1999 / 113 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Ah, Catherine Zeta Jones. Catherine Zeta Jones is in a skintight, leather catsuit. She is practicing how to bypass the infrared beams in an art museum and she has to bend just right and….. Oh, Catherine. Leave Michael Douglas and come to me. I have nothing to offer you, really, but, hey, we could have some fun.

I guess there is a plot to this movie. It involves some robberies and some cat burglaries and Catherine in a catsuit. Sean Connery is in it, I guess. He shows up, uses that accent women must imagine in their fantasies, and he robs some stuff. That is about all the plot the movie has. Quite frankly, that’s about all it needs. We know we aren’t watching “Hamlet”. We don’t want to be watching “Hamlet”. We want to see Ms. Zeta Jones in the afore-mentioned catsuit. Anyone male will identify with my statement.

So why am I only giving it a “C+”? Good question. The plot twists do not seem to flow naturally from the plot. Instead, they are the sort of twists that feel like the machinations of the screenwriter. “They won’t see this coming,” you can almost hear him cackling. It is a pretty well made movie, I guess, and it is fairly fun. But I think that the masturbatory fantasy I conjured up while watching it was better than the movie itself. Catherine is a pretty good actress, but she doesn’t do much that will get her an Oscar nomination in this film. She shows up, she looks foxy, she seduces Sean Connery (she could do this in her sleep with THAT body) and she steals some things. I guess I enjoyed the film while I was watching it, but it evaporated from my mind the minute I left the theater and I don’t think I will ever feel the need to see it again.

If you want a heist movie, you would do better checking out “The Thomas Crown Affair” (the new one) or “Where the Money Is”. If you want a good Catherine Zeta Jones movie, check out “The Mask of Zorro”. And if you want a better Connery flick, there are about a dozen I could recommend.

But, oh, Catherine in that catsuit.

Share on Facebook

1999 / 136 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

What is the Matrix?

Quite simply: one of the best science fiction films I have ever seen.

There are two kinds of science fiction movies, when you get right down to it. There are the ones that entertain, that have all sorts of laser-shootouts and rocket battles. Then there are the ones that aim to enlighten, the ones who use the template of science fiction as a way of examining more universal themes of human existence. Movies like “Star Wars” represent the former. Movies like “2001: A Space Odyssey” represent the latter.

The great thing about “The Matrix” is that you are actually getting both kinds of science fiction films in one audacious, exciting and brilliant package. Now that is something truly great.

“The Matrix” is the story of a man named Thomas Anderson. He has the feeling that there is something not quite right with his life. That things are not what they seem. He feels that something is…off about the world around him. During the course of the movie, he will be proven right. There are nasty underpinnings and horrible secrets to the world that Thomas inhabits. The nature of the world around us will be explored. Questions will be raised, both practical and existential.

Unlike most action films, you may actually find yourself talking about the themes and plot of this movie afterward. I will not get any further into the plot, mostly because most of you already know what this movie is about but also because I do not want to give it away to those out there that don’t know the inner workings of the storyline. I did not know what the hell to expect going into “The Matrix” and I was floored by it. I hope that everyone else has the same awesome experience.

If the movie only provided some thrills and some neat ideas to talk about, I would probably award it with an “A”, but “The Matrix” not only gets you talking, it provides some of the most amazing visual spectacles that I have ever seen. There are moments in this film that might haunt you for the rest of your life. There are action sequences contained in this film that are truly innovative. The special effects in this film push the envelope in a way that “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace” could only dream of doing. This movie gets you on the edge of your seat, then blows you through the back wall of the theater. Very cool stuff.

The plot is extremely compelling. The effects are spectacular and stunning. But there is even MORE to recommend this film. The performances are not the best on earth, but they are noteworthy. Laurence Fishburne takes a role that might have been little more than that of a flamboyant cult leader or an impassioned revolutionary and gives it shades of both and more. This is not a homily-spouting, Confucious meets Obi Wan Kenobi type of leader. He is a real guy. He screws up. He makes mistakes. He is not perfect. He is maybe a little too passionate about what he believes in. He is refreshingly interesting. Hugo Weaving takes the role of Agent Smith and makes him one of the best villains any science fiction film has ever had. He is a non-human who despises everything human, yet starts finding little layers of humanity rubbing off on him. His very dedication to his cause is an ironically human characteristic, as is his sudden hatrid. It is a nuanced, layered and delicate performance. This guy is a man to keep one’s eye on. And as for Keanu Reeves? Well, Keanu is always at his best playing guys who are not the sharpest of men. In “Speed”, I always believed that the reason his character took so many outrageous risks was because he was too stupid to realize the danger of what he was doing. I can’t think of any other actor who could have conveyed the proper sense of confusion, bewilderment and awe that Keanu does here. He hits the notes of this performance remarkably.

In short, this is the best action film and the best science fiction film of the decade. It covers some of the same ground as movies like “Total Recall” or “Dark City”, not to mention anime and Hong Kong action movies, but it makes it all fresh and thrilling. Every frame of this film is put to good use, the best possible use really. It is like an intelligent comic book come to life. In an era of tired, wheezy action movies that are all the same, “The Matrix” dares to be different. It is polished, delirious eye candy with a brain. A rare movie that wants to excite AND stimulate the brain.

Between “The Matrix” and most other action films, I choose “The Matrix”.

Share on Facebook

1978 / 93 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Terrence Malick’s second foray into the world of film is one of the most highly regarded films of all time. Wondering what all the fuss was about, I decided to check it out.

This film deserves every ounce of praise it gets. It is the sort of film that, plain and simple, they don’t make anymore. Whatever happened to films that had, on the surface, a fairly simple story, while retaining a raging torrent of activity beneath said surface? Maybe “Days of Heaven” put an end to those films. Maybe every other filmmaker knew that they could never create a film of such exquisite beauty and purpose. Knowing this they chose not to even try anymore.

Bill (Richard Gere) and Abby (Brooke Adams) have fled from Chicago for the tranquility of Texas. They find work at the farm of a lonely, but rich farmer played by Sam Shepard. Bill and Abby pretend to be brother and sister, but their act is so thin, that some of their coworkers question the validity of this relationship. During this period, the farmer has grown quite fond of Abby and chooses to pursue her. Eventually Bill overhears of the farmer having only a year to live and tells Abby that she should marry the farmer, as it would be to their benefit once he passes away.

The ceremony takes place, but it doesn’t take long for the farmer to become suspicious of the nature of Bill and Abby’s relationship. Jealousy runs rampant between the two men, especially as time goes by and the farmer shows no signs of ill health.

As was the case in “Badlands,” Terrence Malick so masterfully creates the world of “Days of Heaven” that you genuinely care about those involved within the first ten minutes of the film. Few films accomplish this feat within a half hour, let alone ten minutes.

All the elements one would expect of a Malick film are present. The performances are wonderful. The narrative is present, in the form of a young girl by the name of Linda (Linda Manz). The visual splendor is in full force, as the wheat fields of Texas come to life before your very eyes. Where most directors attempt to change the look and feel of nature through film, Malick exploits the natural wonder that surrounds us despite our recognition. He treats nature as an asset rather than a liability. A lesson that more directors need to learn it would seem, given the fluff we are dealt nowadays.

So I guess what I am trying to say is, if you want to see what a truly wonderful and captivating experience a film can be, check out “Days of Heaven.” If not, then I guess you will never know what you’re missing out on. That could be a good, or bad thing depending on your perspective I suppose…..

Share on Facebook