Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.

It sounds like Toronto is in full-swing at this point, and I wish I were there. I'm seeing a lot of the major Toronto titles here in LA right now, but that's just part of the fun of being at a festival. I'm glad we've got Copernicus up there, though... I always look forward to this time of year knowing we'll hear plenty from him and from Anton Sirius.

I'm seeing this one on Monday. Am I excited? Well, after reading this review...

Attention studio executives. I recommend asking the question "Has Tarantino Already Done This?" before greenlighting a picture. Because if the answer is "yes," stay away -- you won't be able to beat him.

The latest example of this is Neil Jordan's chick revenge flick, THE BRAVE ONE. Read Anton Sirius' review for a synopsis, but the basic idea is that Jodie Foster is beaten and her husband is killed by some thugs, but she becomes revenge lady and starts kicking ass all over the city. Meanwhile Terrence Howard is trying to get into her pants, and holy coincidence Batman!, the resident of those pants just happens to be the perpetrator of all those crimes he's investigating.

I disagree with Anton Sirius' -- I think you can make a well-written so-called "B-movie." Take ALLIGATOR, for example. Sure it is a JAWS rip-off, but the script, co-written by John Sayles, may not be CITIZEN KANE, but it is very good -- much better than it has any right to be. What I mean is that you can have a serious side, real characters, symbolism, etc., in movies that are primarily about racking up a body count. Maybe the problem with THE BRAVE ONE is that Neil Jordan doesn't think he's making that kind of movie, but Anton wishes he were. At any rate, fundamentally a do agree with Anton that THE BRAVE ONE is a failure, because it alternates too jarringly between serious and absurd. It almost worked for me though.

Here are 4 examples of various reactions to the film at the screening I attended. One critic liked it, period. The rest of us only disagreed on the exact moment it jumped the shark. Anton thought it lost its way pretty early. Another reviewer from CHUD also told me he out and out hated it, and what really made him lose it was a scene where a pimp runs down a whore with a car. He actually laughed out loud, which I assure you was not the director's intention. (This is my point about Tarantino -- he would have reversed that scene, and had the whore run down the pimp, and totally played it for laughs). Anyway, I stayed with the film the longest, because it does have some really great things going for it. But in the end the ending, which seemed totally tacked on as the result of a test-screening reaction, made me re-evaluate.

And I am wondering -- was there a part in the script where it says: "insert over-the-top maudlin moment here?" And the director said, hmmm... Bette Midler and Celine Dion songs cost too much, how about Sara McLaughlin? Can we just have a complete moratorium on Sara McLaughlin songs in all media? I understand if you like the songs, but when paired with visuals, they always turn montages or reflective moments into a mawkish, syrupy mess.

There are good things, though. Nicky Katt is great as Terrence Howard's partner. Every time he opens his mouth he has a great one-liner. His scenes were written and his delivery just kills. It is almost worth subjecting yourself to the rest of the movie just to see him. And Neil Jordan does do plenty right as a director – he knows how to rachet up the tension, how to build a character, and how to shoot scenes well. He knows how to use symbolism, whether it is apple before the fall, or the semi-infinite number of scenes occurring in tunnels. And Jodie Foster does fine work, even if it is hard to see her as anyone other than Jodie Foster. And I am a sucker for Terrence Howard, even if his role is very one-dimensional here. So my recommendation: rent this on DVD, mainly to see Nicky Katt, plug your ears during the songs, and watch the alternate ending if there is one.