I seem to be doing a lot of film reviews lately -- I suppose it's just my reaction to the repellent crap Tinseltown continues to churn out. Today's train wreck is "Far From Heaven" (2002) with Julianne Moore, Dennis Quaid, and Dennis Haysbert.

This film could have been great... the subject matter was definitely worth exploring and the cinematography was luxuriant; however, the script was appalling.

The characters were so uni-dimensional (aside from the immediately obvious duality inherent in Quaid's role - there was no surprise there whatsoever) and so ridiculously earnest that I found myself throwing up into my mouth a little at times. I'll give the actors their due, they did the best they could with this printed abomination -- but you simply can't polish a turd.

The music was so over-the-top that at least it was an interesting counterpoint to the lack of any real drama being delivered by the screenplay.

I simply can't believe this was nominated for 4 Academy Awards. I think that fact has more to do with the American attempt at exorcising its twin demons of intolerance and racism than with any outstanding cinematic merit.

If you like real characters instead of cardboard cutouts, give this one a pass.

It must have indeed been a very slow year in film for this garbage to have been awarded 4 Oscars. The music is horrific, the cinematography is appalling, there is no character development whatsoever, and every character is a one-dimensional caricature.

Though I understand this is supposed to be a satire/farce, it's like they hired Benny Hill as director, gave him a big budget, and then told him to be as un-funny as possible.

The film's only redeeming qualities are the hunt scene which is exceptionally well done for the time and exhibits the true brutality of the 'sport', the dinner scene, which was a bit of a breakthrough for the time, but frankly made me want to vomit, and the unvarnished portrayal of the well-to-do of the time.

I wouldn't recommend viewing this picture with any expectation of entertainment -- it's merely a film history curiosity.

I don't normally comment on the latest cinematic abominations which issue like a foul fume, borne aloft on the santa anas from LA; however, last night's video offering has me wondering about the future of the planet -- which would make sense, given it was entitled "The Day the Earth Stood Still".

No, this wasn't the 1951 classic, but the 2008 remake... well not so much remake, as brutal cinecide. While the original did make you ponder the fate of mankind, the remake merely forced consideration of the consequences inherent in throwing heavy objects at the screen.

Now don't get me wrong; it wasn't all bad. The first 1/2 hour was actually bordering on great -- full of tension and excellent pacing. The special effects, while not jaw-dropping, were decent, and what you'd expect from a film with a budget of $80M.

The protagonist, Jennifer Connelly, does a decent job acting opposite Keanu Reeves, who is actually perfectly cast in this role as the dead-pan alien -- essentially he just plays himself. John Cleese makes a 4 minute performance in what is one of the best scenes in the movie... and of course is not heard from again. Kathy Bates does what she can in the role of Secretary of Defense, and turns in a competent performance; however, for this gig she seems badly miscast.

The problem really begins when they introduce Jaden Smith (Will Smith's son), who plays Connelly's child by way of unfortunate circumstance, in that her former boyfriend (the kid's father) bit the dust in Iraq. Within minutes of his appearance, I was wishing I had met the same fate.

** Note: some spoilers beyond this point **

This kid comes off as the consummate brat: calling his mom by her first name, espousing bellicose, right-wing points of view, calling the FBI on the alien (of course causing the deaths of millions due to the resultant delay in Klaatu's change of heart -- for which, the little delinquent doesn't get so much as a time-out), and just being generally mouthy and disobedient.

It's hardly surprising that I soon found myself rooting for GORT (the iconic automaton which seems one of the few carry-overs from the original), and hoping he'd lay a serious smack-down on Jaden's character -- toute de suite.

The thing is, the part doesn't seem to be written as a brat per se, but more an attempt at accurately portraying American youth. Coincidentally, the exact same youthful characteristics are abundantly evident in another alien invasion film remake: 2005's War of the Worlds. I found myself wanting to scour my retinas with a Brillo pad after having watched the obnoxious twin performances of Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin, who play the kids depicted in that film.

So what's the deal with childern in movies these days? I have to say that there are few occasions of late wherein I have found any kind of connection with these kids on an emotional level, beyond thinking they need a good spanking. Are all these screen-brats really representative of the generation to next inherit stewardship of the planet -- and incidentally those who decide when my own plug needs to be pulled? Apparently so.

However, since the emergence of the human race, I'm certain parents have been complaining about 'kids today'... so I'll simply say "Get the hell off my lawn!", and return to the movie review.

After the initial 1/2 hour, the plot devolves into plain silliness. Despite Klaatu and his big buddy GORT being shot, bombed, drilled, kidnapped, tortured, interrogated, burned, and relentlessly pursued by rabid morons, the alien decides to give the human race another chance because some pseudo-mom exhibits affection for her kid -- yes, the one who ratted him out to the FBI (and incidentally also called for his death) -- as the world is seemingly coming to an end.

Well, apparently Klaatu's ridiculously low standards for forgiveness are what FOX is hoping for from its audience as this incredibly lame remake comes to a close. The alien sacrifices himself to spare a humanity which has treated his pleas for dialogue with contempt, and at every turn endeavoured to exterminate him.

Beyond this, there are the oh-so-subtle references to the evils of Bush era politics and the virtues of the green movement peppered throughout -- completely ineffectually. If I had wanted to watch An Inconvenient Truth, I would have rented that instead. **

So, in summation, if you want to see a brilliant work of science fiction, rent the original 1951 classic, and stay well clear of this celluloid turd.

** In fact, I own it... so the inconvenient truth in this case is that I actually wouldn't.

Normally, when I see a 1-800 or similar number pop-up on my call display, I let the machine get it. Nine times out of ten, it's a telemarketer; and I don't have time to waste with them. If they think it's important, they'll leave a message and then I can decide if that's the case and act accordingly.

Lately I have been getting calls from toll free numbers at 8am... no message. This had been going on for a few days before I had simply had enough and called them. I wanted to see what was so urgent they felt they needed to wake me up, but not important enough to leave a message explaining why they had done so.

Turns out it was Fido (aka Rogers wireless). They were calling about a $200.00 overdue bill! Now, I pay my bills on-time and my cellular use is such that I never go over 200 monthly minutes -- and my data use is minimal. Usually my bill is around $70.00. Apparently, I was now being billed for roaming charges incurred months ago during a trip to Mexico.

Ok, I received a couple of short incoming calls while travelling -- but surely not an extra $130 worth?! When enquiring as to how the bill had gotten so hight, I was informed that the per-minute roaming charge while in Mexico is $3.50!! Not only that, but per-second billing doesn't apply. So if you receive a call, inform the caller you are in Mexico and will return their call when you get back -- all of 5 seconds worth of air time -- DING! $3.50.

This is gouging extraordinaire.

My dealings with Fido began a few years ago, after having become frustrated with both Bell's and Rogers' respective cell plans. Fido was offering a pre-paid, $30 for 200 minute plan which you could stretch over two months. Sounded good to me; and indeed it was. Most of the time I made it the entire two months without expending my minutes. $15 bucks a month!

The party ended when I found myself having to travel frequently to Los Angeles for work. Pre-paid users of Fido's services were unable to roam to other countries and still use their phones. So, I gave in and signed a contract. My bills instantly shot from $15 a month to nearly $100... with no change in my usage (beyond the LA minutes I have excluded from this sum). I changed plans and got this to around $70 -- still a far cry from $15, but definitely better.

Fast-forward a couple of years and Rogers has purchased Fido, which is now their 'low-cost' carrier. Fantastic. So now, after running away from Rogers to an alternative, I find myself back with them, and branded as one of their telephony welfare customers. Of course, the customer service reps treat me as such.

Canada needs more competition in the cellular market to be certain. Here's hoping the recent allocation of new spectrum to western competitors will help in this regard... but I won't be holding my breath.