Movie review by Greg Carlson

Director Danny Boyle, a stylish filmmaker who always manages to provide audiences with something to chew on, does not seem a likely candidate to make a heartwarming tale of a philanthropic little boy dealing with the death of his mother. Despite its mostly tender pleasantness, however, “Millions” steers clear of mawkishness, and turns out to be the kind of entertainment that people of many different ages will enjoy. “Millions” cannot properly be called a children’s movie, but it certainly contains an alluring central design that all kids fantasize about: the sudden appearance of instant wealth unencumbered by responsibility to any grown-ups.

As young Damian, Alex Etel makes a striking feature debut. The pint-sized, freckled thespian will surely draw adoring sighs from the audience, but his preternatural intelligence tempers his cuteness. Moving with his brother and father into a brand new housing development, Damian makes off with several large packing boxes to construct a little fort along the nearby railroad tracks. Inexplicably, a duffel bag bursting at the seams with cash literally seems to fall out of the sky. Its impact just misses the boy, but takes out a section of his cardboard castle. Damian alerts brother Anthony (Lewis McGibbon) to the fortune, and before you know it, the kids have started spreading their windfall.

While Damian is immediately taken with the idea that the money can be used to help others, Anthony buys tech toys, cool sunglasses, and the friendship of his new classmates. In one hilarious image, Boyle depicts Anthony riding into the schoolyard on the back of a pal’s bike, surrounded by jogging minders who look just like miniature versions of secret service agents in a presidential motorcade. Anthony also seems to have a solid grasp of the value of real estate investments, while Damian is content to stuff fistfuls of cash though the mail slot of a nearby group of Mormons.

Boyle introduces several engaging complications, including the “Great Expectations”-esque appearance of a stocking cap-wearing baddie sniffing around for the loot, a love interest for Damian’s pop, and the imminent conversion of pounds to euros, which means that Damian’s riches come with the urgency of an expiration date. The film’s other primary gimmick is Damian’s ability to carry on imaginary conversations with a variety of long dead saints. Boyle manages this busy palette with aplomb, and the director’s signature penchant for skillful, on-the-ball visuals enlivens the story from start to finish.

Frank Cottrell Boyce’s (“24 Hour Party People”) screenplay excels in its ability to tap into the particular logic of childhood, and despite a few head-scratching turns in the final act, hurtles forward with just the right amount of speed and momentum. While there is no question the film’s point of view belongs to Damian, it might have been nice to spend a few more scenes developing the relationship between Damian’s father Ronnie (James Nesbitt) and new friend Dorothy (Daisy Donovan). Boyce should certainly be praised, however, for his ability to sketch such believable generosity in a young boy. “Millions” is tenacious in its avoidance of too much cynicism, and that is refreshing indeed.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

Stephen Chow’s “Kung Fu Hustle” is surely one of contemporary cinema’s finest examples of innovatively and effectively integrated CGI. Unlike Lucas’ soul-crushing “Star Wars” prequel juggernauts, as well as the “Matrix” series, Chow recognizes the vast, nearly untapped comic potential of pixel-bound nonsense. Totally unafraid to attempt any kind of jaw-droppingly goofy sight gag, Chow’s universe is completely comfortable in its ability to channel the kind of gravity defying impossibilities perfected by masters like Tex Avery. “Kung Fu Hustle” announces itself as a parody, but Chow’s skillful storytelling, along with his genuine reverence for past masters, makes the film one of the most entertaining of the year.

Set in a fairy-tale past suggesting the 1940s, Chow’s film kicks things off with a dazzling opening sequence that introduces the audience to the Axe Gang, a legion of dapper, tuxedoed thugs who break into choreographed dance routines upon completion of their grisly business. Two desperate wannabes (director Chow and Lam Tze Chung), posing as members of the Axes, draw the gang’s attention to Pig Sty Alley, a marvelously designed tenement, which also happens to be home to several former kung fu masters who can more than handle themselves in a fight. Pig Sty Alley serves as the primary setting for a heart-stopping run of tasty battles, and Chow stages the numerous clashes with reckless, delirious abandon.

Every clever confrontation in “Kung Fu Hustle” contains as much humor as it does impressive combat, which should satisfy genre fans who like to laugh. Not wanting to skimp on the wow factor, Chow enlisted the brilliant Yuen Wo Ping to design the skirmishes, and the legendary fight director delivers some of the finest displays of his career. Chow’s cast, which includes several legendary performers, is nearly perfect, and Yuen Qiu, as a chain-smoking landlady in curlers, slippers, and a housecoat, steals the movie with her exquisite deadpan expressions and her ability to deliver a serious beating.

Chow’s intertextual stew doesn’t stop with Avery cartoons, as “Kung Fu Hustle” nods in the direction of Sergio Leone, Fred Astaire, “Gangs of New York,” and “The Shining,” just to name a few. Amidst all the pop culture references, Chow still finds time to weave in a dewy romantic subplot involving his character and a mute childhood sweetheart (Huang Sheng Yi) who runs an ice cream cart as a grown-up. Despite being filled in with flashbacks, Chow’s nostalgic reverie needs a little more development to work as a full-fledged component of the movie, but it is hard to deny the charisma of the attractive lovebirds.

Chow leaves no doubt, however, that the visuals are the chief attraction, and his vivid style makes for some memorable imagery: giant palm prints stamp the earth, musical instruments send out hellish banshees that lop off heads and slice cats in two, and bodies stretch and twist like Reed Richards and Eel O’Brian. With so much on display, the most enjoyable aspect of the movie comes from the giddy realization that anything can happen (and often does). With “Kung Fu Hustle,” Chow cements his place as a sensational moviemaker. His admirers will wait eagerly to see what he does next.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

Arguably the most notorious porno film in the history of American movie exhibition, “Deep Throat” serves as the subject of Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato’s latest razzle-dazzle documentary. Often touted as the most profitable movie ever made (a claim that on some level remains unverifiable, as many of the box office receipts were swallowed up – pun intended – by shady mob operators who shook down theater owners for a chunk of every night’s take), “Deep Throat” emerged at a time in which strange cultural forces seem to have aligned: middle America not only acknowledged the movie’s existence, people of all kinds of backgrounds and income levels clamored to see it.

Directed by ex-hairdresser Gerard Damiano, now a Florida-dwelling retiree, “Deep Throat” presented a ridiculous scenario in which a woman whose clitoris exists at the back of her throat finds fulfillment only through performing fellatio. While the male-centric flaw in this conceit is immediately identifiable as a misogynistic fantasy, the notion that a woman’s sense of pleasure even registers as something of importance ended up being a crucial factor in the reception of the movie – especially when it became the target of investigations by the federal government.

Bailey and Barbato rocket through dozens of incredible stock footage shots that give “Inside Deep Throat” a tremendous feel for the era, but the interviews they conduct with the central players in the “Deep Throat” saga are just as entertaining. Along with an oddball gallery of peripheral participants in the movie’s production, director Damiano and actor Harry Reems contribute fascinating anecdotes. “Deep Throat” star Linda Lovelace, who died from injuries sustained in a car accident in 2002, appears in numerous clips that trace her unsettling personal saga from her violent relationship with uber-creepy husband Chuck Traynor to her status as pop culture icon to her role as a symbol of the anti-porn crusade to her untimely death. Lovelace’s ghost haunts “Inside Deep Throat” to the same extent that Reems mind-boggling odyssey provides the film with its most literal depiction of the cycle of sin, punishment, and redemption.

In a series of Kafkaesque decisions that culminated in Reems’ unfathomable conviction, “Inside Deep Throat” recounts the actor’s unlikely trajectory from bit player to cause celebre. In one segment, we see Reems flanked by Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty, two of many celebrities who came to the beleaguered actor’s defense. Yet another clip shows Reems on television debating Roy Cohn, with Cohn shouting down Reems with fire and brimstone pronouncements about the workings of the Bill of Rights. American second and third acts are nothing if not strange: Reems is now a recovered substance abuser who sells real estate in Utah.

Many pundits have suggested that it was the government’s intense scrutiny of “Deep Throat” that generated undeserved interest in the movie, and Damiano cheerfully admits on camera that his most famous film is terrible. “Deep Throat” seemed to reach out across the 70s and beyond, and Bailey and Barbato do their best to figure out why the film transcended its status as public enemy number one during the Nixon years (that Nixon was brought down by an anonymous source called Deep Throat is a delicious irony not lost on the moviemakers). An impressive group of talking heads pops up throughout “Inside Deep Throat,” including John Waters, Camille Paglia, Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Hugh Hefner, Erica Jong, and Dick Cavett. No matter how witty and pithy, their recollections never fully account for the popularity of “Deep Throat,” which is undoubtedly part of the notorious movie’s mystique.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

Prolific legend Woody Allen has been fair game of late for releasing a string of films dismissed by critics and ignored by American audiences. Despite a few terrific features (“Deconstructing Harry” and “Sweet and Lowdown” jump to mind), none of Allen’s more recent films have compared to the career achievements of the 1970s and 1980s. Still, one admires Allen for cranking them out at the rate of nearly one per year, and “Melinda and Melinda” is a pleasant enough diversion that shows off a few of Allen’s skillful attributes: colorful casting, exquisite photography and production design, and an almost quaint, old fashioned sense of NYC romance.

Playing out a clever conceit in which two stories featuring the same central character are alternately presented as the faces of tragedy and comedy, “Melinda and Melinda” never ends up going far enough to show just how difficult it is to tell happy and sad apart from one another. It would certainly help if the tragic aspects were poignant and the comic aspects were hilarious, but as it is, “Melinda and Melinda” seems content to show off the considerable skill of Radha Mitchell in the titular role(s). The two-pronged narrative begins with a series of similarities that keeps the audience engaged trying to sort out just how much the stories will have in common (two dentists, two out-of-work actors, two magic lanterns, two dinner parties, etc.).

In both stories, Melinda is an emotional wreck who appears unannounced to insert herself in the lives of some of Allen’s favorite stock types: actors, musicians, and filmmakers. In the tragic thread, Melinda tracks down her old college friend Laurel (Chloe Sevigny), and Laurel’s alcoholic husband Lee (Jonny Lee Miller), convincing them to let her stay at their fabulously appointed apartment. In the comic narrative, Melinda lives in the same building as movie director Susan (Amanda Peet) and Susan’s neglected husband Hobie (Will Ferrell).

Allen makes sure that both Melindas inject plenty of conflict into the lives and marriages of her acquaintances, but the film includes far too few significant revelations or surprises to keep the audience interested beyond the level of curiosity generated by the unique parallelisms of the double story. As an actor, Allen’s own presence is missed, and Will Ferrell’s attempt to play the familiar Woody character meets with mixed results. Only the appearance of Chiwetel Ejiofor, as the elegantly named pianist Ellis Moonsong, injects the proceedings with some overdue sparkle.

The film is so mild mannered, it ends up being neither comedy nor tragedy, and too many of the supporting players are left with little to do. Like all of Allen’s movies, however, the music selections (encompassing the usual array of the director’s favorite pop and jazz standards) are top notch, and greatly contribute to Allen’s fantasy construction of Manhattan. “Melinda and Melinda” lacks the razor sharp bite of Allen’s best writing, and the rapid-fire wit is sorely missed. Allen has balanced the bittersweet happy/sad dynamic more effectively in films like “Annie Hall” and “Crimes and Misdemeanors” – and while those films are great, “Melinda and Melinda” ends up being for hardcore Allen fanatics only.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

A tour de force of hard-boiled crime fiction clichés and pulpy noir fever dreams, “Sin City” is the first exciting movie to be released in 2005. Tenaciously faithful to comic book deity Frank Miller’s popular series, “Sin City” boasts a volcanic ferocity that will quicken the pulse and tighten the pants of scores of drooling, perspiring, adolescent and post-adolescent fanboys. Helmed by Miller and Robert Rodriguez (with a well-tuned scene by special guest director Quentin Tarantino), “Sin City” succeeds almost solely on the slavishness of its adherence to Miller’s gloriously penciled and inked panels. Seldom has a movie recreated the particular experience of reading comic books.

Reconstructing four of Miller’s stories (only three of which get the full treatment), “Sin City” likes to find a single exposed nerve and poke it over and over. The major protagonists all seem to define themselves as protectors of women – despite the fact that some of the females in Sin City clearly don’t need protecting. Add to that creaky chivalric trope Miller’s never-ending castration and emasculation motif and you have a recipe that seems certain to part America’s teenagers from their allowances (assuming they can sneak past the decidedly R rating).

As usual, violence trumps sex as the socially acceptable graphic engine that drives our voyeuristic lust, and despite the parade of barely-clad hotties in impossibly skimpy bondage-wear, Miller and Rodriguez are much more comfortable when they can focus on the two-fisted sadism that chokes nearly every CGI frame of their visual experiment. The filmmakers revel in the various ways street justice is meted out: arrows thump through chests, necks are chomped, limbs are separated from bodies, heads are stomped into unrecognizable puddles of bone and brain, and so on. Male genitals suffer every indignity: kicked, stabbed, and shot off, nuts are the target du jour.

Despite the casting of a parade of A-list talent, it is the seemingly washed-up Mickey Rourke who delivers the movie’s only really great performance. As the relentless, unstable Marv, Rourke manages something none of his co-stars can muster: he brings his character to vivid, muscular life. Buried under a mask of prosthetics, Rourke infuses Marv with both the brutal despair of a condemned prisoner and the rabid dangerousness of a wounded predator. Cracking spines and crushing skulls like a supernatural killing machine, Rourke seems to have found the role of a lifetime.

While the other major stories deliver their fair share of gut-bucket mayhem, Rodriguez and Miller seem too preoccupied with the stylish production design to bother much with script mechanics. “Sin City,” heavily influenced by “Pulp Fiction,” fails to intertwine its narrative threads as deftly as Tarantino did in his landmark film. One could argue that “Sin City” is meant to play like the comic book all the way down to its episodic structure, but great cinema has its own set of demands. At more than two hours, the movie version nearly wears out its welcome, and it is in large measure due to the lumbering, one-thing-at-a-time approach to the material. Even so, the movie’s eye-popping visuals nearly make up for its deficiencies, and “Sin City” already looks like a cult destination.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

Based on the 1945 film “La Cage aux Rossignols,” Christophe Barratier’s “Les Choristes” (translated stateside as “The Chorus”) evokes plenty of other movies, from “Zero for Conduct” to “Mr. Holland’s Opus.” Told in flashback, the story transports the viewers to Fond de l’Etang, a strict boarding school for young boys of the deeply troubled and often orphaned variety. A single, middle-aged teacher named Clement Mathieu (Gerard Jugnot) takes a job at the grim institution, where he is immediately shocked by the deplorable, heavy-handed approach of the vile headmaster.

Mathieu talks his boss into letting him start up a choir, and before you can warble “Kyrie Eleison,” the discipline-challenged moppets are singing together in perfect harmony. Among the youth gone wild is Pierre (Jean-Baptiste Maunier), a sullen pretty boy with a huge chip on his shoulder. Pierre’s mother (Marie Bunel) is attractive and single, and the boy must endure the kinds of comments one would expect from the coarse inhabitants of his dormitory. Primarily to alleviate concerns that Mathieu might have an unwholesome interest in his charges, the script finds time for the teacher to pine away for Pierre’s mom. Fortunately, Jugnot’s fine performance tempers some of the obviousness of this plot device.

“Les Choristes” quietly sidesteps the issue of pedophilia (it is brought up, and then immediately dismissed), but the movie might have been stronger had Barratier and his co-screenwriter Phillipe Lopes-Curval chosen to explore it. As it is, “Les Choristes” often strains to fill time, and resorts to a half-baked subplot concerning the arrival of a thuggish bully who threatens the other boys and indirectly places the future of the choir in jeopardy. An arresting scene in which the young tough is brutally punished by the cruel headmaster, however, hints at the frustration supported by the theory that corporal discipline merely breeds violence.

“Les Choristes,” like “Dead Poets Society,” puts its faith in the idea that one great teacher can inspire creativity, gratitude, and a love of learning in the hardest-hearted would-be scholars. Like the long parade of films in the tradition of super-educators, “Les Choristes” adheres closely to the formulaic elements that are demanded: battles with administrators (here thinly veiled as a symbol of fascism versus democracy), a moment of near hopelessness, and the obligatory triumphant performance or demonstration of skill learned at the feet of the doting professor. None of the clichés are over the top, but missing are the unique and distinguishing details that would elevate the film to a higher rank.

A smash hit in France, “Les Choristes” dispatches its tale with enough warmth and charm to please most audience members. It doesn’t hurt that the singing is provided by a stunning choir, the Petits Chanteurs de Saint Marc, or that director Barratier applies the tunes early and often. Enjoyment of the movie will depend to a large extent on how much one cares for old-fashioned yarns in the tradition of “Goodbye, Mr. Chips.” In addition to the music, the solid production values (particularly the gloomy, dank keep where the action is set) help to make the film easy to watch, even when it practically insists on tearful sentimentality.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

Over the closing credits of “Bride and Prejudice,” a quick cameo featuring movie mogul-bulldog Harvey Weinstein reminds viewers that when it comes to filmmaking, it’s all about the Benjamins – which means that quality more than occasionally takes a back seat to the sheer force of marketing a seemingly good idea. A Bollywood-style re-imagining of “Pride and Prejudice” looks great on paper, but the execution of Gurinder Chadha’s follow-up to her winning “Bend It Like Beckham” never gets a shot on goal. Coarse, simple-minded, and nearly dead on arrival, “Bride and Prejudice” is a major step backward for its director.

Trying much too hard to be up-to-the-minute and old fashioned at the same time, “Bride and Prejudice” brings the rudiments of Jane Austen’s classic story to India, where Lalita Bakshi (gorgeous star Aishwarya Rai) contends with the “marriage fever” that seems to have gripped everyone around her. Along with her three eligible sisters, Lalita faces daily pressure from her strident mother to find the right match, but the young woman knows in her heart that she must buck custom and find love before consenting to marry anyone. At – where else? – a colorful wedding dance, Lalita meets Amerian hotel tycoon Will Darcy (Martin Henderson) and the opposites immediately attract, even though the road to their eventual coupling proves rocky.

Henderson, unfortunately, cannot negotiate the subtleties required to play his part, and the blandly handsome performer fails to ignite any sparks with his lovely co-star. It doesn’t help that the movie strictly adheres to the chaste Bollywood rule that eschews onscreen passion – even one forbidden kiss on the mouth might have given the story just the jolt it needed. Lalita and Will bicker foolishly over high-minded idealism (she chastises him for wanting to spoil her beloved India with a tourist hotel, even as Chadha’s overuse of aerial establishing shots plays like a travel video).

The dialogue is embarrassingly awful throughout, and even the usually unsinkable musical numbers pop up awkwardly, with seemingly little thought given to their placement in the film. At one point, a trip to the beaches of Goa promises an exotic change of pace (Lalita’s mother even clucks that it will provide an opportunity to break out the swimming suits), but Chadha keeps her performers covered up, instead directing our attention to an almost surreal spectacle featuring American R&B princess Ashanti.

The misunderstandings that pepper the skeletal plot seem more at home in a lame sit-com, and too many of the weak machinations could have been solved with a simple dose of candid truth rather than the forced concealments that ridiculously lead to near-panic (Lalita’s little sister takes up with a rival of Will’s who turns out – to nobody’s surprise – to be a dastardly cad). “Bride and Prejudice” shifts its action to London and Beverly Hills, but the geographic eye-candy remains as underutilized as Rai. Rai is already a big star in her native country, and given the right role, her charisma might allow her to make a mark on American cinema as well. Unfortunately, “Bride and Prejudice” is not the film that will do it.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

“Robots” is the follow-up to Blue Sky’s “Ice Age,” and it certainly trumps its predecessor in the visuals department. Story is another matter, however, and in that regard, the crew at rival Pixar can breathe a sigh of relief. 3D animation doesn’t necessarily need to be a contest, but the uniqueness of the emerging art form, along with the ever-growing collection of titles, virtually guarantees that wags and fans alike will compare notes with each new movie release. Directors Chris Wedge and Carlos Saldanha certainly must be commended for their eye-popping attention to detail and design, but when the end credits roll, one wishes the overall experience of the movie had resembled kindly protagonist Rodney more than heartless bad guy Ratchet.

Bashing audiences over the head with a handful of simple moral recipes about the need to accept yourself for who you are, “Robots” follows the adventures of Rodney Copperbottom (Ewan McGregor), a would-be inventor eager to peddle his clever creation (a spinning, flying, hyperkinetic coffeepot) to a huge corporation in the bustling metropolis of Robot City. Hooking up with a fast-talking sidekick named Fender (Robin Williams, “turning it on” for the umpteenth time), Rodney discovers that his famous hero Bigweld (Mel Brooks) might be in danger. In “Robots” everything and everyone is a machine, which makes it a trifle odd that Rodney is essentially a robot who builds another robot, but logic is not a priority in a Rube Goldberg-esque place where inhabitants think in terms of mileage as opposed to age.

Drawing much of its inspired look from the sleek vibe of 1950s, “Atomic Age” American industrial style, “Robots” clears another hurdle in the evolution of computer-generated imagery; the texture of metal – which comprises basically every object in the film – is truly wondrous to behold. The character animation (which still owes a debt to incomparable pioneers like Walt Disney and Max Fleischer) is outstanding as well, and adults will enjoy themselves spotting all kinds of familiar objects that have been incorporated into the robots’ world. The primary cast is voiced by all sorts of recognizable talent, including Halle Berry, Greg Kinnear, Amanda Bynes, Jennifer Coolidge, and Drew Carey. Many other thesps (including Paul Giamatti in a giddy, bang-up role that is one of several of the film’s “Wizard of Oz” references) pop up in cameo spots and smaller parts.

Too much of “Robots” stoops to Britney Spears references and bodily function jokes instead of reaching for more sophistication and subtlety. Kids in the audience go nuts for the scatological humor, but the movie depends far too much on the easy and familiar. Particularly vexing are the depictions of Kinnear’s Ratchet and Jim Broadbent’s Madame Gasket. Stock villains, they are too boring to ignite the imagination. Ironically, “Robots” builds itself into the smooth corporate machinery it professes to deny. Gorgeous animation aside, the film would have better served its audience had the dark vision of obsolescence at its core been handled with a lighter touch. For many of the grown-ups, “Robots” works as a parable of Boomer angst (wouldn’t it be nice to keep rebuilding ourselves with replacement parts and shiny upgrades?), but its sentimentality will be recognizable to even the youngest viewers.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

“Be Cool” took plenty of time making it to the theatres (co-star Robert Pastorelli died just a few days short of one year prior to the movie’s eventual release) and the wait was decidedly not worth it. Sure to be one of the worst movies of 2005, “Be Cool” is empty-headed and dull – the exact opposite qualities one might expect from Elmore Leonard. The sequel to “Get Shorty,” which appeared as a reasonably entertaining Barry Sonnenfeld movie in 1995, “Be Cool” sees John Travolta return as unflappable “shylock” Chili Palmer, an ambitious thug whose clever street smarts translate easily into Hollywood success.

Director F. Gary Gray (who scored with his remake of “The Italian Job”) blows it this time, failing repeatedly to find any sense of Leonard’s original material. Equal blame goes to screenwriter Peter Steinfeld, whose totally unsavory adaptation cranks up the unfunny stereotypes to a strident pitch in scene after interminable scene. Even Travolta, who generally coasts by on his self-aware charm, perpetually looks like he is only thinking about how much money he earned for signing on to this mess. “Be Cool” also breaks a sweat trying to cram in too many characters, and familiar faces who might otherwise shine in supporting roles end up looking embarrassed and/or confused.

Having established himself as a major movie producer, Palmer decides to try out the music business following the murder of record producer Tommy Athens (James Woods in a mercifully brief cameo appearance). Immediately stepping on the toes of several tough, rival factions, Palmer essentially hijacks the contract of R&B cutie Linda Moon (Christina Milian, nowhere near as believable an actress as she is in her music videos), which garners the negative attention of a ruthless hip-hop producer (Cedric the Entertainer, not terribly entertaining) and Moon’s current boss (a totally blank Harvey Keitel).

Palmer hooks up with Tommy’s widow Edie (Uma Thurman), and they set out to promote Linda while steering clear of the cartoonish baddies looking for a piece of the action. “Be Cool” has so many scenes in which houses are broken and entered in the middle of the night, you would almost think that security systems had never been invented. When guns are not being pointed (which is unfortunately rare), Palmer and Edie squeeze in a Black Eyed Peas show (!) and lamely attempt to remind the audience of “Pulp Fiction,” which turns out to be a really bad idea. An even worse idea is the inclusion of Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler, who belts out a terrible duet on “Cryin’” with Milian in a scene that violates the film’s title beyond the point of repair.

Not even the exuberance of OutKast’s Andre 3000, as a member of Cedric’s posse, and the Rock, as a gay, slightly dim bodyguard, can reclaim any of Leonard’s magic. Vince Vaughn is a drag as a wannabe pimp, and the air goes out of the movie every time he shows up on screen. Vaughn is usually able to make underwritten roles like this one work to his advantage, but the script leaves him high and dry. The rest of “Be Cool” limps along with no sense of pacing and wretched comic timing. It’s a painful muddle, and should be avoided.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

While director Pedro Almodovar chooses immediately to musically invoke Hitchcock’s “Psycho” during his opening credit sequence (a Saul Bass-esque cut-and-paste doozy of reds, blacks, and whites), the movie that ends up being re-imagined more thoroughly throughout the great Spanish director’s “Bad Education” is “Vertigo.” Continuing his evolution into one of cinema’s most consistently valuable filmmakers, Almodovar also nods in the direction of other key touchstones (one sequence in a movie theatre cleverly utilizes a scene of the gorgeous Sara Montiel in “Esa Mujer”). While not as profound as “Talk to Her,” “Bad Education” offers Almodovar fans a fix of cross-dressers, blackmailers, and pedophile priests, brewing it up into a heady concoction that deftly exploits the film-within-a-film device.

Tripping through several periods between the mid 60s and early 80s, “Bad Education” sweetens the film noir pot with an Almodovarian spin on the femme fatale: Ignacio, a pre-operative transsexual at the heart of the movie’s mischief, does the honors. Played (ala Bunuel) at various times and guises in the movie by Gael Garcia Bernal, Ignacio Perez, and Francisco Boira, Igancio is as chameleon-like as Barbara Stanwyck in “Double Indemnity,” another film noir Almodovar directly references. To make matters even trickier, Almodovar not only shows us several phases and faces of Igancio, he also presents Garcia Bernal with the additional challenge of assuming multiple roles.

Keeping everything sorted out is purposefully difficult at times, but Almodovar expertly juggles the interlocking storylines, leading up to a surprising conclusion that challenges our notions of what has come before. Like a ghost from the past, Ignacio first appears at the offices of Enrique (Fele Martinez), a successful filmmaker who was once Igancio’s closest boyhood schoolmate. The two have not seen each other for more than a decade, but Enrique agrees to read Igancio’s screenplay (titled “The Visit”). Diving into the script, Enrique’s imagination brings Igancio’s characters to life, and Almodovar delights in confusing the audience by allowing certain actors to appear in both the imagined version and in the “real” movie that Enrique ends up directing.

Almodovar chooses to withhold his judgments about various characters, which makes Igancio’s childhood abuser Father Manolo difficult to pin down. The Catholic school flashbacks are memorable both for young Ignacio’s beautiful soprano singing and for Almodovar’s masterful handling of innocence lost, but Manolo never becomes a full-fledged presence until we discover what part he plays in Igancio’s life years later. Almodovar’s reluctance to moralize, however, arguably lets people off the hook who should be held responsible for their actions.

Like the great noir pictures of the classic period, “Bad Education” regularly presents things that are not what they seem to be, and one’s enjoyment of the movie will depend upon the acceptance of Almodovar’s winks and nudges. Garcia Bernal is magnetic in and out of drag, though, and many fans of his work will happily overlook the director’s games in order to catch a glimpse of him in various states of undress. With its bold colors and impeccable design, Almodovar’s universe is almost always a vivid, hyperactive place to visit no matter where the story leads. “Bad Education” might not rank with Almodovar’s finest work, but for anyone fond of twists and turns, it is not a bad way to spend an evening.