"Fargo" Not That Far From the Truth...

...Or is it? I recently had the opportunity to watch a movie that many people have always recommended to me. The thing I noticed in the first few seconds of the film? The words on the screen:

Based on a true story.

You may say, 'So what?' It's a true story, so it should be even more intriguing to the viewers who will sit through 2-hours of a real-life account. It's no fabricated fairy tale of a story from the imaginations of the screenwriters, the directors, the actors who add their own quirkiness to a character role. It's based on real people with real experiences, real emotions, real actions that had real consequences.

Except there is one thing the Coen brothers (who directed the film) forgot to mention. It's actually not a true story. Not even close. But hey, they thought they'd throw that phrase in there for the fun of it.

Beside the fact that the story starts off misleading, it's actually a good movie. The plot focuses on two men hired by a husband to kidnap his wife for a ransom. The kidnapping leads to a series of other murders, which are investigated by a pregnant police chief (played by Frances McDormand -- who later went on to win an Academy Award for Best Actress for the role).

Perhaps one of the most notable features of the film has to be the speech of the characters. As the story is based in North Dakota and Minnesota, it is fairly shocking for an outsider to hear the native regional accent chock-full of the use of "yah" and "you betcha," accompanied with emphatic head-nodding. It definitely adds another element to the movie, making it almost inappropriate to laugh at their lingo when characters are on-screen discussing a gruesome murder scene.

Overall, though, a recommended movie.

So what do you think? Does it bother you if they claim it's a true story, when it isn't? Or is it just a tactic of Hollywood cinema to amp up the buzz about a film?

Sisters of Another Time: The Boleyn Girls

For some reason, I'm a huge fan of historical films. "Patriot"; "Gladiator"; "Braveheart" and "Pride & Prejudice" all rank among movies that I can watch over and over again and never get bored.

I will say that I was a bit 'prejudiced' before viewing "The Other Boleyn Girl," though. I thought it would mock other similar historical films by creating this fluff of a story that relied on the appeal of Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman to capture audiences. I was proven wrong.

The film, also starring Eric Bana (you may remember him from "Troy") as King Henry VIII, focuses on the lives of the two Boleyn sisters: Anne played by Portman, Mary played by Johansson. They both contend for the king's affection, eventually displacing his then-queen, Catherine of Aragon.

Anne and Mary have different approaches to their relationship with the king, and glaringly opposite motives. Power, jealousy and revenge are a common thread throughout the plot, however.

If you're not aware of the historical story of the Boleyn girls, most notably for how the affair turns out, then I won't ruin it for you. I thought the acting was believable and I enjoyed watching the movie. It's worth renting if you're in the mood for a story of love, betrayal, vengeance, and the quest for ultimate control.

Lucasfilm gets writer to yank negative review

Movie reviews are meant to inform others about the content in a film, the general plot, and whether or not you would recommend it. Taste in movies is a very personal matter; much like your taste in music.

Apparently one movie reviewer found "Star Wars: The Clone Wars," released mid-August, to be bad. No, not just bad. Horrible. Dreadful. Appalling. Worthy of such harsh criticism that he needed to write just exactly how he felt about the thing.

While I would consider his review to in fact be mildly offensive to those involved in its creation, in reality, it's still just one person's opinion. Sure, his opinion may matter to some people and in turn discourage them from wanting to see the film. But does this warrant demanding he remove his over-the-top "this is a horrible movie" review? I think not.

The controversy lies in how "Knowles, the founder of fan-driven movie site Ain't It Cool News, published this unabashedly negative review ("hated the score, the animation, the shots, the characters and most of all the retarded ******** idiot story") of the animated film "Star Wars: The Clone Wars." After viewing the movie, Knowles's post was unpublished.

Hollywood Newsroom cited an Ain't It Cool regular who claimed Lucasfilm got Knowles to yank the review — most likely by threatening to bar him from all future advance viewings."

The review, in its entirety, can be viewed online. What do you think? Should a film production company allow a movie critic an advance screening only on condition that they have the authority to censor his review if necessary?

Voice of "In a world where...."

I read that Don LaFontaine, the famous voice of movie trailers, died on September 1st from "complications in the treatment of an ongoing illness."

The 68-year-old distinctive voiceover master was widely recognized for recording more than 5,000 movie trailers.

According to a Daily Herald interview last year, Don said:

"We have to very rapidly establish the world we are transporting [the viewers] to. That's very easily done by saying, 'In a world where ... violence rules.' 'In a world where ... men are slaves and women are the conquerors.' You very rapidly set the scene."

He was said to have not expected or desired fame. Known not for his face nor name, atypical of such a huge Hollywood persona, LaFontaine will go down in history for that historic voice we'll never forget.

You Tube video.