30 Days of Night (2007)

30 days of night
1 out of 5

Certain movies are bad, but fun to watch. They have poor acting but are usually so-bad-they're-funny, or they have some redeemable scenes (be them action or sex scenes). 30 Days of Night flirts with these ideas, but doesn't make the cut. 30 Days of Night is a movie that has breakfast with Ghost Rider and Soul Plane. These are those "certain movies" that are just plain bad.

The movie is about vampires that attack an Alaskan town during the time the sun is below the horizon. The movie manages to use a bunch of cliché's and neglects to even use them interestingly. There's the little girl vampire (and the scene where one of the characters says that 'it was just a kid'), running to the grocery store amidst danger to stock up, and we mustn't forget the dead-beat brother who provides a heroic deed at the end! Again, these cliché's wouldn't be awful if they at least breathed some sort of life into them. 28 Days Later wasn't based on a huge amount of originality, but it used and altered it's genre's cliché's and it came out successfully.

The movie doesn't focus all it's efforts on it's actions, so you're left to care for the characters. But it's all forced. None of the characters are interesting or worth caring for. The movie also swims in Darkness Falls territory, introducing characters just so they can kill them off. The only person worth watching on the screen is Ben Foster, until you realize that his accent and teeth are pretty much straight out of 3:10 to Yuma.

The color of the entire film is very fitting, but there are few other things to look forward to visually. One good thing I can say is that sometimes I think the editor forgot to cut every 4 seconds and let some shots linger for a little so we see the vampires creeping up on some characters, rather than a high frame rate close up of the vampire lunging towards the character. I don't mind that kind of style, it's usually pretty fitting, but it's nice to change it up every so often. It gets a little tedious.
Though maybe that's fitting, because after an hour and a half of not caring about the characters with still another half left to go, things get pretty dull. Aside from the actual length of the movie, another gripe is that the story is supposed to take place over 30 days, but it really just seems like one long day. Aside from the fact that it's always night, the characters don't interact with each other any differently. It just seems like one continuous story. It's too quick. Sure, there is the text saying what day it is every so often, and beards grow, but there needs to be something more visual and less subtle to indicate passage of time. It would be interesting to see these people sleep or eat, to do something human.

Some will say it's an homage to other movies or media like this, but that's nothing but an excuse. Kill Bill was a complete homage but it was enjoyable and still artistically original. This film is neither fun nor deep nor a work of art. What it is is a waste of time. 30 Days of Night is 113 Minutes of Trite.

Michael Clayton (2007)

Michael Clayton

3.5 out of 5

No alarms, no surprises. Thanks to Radiohead, I can sum up Michael Clayton that easily. If you've read plot synopses of Michael Clayton, it comes off as more complicated and confusing than it actually is. Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a "fixer" at a law firm. His buddy, Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has been on a case for U-North who have a case against them saying that their chemicals were deadly and killed a certain number of people. Fighting for them begins to drive Edens nuts, and he begins to research U-North and build a plan against them. Clayton steps in to stop him from making a bad move, but then ends up in something more than he bargained for.

Michael Clayton goes pretty much by the books. It's follows conventions closely. There's the typical "start with the end" beginnings, a "not-so-great-guy" good guy, etc. But what Michael Clayton uses, it uses well. They don't cross any boundaries, but they embrace the restrictions they refuse to break. The acting is very well done, and even though Clooney basically plays the same role he's famous for, it still fits and is still completely enjoyable.

There's some fantastic camera work and lighting, such as a hand-held one take of people breaking into an apartment to kill someone and the blue of early morning (which I've only ever seen employed in Eyes Wide Shut but I could be wrong). Aside from a few stand-outs, the cinematography doesn't doesn't stretch for anything too interesting or beautiful. It all looks good, but there's no pushing for greatness.

That's the thing about the film. It doesn't surprise you or pull any twists that you won't expect, and there's no pushing for greatness in the film. It seems really comfortable where it is- a good (not great) movie. It's not oscar worthy, but it definitely will keep you interested. Although Michael Clayton has nothing up his sleeve, you won't feel bored shaking his hand.

Into the Wild (2007)

Into the Wild
0 out of 5

One can argue that an actor can make a film. The sole reason some people see Adam Sandler movies are because he's in it. Take the same script, same director, no Sandler.. would as many people still see it? Probably not. That said, can an actor (an established one, at that) actually make a movie? Aside from Clint Eastwood, when actors try to take up directing, it usually has disastrous results. Into the Wild is one monstrous and epic disaster.

The film is about well-off college grad Christopher "Supertramp" McCandless (played by Emile Hirsch). McCandless decides to reject the lifestyle that he foresees if he remains with his family and progresses into law school, so he destroys his identity and sets off on a journey to Alaska. The movie shows flashbacks of family life, his family dealing with his absence, his journey to Alaska and the people he meets along the way, and him finally living in an abandoned bus in Alaska. All of this is shown in bits and pieces throughout the movie that are sloppily slapped together.

The best word I can think of to describe the movie is "phony." Holden Caulfield could talk for days about it. Canoe action montages edited to Eddie Vedder rock music, the words in McCandless' diary entries scrolling across the screen in typewriter fashion, and silly comedic improv scenes are only some of the mind-blowingly awful choices in film-making that make up this movie. It's just strange that a movie about finding something real and meaningful turned out to be such an absurdly force-fed movie. What could have been an interesting film is just a mishmash of narrative no-no's created by someone who didn't have the heart to admit that something in this man's life was boring and could have been cut out. It's a slow movie, and each and every minute in the 2.5 hours is felt.

Not only is it much too long, but one has a hard time believing the screenplay had even been read after it was written. How much unnecessary dialogue does a movie centered around a lone character in the wild need? Whether it actually happened or not, it doesn't mean absolutely everything that has happened makes a good film.

This film could have not only been very beautiful, but also very meaningful. Unfortunately, everything about it is absolutely wrong. Penn took a story that is about the rejection of the evils of humanity and the journey to find beauty in life and made it into something very ugly and disingenuous. It is clear that Penn should drop the pen and focus more on his acting career.

The Lives of Others (2005)

the lives of others - 1 out of 5


For some reason, a film winning the oscar for best foreign picture always excites me. I'm not sure why, exactly - Tsotsi (2005 winner) was a contrived, meaningless pile of crap that was passed as being similar to City of God (nice try), and we all know that the Oscars aren't going to surprise us with their best picture awards anymore, they're going to go with their safe picks (see: Crash). However, I've always felt that a lot of recent foreign films have a better idea of good film-making than a lot of Hollywood movies, and I get excited about the winners. This year, a German movie (that wasn't about Nazi-era Germany!!!) won best foreign picture. I decided to go check it out, hoping that it would be something worthwhile.

The Lives of Others takes place during the Stasi-era of Germany (expect another 10-15 years worth of Stasi movies now), and it follows a member of the Stasi who is spying on a playwright that is suspected of Western learnings. The spy, Wiesler, has the man's apartment wired and sits in a nearby room where he listens and reports all of what he hears. However, the story takes a twist as Wiesler begins to cover for him as the playwright begins to write things that expose the German republic and the Stasi.

The plot is pretty interesting at first, but is told in a very dull and boring way. The whole film is very dry (the one scene where a Stasi officer tells a joke is painfully awkward), and there's little reason to feel for the characters. Weisler's change of heart is pretty abrupt- we are shown that he's a very lonely man, but we are also shown that he is very serious about his job. What would possess him to instantly care for this man? What is marked as a "thriller" isn't very enticing or exciting at all. The once interesting plot becomes very predictable, and then eventually settles (in more than 2 hours) on a cheesy, sentimental ending and epilogue.

Unfortunately, the film isn't even something nice to look at. Colors are bland and the director has zero style. Every shot is very much by the books. I hate to really rag on a movie like that, but film is a visual medium and if a director decides he's going to put bare minimum effort into his shots, then why even bother?
What should be a very absorbing film is nothing but a bland attempt at showing people that the mainstream German film industry is more than just Nazi-Germany era films. Maybe next year the Oscars will award a picture to one that is actually interesting and entertaining.

Lady in the Water (2006)

lady in the water - 4 out of 10

Lady in the Water is the new film by M. Night Shymalan. It's about an apartment superintendent (Cleveland, played by Paul Giamatti) who finds a sea nymph (Story, played by Bryce Dallas Howard) in the apartment pool. He must help her inspire a writer who will go on to do great things, and then he must gather the tenants of the apartment to help her get home safely.

The film is riddled with so-so acting, heavy-handed symbolism and messages, and lame plot devices. It's a shame that the movie is so poor, as I think it really could've been great. I really wish Night would've went back and wrote a few drafts of the script, as it really needed a lot of work. We learn about the fairy tale of Story and the sea nymphs through an old Chinese woman who heard of this tale as a child. Because she only speaks Chinese, Cleveland must ask her college-student daughter questions, and the daughter relays it to her Mother. This is amusing at first, but it becomes really tedious and annoying. It makes me wonder if Night really couldn’t have thought of a better way to give both Cleveland and the audience back-story on this fairy tale. This is just one of the few things Night could have improved had he spent more time working on the script.

The acting is all right. One thing that really bothered me was Giamatti's stutter. This is the most forced stutter I've ever heard in my life. It really brings down his performance. Some of the secondary characters (such as the man who sits on his couch all day and watches TV) aren't very good actors, but you don't really have to see them often enough for it to really be a problem. The cinematography is passable; it's nothing amazing. I liked a few shots, but nothing is really memorable.

Honestly, the biggest problem with the film is the script. Aside from what I have already mentioned, the script reeks of symbolism and heavy-handed messages. Night has had trouble with critics on the Village, and I think he figured he would have trouble with this film as well. So not only does he write himself into the movie as a writer who will eventually be appreciated and change the world, he also writes in a cliche asshole film critic who thinks that "originality is dead". I'm not going to spoil anything, but Night really shoves it all in your face. It's almost really immature. Couldn't there have been a more subtle way to take shots? Or, even, why take shots at all? Also, the movie critic also has the single worst scene of dialogue I have seen all year, so watch out for that.

There's also some awkward moments of comedy that really have no place. Cleveland trying to be cute for the Chinese mother so that she'll tell him more of the story, anything the movie critic says... it's just out of place. It doesn't work at all. It's not funny; it's a tad uncomfortable at times.


I see people ragging on this movie for the wrong reasons - how it's just a fairy tale, how it has no Night plot twist like the rest of his movies do, etc. This movie could've worked really well. It could've been fantastic. Unfortunately, the script doesn't hold up at all, and nothing can save a bad script. The movie is, in a sense, a fairy tale. That's not bad, though. What's bad is the fact that this movie is a fairy tale with no charm. Nothing else.

Clerks 2 (2006)

clerks 2 - 4 out of 10

Brief history-
Kevin Smith, writer and director of the "classics" such as Clerks and Dogma vows to never make another movie in the "Askewniverse" (sp?) after Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. He then goes on to director Jersey Girl, which is shunned by fans because.. well, because it's not very good. Smith goes back on his word for a number of reasons, and releases Clerks 2. Was it a good idea? For his career, most definitely. Clerks 2 has much a shitload of money already, much more than Jersey Girl has made, and it's getting better reviews. Fans are pleased. Some go as far as to say "If you see one summer movie this year, see Clerks 2."

..Yeah, people have actually said that. Even though this summer has been very lacking, I strongly disagree with that statement. Clerks 2 is nothing but a mediocre movie with Kevin Smith's usual (and now stale) humor covering it up.

The film is about Dante and Randal (the heroes from the previous movie) growing old and still doing the same thing with their lives, going nowhere fast. They now work at fictional fast food restraint Mooby's, and Dante is set to get married and start a new life in Florida. The film gives us humor in the form of rants, similar to the first Clerks movie, and also from the bickering between Dante and Randal and newcomer Elias. Then there's some.. strange humor. Not off-beat humor, but... American Pie teen comedy-esque humor. BAD American Pie teen comedy-esque humor. Not only is it not funny, but some of it doesn't even seem like Kevin Smiths' usual writing. Hey, I'm all for trying something new, but why be unfunny?

One scene has a man giving a donkey a blowjob. Very unfunny. I'm not offended by it, it's nothing like that, it's just not funny at all. The entire scene and gag feel lifted from an awful teen comedy.

Then there's a ton of jokes and comedic bits that just fall flat on their face. Is Smith a has-been? I never cared for his directing, but his writing is something I always enjoyed. Some things, though - including most, if not all of the scenes with Jay and Silent Bob - are just awful. Really, truly, sadly awful. They're all lame jokes, and it's almost as if someone else is writing and pretending to be Kevin Smith.

That's not to say that there aren't funny parts, though. Like I said, a lot of Randal's rants are hilarious, but unfortunately, that's not enough to save the movie from being Kevin Smith's least funny movie.

Aside from comedy, Kevin Smith adds in some serious moments, showcasing us the relationship between Dante + Randal and Dante + his boss, Becky (Rosario Dawson). The few scenes in which Dante and Randal are serious together are well written, for the most part. However, the relationship between Dante and Becky is downright terrible. Formulaic, cliche, lack of chemistry between the two actors... it's terrible. Smith has proved to us that he can right a good relationship story- scratch that, a great one. Its called Chasing Amy. So what's going on here, exactly? The dialogue between the two is especially awful (Dante's made me shudder at some points). The plot points in this sub-plot are so cliche that you could call'em before they happen. This sub-plot also spawned the corniest montage I've ever seen, and one of the most unfunny dance numbers in cinematic history. Did Smith watch 40 Year Old Virgin while writing this?

The camera work is pretty simple. Smith's movies never went for visual goodness, so I'm not completely disappointed, but one scene is very atrocious. Dante and Randal yell at each other outside while the camera circles them 4 or 5 times. Wow, brilliant idea.

The acting is good, for the most part. Everyone does a good job, except when Dante has to be serious with Becky.

I didn't have high hopes for this film; I doubted it the second I heard of it. That's not to say that I went in a completely negative mood, as the many favorable reviews got me a little excited for the movie. However, the heavy amount of bad drama and bad jokes really disappointed me. I guess it's just me, though, cause people are still eating this movie all up. If you enjoy it, that's fine, but as for me, I feel Smith lost something he can never get back, and this entire movie is just him trying really hard to get it again.

Once if a Lifetime (2006)

once in a lifetime - 5.5 out of 10

Like Soccer? Remember the New York Cosmos? Apparently they were a big deal for awhile, back in the day. This is the documentary on their rise and fall.

Honestly, Soccer's really cool. I don't really like sports, which is a shame because it excludes me from 98% of the male population. Trust me, guys, I don't want to be like this, but I am. I have recently, however, found some joy in watching Soccer games. So, naturally, when I saw the trailer for this film, I wanted to see it. It looked like a fun documentary, so I didn't think it'd be a bad choice.

It wasn't a bad choice. Wasn't a great one either, though.

The film takes us through the soccer craze. How one very rich man (the head of Warner Communications) started the team and eventually brought superstars such as Pele and Chinaglia to the US. How in such a short time, US Soccer could sell out stadiums and excite people, and then when broadcasted on TV, do horribly and ultimately go into decline.

The film shows us archived footage of games and then interviews with various people involved with the NY Cosmos- former players, owners, etc. Unfortunately there's few surprises here - anything bad that happened are cliches we already know from other sports, such as a great player getting very cocky and unliked, one player posing nude in a magazine and getting flack for it, etc. etc. All in all, it's not very interesting, since it's so commonplace in many other sports.

It's not a terrible documentary; it's just not a very interesting one. It's informative, as documentaries should be, but it does little to excite or entertain the viewer. It's not the documentarian's fault; the subject matter just isn't as absorbing as he thought it would be.

Strangers with Candy (2005)

strangers with candy - 7 out of 10

"Strangers with Candy" is a film that is a prologue to the series of the same name. It is not necessary to have seen the show in order to understand the movie or it's jokes, in fact, it'd probably be better to have not seen the show when seeing the movie, as the movie pales in comparison to the show.

The movie is about a 40-year-old junkie (Jerri Blank) who gets out of jail and visits her old house, only to find out that her mother is dead and her father is in a coma. She then vows to change her life and start over again, going back to high school and cleaning her act up in hopes that it will break her father's coma.

It stars Amy Sedaris, Steven Colbert, Paul Dinello, and Greg Hollimon, all returning from the TV show. The movie has really, really great comedic moments. Unfortunately, some jokes fall flat - jokes that worked in the series no longer work here. The over the top brother-sister rivalry that we saw in the show seems lazy here. Very little about the relationship between Jerri and her brother is funny, and if anything, it just feels forced.

That's actually a slight problem with the movie. Some of the things that were present in the series, such as Jerri and her brother's hatred towards one another, the relationship between Colbert and Dinello's character, etc. just feels forced and not as funny as they could be. Something that really bothered me was the change of the actor that played the Dad. In the series, they would often cut to shots of the Dad in a catatonic state, and he'd be making a very exaggerated face with his mouth and eyes wide open. In the movie, the Dad quietly sleeps and enjoys his coma.

That's not to say the movie isn't funny. Like I said, it has some really, really great comedic moments. Most of them are either done by Colbert or at least with an assist from Colbert, though the other characters do have their hilarious moments.

Overall, it's a very funny movie, especially if you haven't seen the series to compare it to. Maybe not as consistent as it should be, but very enjoyable. It's just a tad awkward when jokes fall flat, especially considering we have great writers on our hands.

The Oh in Ohio (2006)

the oh in ohio - 3.5 out of 10

Paul Rudd. Danny Devito. Keith David. What could go wrong?

Erm.. plenty.

"The Oh in Ohio" is a comedy starring Parkey Posey, plus the three greats I listed above. It is about the deteriorating marriage between Rudd and Posey, as Posey doesn't orgasm when the two have sex, and hasn't for 10 years, which truly bothers Rudd. Rudd, a school teacher, begins to court a student, as Posey finds both a vibrator and Danny Devito to suit her needs.

When I see a comedy, I'm not interested in the cinematography, usually. Honestly, who is? The movie is made for laughs, we're there to laugh. We're not looking for something deep, which, for some reason, many comedies think recently (Last half of Wedding Crashers, anyone? Give me a break.). Aside from a shot or two with boom mics visible (which I've seen in a lot of low budget comedies, unfortunately), the camera man does his job well for a comedy movie.

What really bothers me are the laughs, or lack of them. There are way too many jokes that pan, though we do get some great (but not very memorable) ones amidst them. Most of them are from Paul Rudd, which is to be expected, but unfortunately, the main focus of the movie isn't his character so much as it is Parker Posey's character. Posey is pretty funny, don't get me wrong, but the majority of her jokes fall flat and just make watching the movie a tad bit awkward. I could also do without Liza Minelli's whole scene, even if the scene includes the best Posey joke (and the only funny part in that scene.)

The story isn't spectacular, but it keeps you attention and makes you care a little bit. However, the director decides to give one of the most unsatisfying endings I've ever seen in my life. You know those movies, like in Sideways and Broken Flowers, that just end before you expect it? But then you think about it and you're like "Well, there's nowhere else they could have went, and if they kept it going, it would've made it so much worse" or "I like the fact that I wasn't spoon fed, and now I'll think about the movie more and piece it together myself" etc etc. This movie has an ending that just abruptly ends, and when you think about it, it works, but for a movie in this nature - a COMEDY- it really doesn't fit at all.

The movie also runs a little short, with you barely getting to know some characters or even feel for them. I realize that it's a comedy and the story doesn't have to be something deep and serious, but the movie could have really used some extra time to spend on some characters and plots, such as Devito and Posey's relationship.

Overall, the movie is a short comedy which has a few worthwhile laughs, but ultimately nothing memorable. It's also too short, and even though comedies should be short, not enough time is spent on certain characters and their plots. A somewhat enjoyable experience with some (a little more than some, actually..) moments of awkwardness when jokes fizzle.

Wassup Rockers (2005)

wassup rockers - 5 out of 10

"Wassup Rockers" is the new film by the mind that brought you "Kids", Larry Clark. Love it or hate it, you have to admit that "Kids" was an interesting look at close-minded delinquents that did what they wanted, and ultimately got what they deserved. It was almost like a documentary, the film felt really.. well, real. "Wassup Rockers" uses the same approach, except this time, Clark explores the lives of Latino kids living in South Central, Latino kids who refuse to be lumped into the stereotypical Latino lifestyle of baggy clothes and rap music. These kids listen to punk, wear their clothes tight, and skateboard everywhere. Its a somewhat interesting subculture, and the film takes us through two days of their lives as they go to school, visit Beverly Hills, get into a buttload of trouble, and return to their home.

Unfortunately, while the film is in enjoyable, the overall experience isn't as interesting, shocking, etc. as Kids was. We see this group of 8 or 9 friends interact with each other and get girls, but honestly these kids don't do anything worth being put on film. I suppose the main point was to show a different aspect of life as a Latino in South Central, just to prove the cliche's wrong. But honestly, did anyone truly believe there was only one type of Latino?

The film is shot in a documentary esque way, and even harkens back to old neo-realism films. It works, and although these kids probably aren't real actors, you can't tell. It really feels like they're a bunch of friends hanging out, which is what the director was going for, and, incidentally, is the best aspect of the movie.

However, the film doesn't really have much to say other than telling the story of these kids. They have it rough in their school, as they stick out like a bunch of sore thumbs on one hand. They get into all sorts of trouble when in Beverly Hills, but honestly, none of it is really worth it. Though I find it bothersome to have to constantly compare a director's newer work to his older material, I often find myself not being able to help it. This movie is in the same vein as "Kids", just not as well done, not as interesting, and ultimately probably not worth watching, especially at it's 2 hour running time. The best part of the movie is the style of the filming and the way it's realistically shot, but that type of style is a style that people generally find boring. If you're into that kind of thing, though, the film is worth seeing just because it is enjoyable - it won't strike you at all like Kids would, which is a shame. It's almost as if Larry Clark has much less to say now.

The Road to Guantanamo (2006)

the road to guantanamo - 8.5 out of 10

Michael Winterbottom (director of the FANTASTIC 24 Hour Party People) returns merely a year after his last movie with a very important, shocking movie. The Road to Guantanamo is a film about the "Tipton Three," a trio of Muslims from Great Britain who were held in various prisons (the last and longest term was in a prison in Guantanamo) because of their supposed ties with the Taliban. These accusations were false, though, and the reason the trio was caught and captured is because they were en route to Pakistan to celebrate, as one of the three was getting married, and his father lived in Pakistan. Along the way, there were bombings, people were killed, and the trio and the people they were traveling with were captured. They hold the three in different prisons, treat them horribly, show them piss-poor evidence of the three at Taliban rallies, interview them to try to get them to admit being part of the Taliban. This awfulness went on for over 2 years. Eventually they were freed with no charges, but the three will never forget the way they were mistreated and not listened to even though they were completely innocent.

The film is done as a docu-drama. The director brings the trio back, and they talk and explain what happened. The scenes are then recreated with actors and cut to while a person is describing a situation. The director also edits in interviews with Bush and Cheney, sitting them next to shots of American troops being complete assholes to innocent people. It's a popular technique in a political documentary to use, however, I think it was a bit unnecessary. The things Bush and Cheney said were very silly and stupid. We don't need to see it again; it's just a further annoyance to the audience.

It's filmed in digital, which is barely noticeable, which also means it looks great. The cinematography is great, too. If it was entirely possible, one would think that what they were being shown wasn't recreation, but the actual footage of the trio.

The only gripe I have with the film is that it's a little hard to follow in the beginning. I'm not exactly sure why, but I think it has something to do with it's quick start and the fact that it throws you into the mess right away. There are also some awkwardly placed shots of the trio back at their homes doing everyday things. This is used like the technique I mentioned above, sandwiched in-between shots of the trio being mistreated and such. Sometimes it works and it's sad and frustrating, other times it's too awkward and, at a point, overused, to evoke any kind of emotion.

The Road to Guantanamo is another must see of the year, despite it not being perfect. There is also some controversy around the movie, as is any kind of movie that depicts Americans as assholes. Honestly, if you want to be ignorant, that's fine with me. We are perfect human beings and there is no better country than us, we do no wrong, etc. etc. This, however, is a true story. Even if it is biased, warped, exaggerated and not 100% fact, some fraction of their story is. If even as low as 2% of this account is true, that should still be enough to show you that no country in this world is a place to feel safe in, not even the infallible USA.

Wordplay (2006)

wordplay - 9 out of 10
(fun fact - I keep messing up and writing the title "worldplay")

I had no idea there was a championship for Crossword Puzzles. Hell, I had no idea that people actually designed them themselves, I always thought newspapers and such put words into a computer and the computer designed a word search for them. I was dead wrong.

Wordplay is a documentary by Patrick Creadon, and it is about Crossword puzzle addicts and also Crossword puzzle pros. The movie introduces a variety of people and includes guest appearances by the hilarious John Stewart and the former president Bill Clinton. Despite the fun cameos, the movie mainly focuses on the pros that are going into the competition, which is what the latter half of the movie centers around.

One would think that a movie about Crossword puzzles, how they are made, and how fast people can finish them would be a terrible, boring idea for a movie. However, it's not. I applaud the director for making the movie such a fun, entertaining time. It's really amazing how some people can speed through a crossword puzzle in less than 2 minutes and still get most (if not all) answers correct.

The director shows us the pros and the creators, and shows us a slight glimpse of their personal life. Maybe the reason this movie is so easy to like is because these people are completely normal, everyday people - people you could relate to.

The film really shines toward the end, at the competition. The competition is broken up into a few days, and we see the people we've been introduced to go on and do very well. Thanks to the way the director spent time showing us these people, you end up rooting for one to win or feeling like crap when the person you like loses. You forget that what you're watching is just people doing a crossword puzzle really fast; you really feel like these people are competing in a great sport, and you feel close to them because they are just regular people.

The film clocks in at 94 min, a perfect length for a documentary, especially one about a topic that won't garner a lot of attention. Wordplay is a must see, and is one of the few really good movies of 2006.