen doorman, Carlton, on the old "Rhoda" sitcom. They cast Bill Murray (last heard in another animated film, "Fantastic Mr. Fox"), which I think turned out for the best. His voice is very expressive, and at the same time has that sort of sad lilting quality that works well for a lazy cat.

There's a theme very similar to "The Aristocats" - again there is a stuffy, bald villain who seeks to profit from the fate of animals. Tonight it's a TV host who kidnaps the dancing Odie so he can get a regular gig on a national daytime show. And Garfield has to go on the "impossible" quest to the big city to rescue him.

But since this is a movie aimed at kids, there's a lot of slapstick and a very thin plot, and for the most part logic gets thrown out the window. OK, so Garfield can understand English. And he talks, but humans can't hear him - all that's sort of standard for a kid's cartoon. But he also seems to understand complicated mechanical devices, plus there are times when he walks and dances in ways that a cat just can't. I'm trying not to hold a kid's animated film to the same standards as, say, a live-action spy film, but I'm afraid I just can't switch off the analytical part of my adult brain.

NITPICK POINT: So, in a universe where cats and dogs can talk to each other, why isn't Odie able to talk? He proves himself to not be stupid, and other dogs can talk, so what gives?

NITPICK POINT #2: Garfield and Odie are able to enter and leave the house at will. I understand it's important to the plot that Odie runs away and Garfield is able to pursue him, but what kind of irresponsible pet owner allows both of these things to happen? I guess my problem is really with people who install "pet doors", which I don't understand to begin with. If you love your pet, why let him leave the house? And can't all manner of other creatures enter your house through the pet door?

NITPICK POINT #3: Garfield is supposed to be fat and lazy, that's part of his charm. But he's seen in this film doing all kinds of stunts that would be impossible for the most athletic cat, let alone an overweight one. He does a lot of stuff here that contradicts his nature.

Also, I noticed a lot of "cheats" in the animation - times where complicated action either takes place off-screen, or Garfield is walking through a scene under a box or something - I'm not sure if someone was cutting corners on cost or time, but it's blatantly obvious. There are a few too many in-jokes, too (Garfield pokes fun at merchandising, Garfield stuck to a car window).

Starring Breckin Meyer (last seen in "The Craft"), Jennifer Love Hewitt, Stephen Tobolowsky (last seen in "The Fly"), and the voices of Nick Cannon (last heard in "Monster House"), Alan Cumming, Brad Garrett (last heard in "Jetsons: The Movie"), Debra Messing (last seen in "The Mothman Prophecies"), Richard Kind (last seen in "Stargate"), and Debra Jo Rupp (last seen in "She's Out of My League").

RATING: 3 out of 10 flea collars

The Aristocats

Year 4, Day 1 - 1/1/12 - Movie #1,001

BEFORE: Of course, we don't go out on New Year's Eve, last night the missus and I stayed in and re-watched "Big Night" (the first film we saw together) and then something on VH-1 called "40 Champions of Cute", which was sort of a clip show of internet videos about babies and cute animals. Animals are WAY cuter than babies, by the way. So I'm following that up with a movie about more kittens.

This ties in with this year's dedication - to Merlin, who was my cat for 20 years, and still checked out way too soon. The world's best cat, and I'll gladly defend that point - from the way he'd sleep in my arms, to the way he'd sing "the dinner song" for me. Everybody loved him, including all the staff at the vet's office, and it still feels like one day he's just going to walk out of the closet he liked to sleep in, and hop right back up on the bed. Miss ya, buddy.

THE PLOT: With the help of a smooth talking tomcat, a family of Parisian felines set to inherit a fortune from their owner try to make it back home after a jealous butler kidnaps them and leaves them in the country.

AFTER: My mom took me to most of the Disney films when I was a kid, but I think we might have missed this one. I would have been 2 years old at the time this came out, so if I saw it, it didn't register. I know the characters, so I must have read their stories in Disney Comics or something.

Every so often you hear about rich people leaving their fortunes to their pets, most notably Leona Helmsley, and you have to think that means that some people are bound to cash in, provided they're the ones entrusted to care for the lucky dog or cat. But in this film, the butler doesn't see the opportunity, and figures he'll move up the inheritance chain if he can just dispose of the rich lady's cat and kittens. I'm not sure I follow the logic - she might just get another cat, no?

I imagine the Disney marketing department pulling out their hair, trying to figure out how they're going to sell people on a film about killing cats. In fact, it's kind of tough to see where this fits in the Disney pantheon - somehow it's not in the same league as "Bambi" or "Dumbo". I guess they started with the wild animals like deer and elephants, with great dramatic stories, and by the time they worked their way down to cats and dogs, the stories seemed less significant. After the mid-70's, the Disney films weren't all that great ("Black Cauldron", "Oliver & Company", "The Great Mouse Detective") until they pulled out of their dive with "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast".

This film feels like it takes elements of "Lady and the Tramp" (rich dog meets poor dog) and "101 Dalmatians" (evil person tries to kill puppies) and mixes them together, but changes the main characters from dogs to cats.

After the set-up, it's more like "The Incredible Journey", with the cats making their way back to their home in Paris. Which is a simple story, but it still manages to fire off in too many different directions. There's a diversion with a band of jazz-playing cats, but I was bothered by the blatant racism in the portrayal of the Siamese cat. As a matter of fact, the accents in the film are all over the place, with the British geese and a couple of dogs that sound like they're from the southern U.S., despite being named "Napoleon" and "Lafayette". They're in France, shouldn't all the animals sound French?

What's weird is, I just re-watched "The Odd Couple" a few weeks ago, and when I heard the British geese, I thought of the Pigeon Sisters from that film. Well, it turned out to be the voices of those same two actresses, Monica Evans and Carole Shelley! Damn, my voice recognition skills are good! And the Russian cat was voiced by Thurl Ravenscroft, who very notably voiced Tony the Tiger in ads for many years, and also sang the song "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" in the original Dr. Seuss TV special.

Starring the voices of Phil Harris (last seen in "The Patsy"), Eva Gabor, Sterling Holloway, Scatman Crothers (also last seen in "The Patsy"), Pat Buttram (who co-starred with Gabor in "Green Acres"), George Lindsay, Nancy Kulp (yep, was in "The Patsy", but more famous for appearing on "The Beverly Hillbillies").

RATING: 6 out of 10 bowls of creme

year 3 wrap-up / year 4 preview

Hola, amigos! I know it's been a while since I last rapped at ya...

I don't regret the decision to suspend the blog during the last 2 months of 2011, which I'm hoping turns out to be its penultimate year. Hey, for all I know, 2011 will turn out to be the penultimate year for everything... Anyway, reaction from my real-world friends and associates ranged from “Wow, I can’t believe you were able to STOP,” to “Jeez, are you still doing that movie-blog thing?”

I made it to that Weird Al concert in October, I got to meet the man himself, which was awesome. Got a chance to catch up on some TV, watched the final seasons of "Rescue Me" and "Law & Order: Criminal Intent", and the latest rounds of "Survivor" and "The Amazing Race" without the media or the Twitterverse spoiling the identities of the winners. Though despite my best efforts, I'm still 3 months behind on most serialized TV, I just watched the September premieres of the big network dramas. (Where have you gone, Laurence Fishburne and Christopher Meloni?)

Then along came Thanksgiving, the best holiday, since it's devoted purely to eating. Oh, wait, Christmas is like that too, except you also get pres...I mean, get to GIVE people presents (more on that later.) I got my Christmas mix CD out on time, took my annual Festivus Holiday Market Walking Tour, got my shopping done with a few days to spare, and was able to (mostly) relax and enjoy the season. Though a bout with the stomach flu made the days right after Christmas something of a nauseous blur...

I read some books (OK, Clone Wars books, but still, books), winterized the house, even visited my folks for my mother's birthday, got the Christmas lights up, and yes, I watched some movies. Specifically, I targeted some movies on my list that I was fairly certain I had seen before - but, for whatever reason, were total blanks in my mind with regards to plot details. Perhaps I failed to pay attention the first time I saw them, or perhaps the 1,000 movies I've watched in the last three years are more prominent, and my memory is close to full. Either way, I wanted to get them off the list, which is supposed to be for the classic (and neo-classic) films I have NOT yet seen.

So, I took a refresher course in these 15 films (in no particular order): "The Addams Family", "Addams Family Values", "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", "Dead Again", "Legend", "The Odd Couple", "Singles", "Old School", "Mafia!", “Tin Men”, “Unfaithful”, "Empire of the Sun", "No Way Out", "An Officer and A Gentleman", and "What's Eating Gilbert Grape". Interesting films all, though they won't be reviewed here. One of these films even had a twist ending that I missed the first time around, and I have never, ever seen mentioned in any review. So, that happened. Always watch films until the end, kids, and even after the credits, you never know.

And now, it’s the tail end of the year, the time when everyone makes those “year-end best of” lists, and people seem to fall in line with my way of thinking. The need to break down, re-organize and compile, while offering some form of commentary. Welcome to the party, fellas – I’m like that 52 weeks of the year, thanks to the O.C.D.

The big winner of the year was “Avatar”, I think the only film I watched in 2011 that scored a 9 or above. Which means it tops my list, a mere 2 years after it topped everyone else’s lists. Losers are “Popeye” and “Miss March” – please, never darken my TV screens again.

When I went on break, there were 247 films left on the list, but even with the removal of those 15, the list has continued to grow. Santa was good to me this year, or else family and friends are trying to influence the content of the blog. Plus I got some classics off the TV - which reminds me, I better get the TCM channel fixed before February's "31 Days of Oscar" marathon starts - so the list now stands at 270.

It can be disconcerting, I sort of feel like Richard Gere's character in "An Officer and a Gentleman" after completing 100 push-ups, only to have the D.I. just assign another 50. But 270 is well under 365, so I COULD finish the project this year. However, there were probably at least 30 movies released in 2011 that I'll need to add to the list, so if I take another couple of breaks and settle for 300 films in 2012, I'm looking at Year Five. I guess I just have to try not to add 3 films to the list for every one I watch, which is what has caused it to drag on for so long.

What's on tap for the coming months? Well, first there's a metric ton of animated films to watch, starring cats and dogs and bugs and birds and maybe a lion or two. That leads neatly into fairy tale films and stories from children's lit. Then there's the annual V-Day tribute to romance in all its forms. Then there will be pirates, aliens, time travelers and superheroes, another round of cops, spies and soldiers, plus special tributes to Liz Taylor, Jack Lemmon, and Jimmy Stewart, and a Ben Stiller-thon. And of course, there'll be sport. After that, the random clean-up work can begin.

In October, I hope to start the Hitchcock marathon, then I can assess whether to wrap it up or roll over the Woody Allen films to 2013. That's assuming that the Mayan calendar doesn't run out, and the solar flares don't, umm, flare. (Is it truly better to burn out than fade away?) As Jim Steinman once wrote, “The Future Just Ain’t What It Used to Be”.

You know, I wonder if it isn't for the best. If we keep going, we're only going to keep over-populating the planet and depleting its resources until we'll all just be swimming in waste anyway. I mean, no one wants to get serious about the situation, and we're all content to text and tweet to distract ourselves while things go to ruin. It's no wonder I've got a fatalistic attitude about things, and the dark nature of mankind's existential...

Ooh, look, everyone! Kitties! Cartoon kitties! Aren't they just the cutest?

2012

Year 3, Day 293 - 10/20/11 - Movie #1,000

BEFORE: In order to bring this baby in on schedule, I had to jettison a couple films from the chain - namely "The Road" and "The Book of Eli". In the end, I determined they were POST-apocalyptic movies, and I'd have to get to them, well, after the (movie) apocalypse.

It wasn't my original intention, but taking a few days off for NY Comic-Con made the last film of the year fall (semi-)squarely on my birthday. It was another nice little bit of confluence I decided to take advantage of. I blew the candles out on a pumpkin pie this morning (long story) and managed to avoid the traditional office "kidnapping" to a far-off local restaurant, which usually knocks the middle out of the workday. Instead I celebrated with a triple-decker NY deli sandwich (corned beef, tongue and chopped liver, with cole slaw + Russian dressing) and a few beers while I worked and caught up on some episodes of "Top Chef: Just Desserts". Other than that, I spent the day in quiet contemplation. (Yeah, right...)

Once again, it's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel - well, maybe not fine. Tired, a bit rundown perhaps. I've got to try and use the next 2 months to get back on a better sleeping schedule, one that actually sets aside time to sleep.

Linking from "Knowing", Nicolas Cage was in "Con Air" with John Cusack (last seen in "Sixteen Candles", I think)

THE PLOT: An epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors.

AFTER: So Movie 1,000 is "2012" on 10/20/2011, and it takes place on 12/21/2012. It's like some weird binary code that only means something to me.

I've seen the world end a number of different ways now - this one suggests that the Mayans got the date right, and also like "Knowing" features a solar flare. Here the flare creates some new neutrinos that somehow overheat the Earth's core, and as a result, Earth gets a new lighter and flakier crust. You know what, before it gets too technical, here's some footage of stuff being blowed up!

Not only does the science seem out of whack, the plotline constantly pushes the boundaries of believability. What are the chances that our protagonists can JUST outrun the destruction in each city as they make their way across the globe? I realize, for every person that makes it, millions don't - but still, how many times are they going to take off in a plane AS the runway is collapsing? We get it, just stop taking that same shot...

It's sort of a shame, we finally get the technology to create any dazzling movie effects we want, and it's just in time to document the end of all that is...

We also get a look at how governments would react to the end of the world - Step 1 - don't tell the public or you'll start a panic. Step 2 - umm, can we get back to you on this? Step 3 - save the Mona Lisa and other works of art, we'll need them later. (Really?) Step 4 - figure out a way to save the rich people and the beautiful people, which is the fairest way to re-populate the planet. OK, not by a longshot, but it represents the kind of committee-based thinking that the top brass might follow.

The special effects here were just stunning - if you like watching cities crumble, that is. Face it, when are you going to see this kind of destruction happen in real-life, and not be doomed along with it? I'm deducting a point for the madness running long, and being overly repetitive.

For a while there I thought they were going to launch the lucky connected people into space, which would have made even less sense - where would the space-ark go? Even if we knew of another habitable planet, how many generations would it take to get there?

But this is a textbook example of a screenplay that figuratively paints itself into a corner - OK, we accept the world's collapsing, and escaping the destruction is quite thrilling, but even if you accept that there IS a safe place left on the globe, what happens when people get there? In this case, the last hour is full of stalling, because no one really was able to think up much of a resolution. I'm reminded of the end of "The Day After Tomorrow", where everybody just went to get Mexican take-out.

So that's 1,000 films down, with 247 left on the list - I'd hope to get that down closer to 200, but c'est la vie. I'm hoping that number won't creep up too high by Jan. 1, but you never know - I could still be at this by the time 12/21/2012 rolls around.

For the immediate future, I've got a Weird Al concert coming up (the "Alpocalypse" tour, nice tie-in!), I've got to start working on my Christmas CD, my comic-book collection is in desperate need of some organization, and I've got a stack of books to start reading. Jeez, I should try and make a list of the things I want to do before I start up with movies again in January. Assuming I don't get raptured before then...

Also starring Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor (last seen in "Salt"), Oliver Platt (last seen in "Kinsey"), Thandie Newton (last seen in "Run Fatboy Run"), Danny Glover (last seen in "Lethal Weapon 4"), Woody Harrelson (last seen in "Anger Management"), Thomas McCarthy.

RATING: 7 out of 10 Vegas casinos

SPOOK-O-METER: 8 out of 10. Watching the world end, especially in such vivid detail, does have a rather chilling effect.

Knowing

Year 3, Day 292 - 10/19/11 - Movie #999

BEFORE: I'm back after 4 days of New York Comic-Con - I didn't have to travel there, except on the subway, but I had to be there early and man the booth until the closing bell, plus I'd go out to dinner after with friends, so really it took up quite a bit of my time, not to mention catching up on TV afterwards so my DVRs wouldn't fill up. I also had time to read a book, a real one with words and everything. OK, so it was a paperback - that still counts. I've got a bunch of books to read while I'm on break from the movie project.

Continuing with the end-of-the-world topic - and linking from "Legion", Dennis Quaid was also in "Undercover Blues" with Kathleen Turner, who of course was in "Peggy Sue Got Married" with Nicolas Cage (last seen in "The Cotton Club").

THE PLOT: A teacher opens a time capsule that has been dug up at his son's elementary school; in it are some chilling predictions that lead him to believe his family plays a role in the events that are about to unfold.

AFTER: Numbers are funny - I initially thought I should watch "Legion" here, since 999 upside-down is 666, the devil's number. But I thought that was a bit corny, and I wanted to maintain the chain thematically.

So, it's weird how things worked out - all I knew about this film was that the numbers on a piece of paper corresponded to the dates of predicted disasters. And what's the last date on the page, the one corresponding to the end of everything? Why, it's October 19! That's an odd bit of creepy, that I was watching the film in the early morning hours of that same date. I swear I didn't know the date featured in the film. Sure, it's 10/19/2009, but still...

OK, so there's this list of numbers - fine. And it corresponds to a list of human disasters - got it. But it's HOW Cage's character figures it out that bothered me. To be able to look at a page full of (seemingly) random numbers and pick out something akin to a pattern - well, how did he even KNOW there was a pattern? As a scientist, I would have expected him to use an approach that was more methodical or at least logical. First step might have been to count up the totals on each number, check the frequency of each digit, or look for some kind of substitution cipher. Or references to some document with words, like that number code that referenced the Declaration of Independence.

Cage's character, after all, is a scientist - an astrophysicist at MIT, no less. Yeah, chew on that one. Who better to decipher the numbers than a scientist, one who's not sure whether there's a plan for the universe or not? On one hand, what are the chances of the earth being JUST the right distance from the sun to support life - but on the other hand, there are 9 (whoops, 8) planets in the system, so chances are good that one will land in the "butter zone", right?

Essentially, that's what the film seems to be about - the argument between random chance and pre-determination. Can numbers be scribbled down quickly, and then used to predict the future? Someone did that "Bible Code" thing a few years ago, which was unique since Hebrew letters could also be words or numbers, making a giant word search out of the Old Testament - but it's funny how they could only find past events hidden in the matrix, and couldn't find anything concrete about the future. Ditto for Nostra-Dumbass, who history should regard as a bad poet and nothing else.

But why alert people about the end of the world, if it's pre-determined? Would you want to know the end is coming, if you couldn't change it? And shouldn't the message about destruction be delivered by someone with a better acting ability, who can project some measure of concern? Cage's acting method seems to consist of holding the same sad expression for the whole film, and trying to talk without moving his lips. He gets a little heated and emotional late in the film, but it's too little, too late.

The film attempts to take religion, science, and conspiracy theory and mash them all together - but they don't quite reconcile, do they? This one amounts to a split decision, because I dig apocalyptic stuff and puzzles, but this one left a lot of loose ends. What were those shiny stones? Who, exactly, was behind it all? And why send us warnings exactly 50 years before the date in question, what's the significance of that? Why make the warning so obtuse that only 1 in 5 billion people can understand it?

Again, as in "Needful Things" and "Legion", we see that humans are all fairly close to the edge of madness. It doesn't take much, here it's just some scribbled numbers and some scratches on a wall that send humanity reeling into chaos. I approve.

NITPICK POINT: Among the predicted disasters is the Blizzard of 1978? I remember that one, and while it was very inconvenient, I don't know if I'd put it on a par with a bombing or a chemical leak. Besides, all of the other disasters were location specific, and that one covered like the whole East Coast. Shenanigans!

Also starring Rose Byrne, Chandler Canterbury.

RATING: 6 out of 10 newspaper clippings

SPOOK-O-METER: 7 out of 10. Depending on how you feel about seeing accidents, disasters and large-scale destruction. And the creepy people who don't blink.