Frédérik Sisa

“Don’t Let Sacramento Politicians Remove Products From Your Grocery Bag,” says a flyer I received in the mail. Apparently, Sacramento wants to ban something called BPA, a material used in plastic food packaging and other plastic products. And that would be bad. But here’s a suspicious statement: “Banning Materials That Keep Our Food Fresh And Safe Is A Terrible Idea.” What a strange thing to write. Why would Sacramento want to ban something that keeps our food fresh and safe? Maybe it’s a “liberal” thing – because, don’t you know, a ban a day keeps liberal displeasure at bay. No reason necessary, right? Forget about it; there has to be some justification for proposing a ban, and there is: BPA allegedly poses a health hazard.

The bane of a film critic’s work is the middle of the road movie. Not bad, not great; good in a “it’s nice, but…” kind of way. And in the ellipsis is the struggle to find some egregious flaw or outstanding quality around which to write a review. Something. Anything. On the upside, “Only For You” can boast of emotional authenticity. Writer/director Donna Persico keeps it real and away from melodramatic contrivances, even if the obligatory romantic obstacles are all but air-lifted into the plot at just the right time. With scenarios drawn from the universal human experience, we have a case of boy and girl meet, boy and girl fall in love, boy and girl are kept apart by circumstance and self-inflicted indecision.

While the kids are fighting over who is king of the sandbox, the economy burns. And the games number-shufflers play to find new ways of pulling money out the air (and other places) are only part of the problem; the rest might very well lie with the field of economics itself.

Despite its undeniable status as a cultural icon and avatar of the ‘90s uneasy zeitgeist, “The X-Files” always struck me more for its nudity – as in, the emperor’s nudity – than for its rating as a speculative sci-fi heavyweight. Pairing a skeptic and a believer in the investigation of so-called paranormal events was an excellent formula, but the show’s insistent and self-indulgent mystery-mongering, while forming the backbone of the show’s complexity, reeked of intellectual dishonesty. Science was pitted against faith in the ideological opposition of Scully and Mulder, with the scientific method little more than a space cadet cast helplessly adrift in the vast space that is the desire, the need, to believe.

Some people say it’s the economy, stupid. I think it’s the stupid economy and that there’s nothing surprising about not understanding what’s going on. How can we, when we even the eminence grises in the ivory tower have to resort to seemingly magical actions like adjusting interest rates in the hope of influencing the economy’s health? Adjusting interest rates? It seems like there’s this whole other parallel world of economics. A world in which interest rates set by the Federal Reserve affect how money is loaned and borrowed. A world in which arcane economic/legal constructs founded on other such constructs allow for “creative” ways to make money.

Russian director Timur Bekmambetov made a decisive impression with fantasy films “Night Watch” and “Day Watch.” His compositionally sophisticated and distinctive vision of a gritty Moscow overlaying an omnipresent occult world showcased a noteworthy FX-driven panache, and it’s no surprise Hollywood took notice. Though fresh on the scene, he already ranks up there with Del Toro and the Wachowskis as a director able to push cinematic technology to the edge. But like the Wachowskis, who hit it big with “The Matrix” but went downhill from there, his films after “Night Watch” (yes, including “Day Watch”) demonstrate an instinct for quality storytelling that is as questionable as his eye for cinematic wizardry is strong. Quite simply, Bekmambetov provides the distinction between stylish trash and mere trash.

“The Dark Knight” comes with very bright and shiny hype. Talk of a golden statue for Heath Ledger’s brilliant turn as the Joker. Stunts to drop jaws and pop eyes – and equally awe-inspiring gadgets. Hallelujahs for Chris Nolan’s success at not only resurrecting Batman from the ashes of the Schumacher inferno, but achieving the feat of crafting a film rooted in comic books that can be called great without the usual “comic book” qualifier. The hype, for once, is mostly warranted.

Don’t do it. Seriously. Don’t do it. Just. Don’t. Do. It. Don’t even think about doing it. It’s all in your head, don’t you know. So don’t. Okay? Just don’t. Don’t whine. Don’t complain. It’s a mental recession, see? Get it? You’re mind is receding. So stop whining and go spend the money you don’t have on things that are too expensive – like food or gas. And if you can’t, well, stop whining anyway. You’re liable to upset McCain’s top economic policy advisor, Phil Gramm. He thinks the U.S. is already too much of a whining nation. http://www.washtimes.com/news

I’ve always been puzzled by descriptions of Guillermo Del Toro’s breakout hit, “Pan’s Labyrinth,” as a fantasy movie. Despite questionable metaphysics and short-lived glimpses into a world of fauns, fairies, and “Silent Hill”-type monsters, the film is, at heart, a fairly straightforward wartime drama. But there’s no questioning the fantasy pedigree of “Hellboy II.” Epic machinery and a formidable menagerie of imaginary creatures – from humanoids with architecture growing from their heads to stone giants that double as the secret entrance to long-lost cities – makes “Hellboy II” the dizzying phantasmagoria people believed “Pan’s Labyrinth” to be. Think of the cantina scene from Star Wars, filtered and magnified through Del Toro’s own unique imagination.

The field’s already a tad crowded with commentaries on the peculiar nature of office life and its inhabitants, homo cubicularis. We’ve seen the absurd, the soul-crushing, the banal, the political, the bureaucratic, the conformist, the rebellious – all expertly skewered by the likes of the venerable “Office Space” and “The Office.” Enter “Cubes,” a film that starts out hinting at a limp retread of familiar terrain only to deliver a surprisingly attentive character piece. Structured as a series of interlocking, vignetted conversations between character pairs, this isn’t a film about the office drone’s relationship to the corporate environment, but about the relationship between workers in the context of corporate culture. “Cubes” looks beyond cubicle partitions to the barriers created by assumptions and expectations – and what happens when these break down.