As I sat squirming in my seat looking at my watch for over an hour and a half, waiting for SOMETHING to happen, I had a flashback to my experimental film class back at Ithaca College. I remember a film that was just over an hour of a camera tumbling down the side of a mountain. I found myself wrestling with the question: Is Gerry art or entertainment? And do I love it or hate it?

The truth is, now several days after watching the film, I find it hard to definitively love or hate Gerry. The film is sort of an enigma, one that really requires a second viewing, yet was so 'difficult' to sit through the first time around that it hard to imagine watching it again.

One of the most frustrating things about Gerry is that there are some simply amazing moments in the film, but they are surrounded by such emptiness, such tediousness that it's hard to enjoy the film as a whole.

Based entirely around two characters, Gerry follows two guys (both named Gerry) as they get lost in the desert. Much of the film simply follows them as they are lost showing brilliant (even awe inspiring) desolate vistas, and not much else. In the 103 mins of the film the two Gerrys talk to each other only a handful of times, and each time the dialogue is as sparse as the desert. Both stars Matt Damon and Casey Affleck are given writing credits on the film along with Gus Van Sant, but the truth is the entire dialogue of the film could easily been written on the back of a napkin. It's that sparse.

What dialogue there is, is very entertaining. It's often fairly random and feels extremely improvisational, and I kept wanting to hear more of it. Is that Gus Van Sant's clever hand or just a great lack of dialogue? I have no idea!

If you can get past the extreme vast emptiness of Gerry and are willing to squirm in your seat for over an hour, there really is something extraordinary here. It's not often that 'successful' or 'big name' actors and directors take such huge risks with a film, and Gerry is a risk that is sure to challenge you in a way no other films do.

Because Gerry is anything but 'main stream,' it's unlikely that it will get very broad distribution. I was able to see the film as part of the Portland International Film Festival, and I'm sure in the near term the festival circuit will be the only place to see this film. But I do hope it finds its way onto DVD. I'd love to have a commentary track not only from the makers of the film but art/cinema critics giving their take on this truly unique film.

When I left the theater I was sure I was going to give Gerry a SKIP IT recommendation, but after letting it 'cook' in my head for a while and really mulling over it, I'm going to RECOMMEND it with the caviate that you need to know what you're signing yourself up for when you go see this movie. Gerry is the perfect movie to go to with a group of friends and then grab a cup of coffee (or other adult beverage) and discuss. Some are sure to hate this film, while others may love it. Where am I on that scale? I'm still not sure.

To my knowledge, Peter Pan '2': Return to Neverland is the first of these 'Classic Disney' sequels to be released in theaters. As such, the brave new world of rehashing Disney Classics moves into the much higher profile and higher expectation space of the local cineplex.

It's not that Peter Pan 2 is a bad film; it certainly isn't. Disney has done a remarkable job of capturing the feel of the classic characters from Peter Pan, while updating their look with modern animation techniques. Also the sound for Peter Pan 2 is wonderful. One of the things I love about classic Disney films is the rich orchestration - it's always a treat to hear a great Disney soundtrack.

Unlike its predecessor, Peter Pan 2 has very few songs, a surprise considering how classic the songs "You Can Fly! You Can Fly! You Can Fly!" and "A Pirate's Life" were from the original film. One auditory treat in Peter Pan 2 is "The Second Star to the Right" sung by Jonatha Brooke; it reminded me a lot of "When She Loved Me" sung by Sarah McLachlan in another Disney Sequel, Toy Story 2.

One of the things that struck me about Peter Pan 2 is how dark the movie is. The film opens at the brink of World War II and depicts some very depressing and dark moments. Before Peter Pan 2 they showed a Classic Disney Short, "Pluto's Fledgling", which the packed house hooped and hollered at. About 5 minutes into Peter Pan 2 the theater was silent. I don't know why Disney decided to open Peter Pan 2 with such dark imagery, and my daughter seemed disturbed at seeing kids being loaded into trains and shipped off to the countryside for 'safe keeping'.

While Peter Pan was about believing in yourself and a celebration of the imagination, Peter Pan 2 seemed to be a counterpoint to today's kids who seem to 'grow up' at quite a young age. It's a failed attempt at trying to 'modernize' the classic Peter Pan story. One aspect of the modernization which sort of works is the strong female lead character 'Jane'. In recent years Disney has made great efforts to depict strong female characters and they do a pretty good job with Jane. But it isn't enough to really sustain the film.

Unfortunately Peter Pan 2 can't decide exactly what it wants to be. On one hand it's a nostalgic tour/rehash of elements of the first movie. But on another it's trying to be a modern tale of finding imagination in a generation which seems to lose it fast. But none of it comes together into a cohesive or enjoyable story.

The heart of the problem with Peter Pan 2 is that it's just no fun. Between the overly dark opening, the lack of songs, and a 'lost' script, there just aren't a lot of high points. I mean, who wants to see a London reduced to rubble, a German bombing raid or Tinkerbell close to death? Wasn't Disney supposed to be the Feel Good company?

While I do think that Peter Pan 2 is an improvement on many of Disney's direct-to-video releases (some of which are truly awful), I think they would have been better served re-releasing the original Peter Pan into theaters. There's magic in those Classic films and unfortunately Disney has proven again that they can't bottle that magic in their sequels (Toy Story 2 being the most notable exception).

With all Disney films, I ultimately use my daughter Hannah as the litmus test for whether to recommend a film or not. I asked her what she thought of Peter Pan 2 when we left the theater, and she gave me an less than enthusiastic 'I liked it, but that Orange Monster (octopus) was kind of scary.' Rather than asking when we could see it again, which she did for Shrek, Monsters Inc and Emperor's New Groove, she said she wanted to go home and watch Hercules on DVD.

Kung Pow isn't exactly a 'new' film, much of it is a redub of "Savage Killers" a seventies Kung-Fu Movie with Oedekerk 'inserted' into the film (ala Forrest Gump). It's an interesting concept, and technically Oedekerk does a good job with the integration. But Oedekerk can't keep focused on the main story and often makes wide left turns in order to insert a gag or out right parody of other films. The gags feel forced and none of them are outrageously funny, in the end they seem to serve more to push the movie over the hour mark more than anything else.

One of the major problems with Kung Pow (aside from the fact that it really isn't funny) is that Oedekerk doesn't have the screen presence of actors like Jim Carrey or Tom Green. He comes off more like a film student acting in his own film than a comedic actor. Maybe had Oedekerk found a naturally funny actor the humor would have worked better. As it is Oedekerk ends up getting in the way of his own material.

In the screening that I saw Kung Pow in there were a few people who were cackling at the film, while I noticed a number of other people get up and walk out mid-way through. If your morbid curiosity gets the better of you for this film I'd highly recommend waiting for it to come to DVD . At a paltry 81 mins Kung Pow is a very short film, and I left the theater feeling like I had watched a bad movie that probably was better suited for a late night showing on Comedy Central rather than on the big screen.