1980 / 88 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

A few weeks back, the American Film Institute released its One Hundred Funniest Comedies of all time list, which I generally believed to be a travesty. How can the two funniest films of all time involve men having to dress like women? You’re telling me that this is the funniest idea ever committed to film? Please!

Not only that, but who the hell can determine what is THE single funniest film ever made. One person may laugh hysterically each time they see “Ace Ventura”. Another may piss their pants just thinking about the hair gel scene in “There’s Something About Mary”. I personally laugh at every single joke in the movie “Ghostbusters”, even the ones that others sit stone-faced through.

But who can say if any of them are the funniest. I mean, come on now! Sense of humor is up to personal taste. I can handle a critic or a person citing his or her own ten or twenty funniest films (hmmmm, there’s an idea for an essay list) but leaving it up to a corporation? A large group? The film authority? Such an idea is ludicrous.

But, on the bright side, the list did remind me of “Airplane”.

Ever since that list came out, “Airplane” returned to my head and demanded to be seen. I hadn’t given it a thought in years, yet here I was with a yen to see it again. Lines like “What’s your vector, Victor?” and “Don’t call me Shirley” suddenly began popping into my head. And when that sort of thing happens, there is only one way to exorcise the demons. You have to sit down and watch the movie as soon as possible.

I couldn’t find it in any of the rental stores in town. That alone should tell you what a joke these places are. It wasn’t on DVD (although it damn well should be, PARAMOUNT!! Get off your ass already!) and the only copy I could find of it was hideously overpriced. So I went to my friend Dave, who just happens to own the entire Zucker Brothers ouevre on videocassette and had a copy of this classic lying around.

Yes, I just used the word classic. Yes, to describe “Airplane”. Not all classics have to look like “The Bridge on the River Kwai” or “Casablanca”. Some of them can be fun, inventive, unlike anything done before it, and downright silly. Some of them can also be quite hilarious, which “Airplane” most certainly is.

If you balk at my definition of this movie, perhaps it is high time you saw it again. The jokes are surprisingly fresh, which is the litmus test of any great comedy. Some of them are funny at the time of release, but grow stale over the passing of a couple of years. A lot of comedy depends on currency for its laughs. But the classic comedies, the ones that endure and even grow funnier the more often that you see them, they need no currency. You don’t need to be familiar with the time period. You don’t have to be in a certain state of mind. All you have to be is ready to laugh. And, in the case of “Airplane”, laugh your ass off.

Sure, you know the plot. It’s the same as all the plots of all those lame 70’s disaster movies. The ones where has-been actors ran around and said things like “We’ve only got two hours before the crash”. Everyone in those disaster movies seemed to know the precise timeline to disaster. Well, after all, they had read the script. “Airplane” is familiar with this cliche, and with many others. That is its specific genius. Sure, it makes fun of scenes from certain movies that came before it, but most of all it makes fun of the cliches of its genre. It takes the whole genre of disaster filmmaking and puts a sharp needle right through the middle of its balloon.

Another stroke of genius on the part of the Zuckers: the cast consists of the same, has-been actors that might have been and probably were in those overly serious disaster films. Actors like Lloyd Bridges, Leslie Nielsen (before he was supposed to be funny), and Robert Stack. They all have great fun with their images and with the movie itself. And why not? They had nothing better to do. Because of their “what the hell” attitude, their careers saw a quick rejuvenation because of this movie. They were hot again, and all because they had fun with their serious images. This lends a deadpan lunacy to the film that the casting of comic actors would likely not have.

By the way, have you ever noticed that most of the greats when it comes to comedy are teams of brothers? The Coens, the Marx Brothers, the Farrellys? I wonder what that is all about? Well, the Zucker Brothers (and their partner in crime Jim Abrahams) were no different. “Airplane” was the first of its kind. An infinitely silly masterpiece that delivered more wit, more panache, more jokes per second than any of its predecessors. It gave comedy film a much needed shot in the arm by taking the work of Mel Brooks and putting it on crack, basically. It’s still bold, daring and nothing less than hilarious. Every shot is packed with jokes, so many that it would be impossible to spot them all the first time around. Watch the subtitles on all the “No Smoking” and “Fasten Seatbelts” signs. Check on the wall behind the doctor at the Mayo Clinic. And in a dozen other places too numerous to mention.

Surely, this is one of the greatest comedies of all time.

And, in my opinion, it beats the living hell out of “Tootsie”.

2000 / 103 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Most people know the Coen brothers for their look at life in the Midwest that is the film “Fargo”. Unlike most people that film didn’t set particularly well with me. When I think of the Coens I immediately think of “The Big Lebowski”. A film that I would consider to be one of the finest comedies ever put together. Given the fact that, that was their most recently made film, I had high hopes for their newest work “O Brother Where Art Thou?”. Unfortunately the film could not manage to come anywhere near the fun that films such as “State and Main” provide let alone the greatness of “The Big Lebowski”.

“O Brother Where Art Thou?” is a story loosely based on Homer’s story “The Odyssey”, that involves three escaped cons and their quest for freedom, amongst other things. On their journey they run across a blind prophet, three sirens, a cyclops wannabe bible-salesman amidst a myriad of trials and tribulations. This is pretty much the extent of the content of the film.

This is a film that relies heavily upon a series of loosely connected stories to get it’s point across much the same as “Monty Python and The Holy Grail”. Much like the “Holy Grail” it has a mixed bag of hits and misses that result in a fairly benign filmgoing experience. It is a film that contains a number of great moments, although far to few in number to take it anywhere near the heights of greatness that one would expect of the film.

The opening scene when our heroes escape the chain gang is definitely a memorable one. Any scene involving Clooney and his hair gel fetish got a laugh from me. Clooney getting piss pounded by a campaign advisor was also good for many laughs. The Klan rally was interesting, but also felt a bit drawn out. The best scene in the movie involved a car chase, our heroes, “Babyface” Nelson and cattle. Believe me, it is every bit as entertaining as it sounds.

Then there are the bad moments. Our heroes getting involved in bank robberies, getting sold out by one of their relatives, etc. The part with the sirens was marginal at best. I must say I expected a little more out of that scene. Worst of all was the shameless waste of John Goodman’s talents as the cyclops- inspired bible salesman. When he first appeared I had to laugh, because I expected a great many laughs to come with his presence on the screen. Unfortunately, I never laughed again during his segment of the film. A man who made greatness out of roles in “The Big Lebowski” and “Raising Arizona” does little more than fade with a whimper from this film. This is by no fault of his own mind you. He tries. Oh how he tries. There is just nothing there for him to work with. I think I have probably made the point by now that I was disappointed by his part in the film. Tim Blake Nelson is given little more to do than mug for the camera and say something about a toad every so often during his first major screen role. John Turturro does a fair job of bringing his void of a character to life in at least a minimal way. He doesn’t have to do much more than Nelson with the exception of getting a little animated with Clooney every now and then. Speaking of Clooney. He is definitely the high water mark of the film. He brings an exuberance and charm to his role that is sorely lacking in the rest of the film. There are many scenes where he need not do anymore than raise an eyebrow to get laughs from me. Part of the problem with that is that many of the things I laughed at were probably just because it was Clooney doing these ridiculous things that you never would have previously envisioned him doing. Never the less he did make it much easier for me to obtain laughs from this movie.

In the end, this film is a couple of notches above average based solely on Clooney’s performance. Most everything else just hangs there, including the film itself, which felt like it was about 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. With that said I would only give this film a marginal endorsement. If you are a fan of the Coens or George Clooney then by all means see it. Otherwise, everyone else need not apply.

2000 / 103 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Hello. My name is Dale and I am a Coenaholic. I have seen and loved every single Coen Brothers movie. Okay, my own personal Coen tastes run more toward their comedies. My favorite movie of theirs is either “Raising Arizona” or “The Big Lebowski”, depending on which one I have watched last. In the Forties, certain directors used to make movies that were screwball comedies. The Coens, when they choose to do comedy, make movies that are more like kamikaze comedies. They fly in the face of convention (and, most of the time, plot) in order to entertain and elicit laughs. If they also burn up on impact and leave a lot of wreckage in their wake, well, that’s just one of the dangers. You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Of these three, “Raising Arizona” has the most inspired and streamlined plot. Playing the abduction of a baby as a comedic premise was inspired. Making the baby an object which everyone in the plot lusted after (like the gold in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” or the Lost Ark in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”), well, that was ingenious. Taking a Raymond Chandler plot and having a stoned, middle-aged bowler and his psychotic friend try to figure it out in “The Big Lebowski” was another stroke of genius. Taking Homer’s “The Odyssey” and reconfiguring it as a movie about three affable idiots who have escaped from a chain gang is not quite on a par with these other two. But if this movie is not the best comedy of the year, one at least must give it credit for being the most ambitious.

This film is only loosely based on “The Odyssey”. Very, very loosely. You’ve got a hero named Ulysses who has a great deal of trouble getting home to his wife Penelope-or, in this case, Penny. You’ve got three sirens luring the men off track. You’ve got the Cyclops reimagined as a one-eyed Bible salesman (John Goodman, who is never better than when in a Coen movie….except maybe here). And I think “The Odyssey” had a blind prognosticator who told the men what they were to find on their journey. But aside from those similarities, I think that’s about it. You also have an allusion to the classic Preston Sturges comedy “Sullivan’s Travels” (which I have seen and it’s good, not great) in the title and in the chain gang seeing a movie at a theater. But most of the movie is just good, fun Coen Brothers craziness.

All I really expect from a Coen comedy is some inspired lunacy, and I got it here. There is a hilarious auto accident involving cows. There is a cameo appearance by “Babyface” Nelson. You’ve got a KKK gathering that must be seen to be believed (it’s one of the most gorgeous, and darkest, scenes in recent memory…and it’s also a bit of a musical number), a black man with a guitar who has had traffic with Satan, many run-ins with the law, and the usual Coen dialogue. What I love in a Coen movie is the way that common folks use words that are far beyond their usual patter. Clooney, in particular, has a delicious way around a sentence. And, it must be noted, the three main actors are a joy to watch. Clooney gets to wrap himself around some meaty comedic situations and does so with great zest. He’s like an insane, narcissistic version of Clark Gable and he gives every line a nice little verbal spin. Turturro is….well, he’s indescribable. He takes this sketch of a man and brings him to wonderful life. Tim Blake Nelson is one of the most hilarious idiots in recent memory, and he really gets a chance to shine here. The cameos by Holly Hunter, John Goodman, Stephen Root and Charles Durning are all nice.

The downside? The movie rambles from one absurd situation to another, lacking the nutty linear motion of “Raising Arizona”. But I also thought the same thing of “The Big Lebowski” on initial viewing so, y’know. Some of the moments in this movie are also not quite as inspired as the best ones and the movie does start feeling long toward the end.

But for any and all you Coenheads out there (y’know who y’are), it is a crime to let this movie pass you by. And for the rest of you, it’s too damn absurd not to be a good time. Even if it isn’t cinematic brilliance, it’ll do if the showings of “Crouching Tiger”, “Quills” and “Traffic” are all sold out. It’s also the funniest flat-out comedy of the season.

2000 / 120 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I LOVE THIS FUCKING MOVIE!!!!!

Now, I suppose you’re wondering: what exactly makes you love this movie, Dale? What makes you type such a bold statement? Well, it would be nice if I didn’t have to tell you. It would be cool if you could just take this on faith and go see it for yourself, and get blindsided by this brilliant and ruthlessly entertaining film but I suppose that I should tell you a little bit about it anyway.

The plot is pretty simple, just like the plot of most great movies (”Once Upon a Time in the West”, which this movie is just as good as, doesn’t have the most complex of plots either and it just doesn’t matter in either case). It concerns a master Wudan master named Li Mu Bai (the incomparable Chow Yun Fat, who displays pages of nobility with a single gesture) who is thinking about giving up his life of fighting and wandering and, with it, hanging up his sword: the famous Green Destiny. He charges his longtime friend and fellow Wudan fighter (Michelle Yeoh, adept at the fight sequences and also masterful at the other scenes) with taking the sword to another master, Sir Te. When it gets there, however, the famous implement is soon stolen by a thief who slips away in the night. But not before a magical action sequence that makes pretty much 98% of the action scenes I have ever watched look lame by comparison. Soon, they are searching for the sword and investigating the young daughter of a high-ranking official. Ziyi Zhang is the young woman, a sensational actress and amazing physical performer. Needless to say, she is far less innocent than she seems.

I cannot stress how amazing the action in this movie is. There is not one sequnce that will not make your jaw drop. The choreography by Woo-Ping Yuen (the man who made Keanu soar in “The Matrix”) is nothing less than miraculous. The performers are so lithe and nimble that they reminded me of Gene Kelly in his heydey. They soar, they kick and fight with an astounding grace. They move like no other actors ever have. It’s amazing when you realize that the only digital magic used to bring these sequences to life were used in removing the cables which made the actors literally fly. Wow!

But there is more to this movie than just the action. The movie itself slowly peels away dramatic and emotional layers that make it easily the most involving martial arts movie ever crafted. The cinematography and scenery are gorgeous and breath-taking. The relationships between the characters are so subtle and gripping: the unspoken love between Chow and Michelle, the feelings between Ziyi and her desert pirate lover, the many facets to Ziyi’s mesmerizing character. There is not a moment of this movie that is less than interesting, less than breathtaking, less than magical. The acting, the scenery, the beautiful and lush score, the remarkable transitions, the fights, the way that the actors seem to glide through the air in a fluid way that reminded me less of “The Matrix” than it did of the Peter Pan of my dreams, the gorgeous costumes, the mythic storytelling style.

Add all that up and I don’t think I need to tell you that “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” is more than just a masterpiece. I think it takes some sort of divine intervention to make a movie this spectacular. “Crouching Tiger” is more than one of the best pictures of the year (I was shocked at how close “Quills” came, it may be just as good, but it will take more viewings of both movies to know for sure), it’s one of those once-in-a-lifetime cinematic experiences.

Wow!

2000 / 143 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Tom Hanks stands alone at the summit of a small mountain on an island. He looks around and sees nothing but ocean in every direction. He sees the tides as they make their way toward the island. He sees groves of palm trees. But, to his dismay, he sees no boats. No land nearby.

And, worst of all, no people.

This moment contains more majesty, more of a profound statement, than any movie made this year. Even the best movies of the year aside from this one were oddly hollow. “Chicken Run” had more sense of purpose than most of them. “Almost Famous” had brilliant character development and some nice ideas and some neat insights, but nothing remarkable to say (it was great, though). “Nurse Betty” was surreal and beautiful. But “Cast Away” towers above them all as an immense achievement. It has lush photography, it is not afraid to take risks, and it wraps us thoroughly in its own spellbinding world. It takes us to a place we have never been before and shows us how one of our own might deal with it there.

There is an everyday guy quality to Tom Hanks that makes us willing to follow him anywhere. He has movie star charisma and seems like a genuinely likable guy. The fact that he is also one of the best actors that the cinema has ever seen only helps. He is an awesome actor, less an actor than the conscience and guide of our generation of moviegoers. He is the man we trust most of all the actors out there. We will follow him to Outer Space, through the Sixties, and to a little Louisiana prison in the Thirties, if these are the places that he chooses to take us. Here, he takes us to a whole new place, and he shows us a side of humanity. Layers of the world are slowly stripped away from him during the course of the movie and it is interesting to see how he makes do without them, and what he improvises to take their place. We marvel at some of his makeshift inventions, we cringe at some of the things he does, and we laugh with him. Tom Hanks is truly staggering here. With only a few FedEx packages, an island of trees, the sea and a volleyball to interact with, he is truly a one-man show in what is, for the most part, a silent movie. The waves are our orchestra. The ocean is a sort of villain, keeping the hero hostage. The supporting cast consists of some cocoanuts, a volleyball named Wilson, and the beach. Each of these items emerges as a strong supporting actor. And Tom emerges as one of the best actors ever, and easily the best of this year.

Thanks to Robert Zemeckis’s expert touch, the movie more than lives up to his performance. The restraint of the film is masterful and a refreshing change of pace. It allows us to be swallowed up by this world and to contemplate the issues he would have us contemplate. This is his best movie since “Forrest Gump” and, in my eyes, may even be a better one.

Though, for all its flaws, “Forrest” did have the feel of an epic, and it was very powerful and giddily amazing. This movie is every bit as awesome. There is a scene involving the volleyball that made it more of an interesting character than ninety percent of most live actors, and the fact that I was nearly moved to tears over an inanimate object, well, that helped solidify my opinion of “Cast Away”. Even if it only took place on the island, it would be the best film of the year, but when Tom goes home and must figure out how to fit in again, it takes us into 100 Best Films ever made territory.

In a year when even the best movies have a funny ring to them, “Cast Away” provides us with what we’ve been yearning for all year. Movies like this are the reason we go to movies in the first place.

1996 / 135 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Lone Star” is a subtle, well-crafted movie that takes its time with its characters and situations. If you want your drama and suspense to move quickly and rush forward, this is not the movie for you. If, however, you want a quiet, substantial and gripping drama that takes its time with its characters and situations and establishes it themes in a more realistic manner, then this is the movie for you.

“Lone Star” begins with a couple of men discovering a skeleton in the Texas desert. They alert the sheriff (Chris Cooper), a man who lingers under the shadow of his father: a lawman who gained so much respect during his tenure that a legend has grown around him. The sheriff is not overly fond of his father, for reasons that are slowly revealed to us as the film progresses. It is for this reason that he begins to suspect that his father (Matthew McConaughey) may have had a hand in the body’s disposal. Especially since the skeleton seems to belong to the man who was sheriff before his father (Kris Kristofferson).

“Lone Star” is mostly about the past coming back to haunt people. As many of the characters in “Magnolia” would have said: “We may be through with the past, but the past isn’t through with us”. This movie drives that point home better than “Magnolia” did. The movie focuses on several characters whose lives seem to intersect at various points during the film. It also seems that each of the characters was somehow affected by events surrounding the mysterious disappearance of the old sheriff (Kris Kristofferson). It also seems that there might be more than one suspect in the old man’s demise. He was, after all, not the sort of man who made a lot of friends. The way that the characters intersect is very well-done. More than anything, it just seems real. It just seems that these characters would have certain things in common, especially in a town as small as this one. Old relationships are revealed, wounds are mended, others are broken open again. Mysteries that have been unspoken of for years are suddenly in the limelight. And with each new relationship that is revealed, with it comes a new revelation and a new little twist to the plotwork. The plotting of this movie is so tender, so delicate, so carefully-maintained that it does not even seem to be the work of a screenwriter but rather seems the logical thread of events. It seems like the way things really work, rather than the way some screenwriter would have them work.

John Sayles has woven a delicate tapestry and done so with great care. The characters are given space to live in, given enough room to grow for us. And although it is all meticulously plotted and carefully sewn into a whole, it never reveals itself as such. There are some shocking moments and some startling revelations here, but none of them are forced. They are all allowed to take shape in their own time. Which is not to say that the movie is boring. Far from it. This is one of the more interesting mystery films that I have seen in quite a while.

Sayles directs with a steady hand and uses a sparse minimum of filmmaking tricks and gimmicks. The story speaks for itself, and it is compelling enough to do so. The film speaks volumes of race, color, family and the alienation that all can bring about and does so without ramming such ideas down our throat. And each and every performance is perfectly suited to the tale that is being told. What’s more, there is not a single moment that is anything less than thoroughly involving. It is as long as it must be to say what it has to say and not a minute longer.

“Lone Star” is a rare type of film and, therefore, that much more worthy of being seen and treasured.

2000 / 98 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

While watching “Loser” I couldn’t help but get the feeling that the film was nothing more than some Gen-X loser’s sorry attempt at cross-breeding “Animal House” and “American Pie” with the plot-lines of the most contrived of romantic comedies.

Let’s just say the results are less than ideal.

The story of “Loser” is one that we’ve heard and seen many times before. Small town kid (Jason Biggs) graduates from high school and decides to go to the big city to further his education. If you look up “fish out of water” in Webster’s Dictionary you should find this plot listed, as it is essentially the textbook scenario. Once the kid makes his way to the big city he manages to screw everything up with his roommates. He is a square peg in a round hole world. His roommates are all stoners who have no ambition while our friend (we’ll start referring to him as Paul since that’s what he’s called in the movie) studies during every waking moment of every day. One good thing in his life is that he has met a “Florence Nightingale” type in Mena Suvari’s character Dora. Problem is she has been getting tutored in the ways of the Kama Sutra by her teacher Edward Alcott (the seemingly perpetually lecherous Greg Kinnear). Things will get worse before they get better, of course. That’s just how things work in movies like this. Eventually it will get better. That is expected of these sorts of movies. We wouldn’t have it any way now would we.

This film suffers from the “been there done that” syndrome that plagues so many films nowadays. This is especially surprising given the fact that Amy Heckerling was helming this ship. Given the brilliance of her past work which includes such screen gems as “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” and (I know I’m alone on this one) “Clueless”. I was expecting a certain amount of creativity and depth out of this film. Unfortunately I received little to none of either.

There is very little that one can say that hadn’t seen before watching this movie. Perhaps a guy getting booted from his dorm room and having to take up residence in a veterinary clinic.

That was mildly interesting, but it seemed only to exist to make Paul a more sympathetic character to both Dora and the audience. “Oh, he loves animals! How cute.” Now before PETA gets on my case, I would like to say that I love animals (some of them anyway) as well. I just don’t think it’s necessary to inform us of it in such a contrived way as this film manages to do.

There is also too much convenience. Early in the movie Paul notices that Dora has a fondness for the band Everclear. He immediately logs this in the “potential smooth move” file of his brain and lo and behold mere weeks later guess who’s in town!?!? That’s right, our old friends Everclear. It’s almost as if it was meant to happen isn’t it? Now I can speak from experience on this one. That sort of nonsense does not happen in the real world. Now, I am perfectly willing to suspend my disbelief for a film, but there has to be a point where one draws the line and for me that is with overly coincidental concert scheduling.

The beneficiary of this mystical concert scheduling is Paul, played by Jason Biggs (”American Pie”). Biggs tries a bit of a change of pace from his character in “American Pie”. In that movie he was a naive young punk who in the end wanted nothing more to bed just about anything that moved. This time out he is once again naive, but he is a well intended soul who seems to be looking more for Miss Right than Miss Chokesondick. He sells this fairly well, although the film may have been better off with him reprising the same characteristics that made his “American Pie” alter ego so endearing. Regardless, he manages to sell his character with at least minimal success, because we want to like him and we eventually will come around whether or not the film warrants it.

Joining Biggs, as his love interest, is fellow “American Pie” alumnus Mena Suvari, who is best known for lying naked in a bed of flower petals in “American Beauty”. If you’ve seen her in anything before then you’ve seen her in this. She plays the same character that we’ve seen in her previous work. Perhaps a mish-mash of the downy innocent from “American Pie” with the know-it-all from “American Beauty” but the same for better or worse. I must add that she does look quite smashing as a brunette, rather than a blonde as we’ve seen her before. Also I would like to add that it would be nice if she could find a way to be in something, anything that doesn’t include American in the title. I’m all about patriotism, but Mena, this is ridiculous.

The shortcomings of “Loser” far outweigh the positives. It appears as if Heckerling mailed it in on this one by merely attempting to mine well trodden territory with nothing but a poorly done “American Pie” spinoff to show for her efforts.

1997 / 133 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

It is rare that a movie chooses to take us to a time and place that we have never been before. It is even rarer when that movie takes us on a journey to a place that only exists in someone’s mind.

The story of “Princess Mononoke” is drawn from the ancient past of Japan. I suspect that it is partially based on tales handed down from generation to generation, yet I also suspect that a great deal of it is absolutely original. Hayao Miyazaki has been called the Walt Disney of Japan, and the Disney studios themselves have credited him with being a great source of inspiration, but I think that there are more comparisons to be made than just to Disney. His talents also owe a bit to Kurosawa, I think, and a hint of Tolkien. Imagination is the chief virtue of this movie, and the reason that it is such a breath of fresh air. The movie is animated simply because it is too large, too imaginative, and would be too difficult to be realized with real actors. It would be the most expensive movie ever made, I think, and the final film would be hard-pressed to do justice to the images within Miyazaki’s mind.

The film begins with an angry demon attacking a small village. The prince of the village (Ashitaka, voice of Billy Crudup in the American dubbing) slays the beast and, in the process, is tainted by it. It is then decided by the village elders that he must track the source of this beast, leaving his tribe and everything that he knows. He must discover what has turned a boar god into a bloodthirsty demon and, in doing so, perhaps find a cure for his curse.

Thus begins Ashitaka’s amazing journey. He finds a woman who has been adopted by wolves and, like the wolves, has no trust for her own kind. He will find a clever and shady monk (voice of Billy Bob Thornton) who reminds one a bit of Eli Wallach in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” and has some rather dark motives for a monk. He also discovers a place called Irontown, which is destroying the forests for its own greedy ends and is ran by Lady Eboshi (Minnie Driver). All of these characters are wonderful creations in that they are not created in terms of black or white. Each of them exists in an area of gray. They are extremely well-developed characters, and they have the bite that this remarkable fantasy needs in order to fully enthrall the viewer. This is not the story of “good vs. evil” that you have seen so many times before, nor is it a simple “Don’t Mess With Mother Nature” message, though it retains elements of both. No, “Princess Mononoke” is something deeper than both. Many of the characters in the film find elements of good and evil within themselves. They are as likely to confront an enemy within their own souls as they are on the battlefield. I must say also that the battle scenes and the action sequences in this film rival “The Matrix”. We care about the participants and we care about the outcome. We forget that we are even watching animation, so filled with life is every gorgeously drawn frame of the film. This movie transports one to a time that never existed and makes us care what happens. It is a beautiful and unique myth with immense power and visual splendor.

I blasted “Titan A.E.” not too long ago for one basic reason. I felt that “Titan” could not quite figure out if it wanted to be an epic film that just happened to be a cartoon, or if it wanted to please every demographic and perform the way that a Disney film does. In doing so, I felt that it aimed too far toward the latter. It had moments of inspired imagination, but too many moments that felt boringly familiar. “Mononoke” is filled with the former and, happily, lacking in the latter. It is bloodier than a lot of live action movies, and bloodier than any American cartoon (though tame by anime standards) but it delivers the sort of rousing mythical entertainment that George Lucas used to supply before he sold out and became more interested in marketing toys than creating lifelike characters. Then again, not even his old movies had characters as strong as the ones here. And his imagination perhaps never matched Miyazaki’s.

Yes, “Princess Mononoke” is just that good!

2000 / 124 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“I’ve a naughty little tale to tell…” With these words begins “Quills” which, indeed, is a naughty little tale and it is told with extraordinary finesse and craftsmanship.

The story concerns the Marquis De Sade (played to the hilt by Geoffrey Rush), infamous writer of stories that are both sexually explicit and charged with violence. He has revolutionized the world of sex in print with his lurid tales of shocking sexual deviancy and, for his trouble, has been committed to the mental institution of Charenton. His ward at Charenton is a kind, compassionate clergyman Coulmier (the indominable Joaquin Phoenix) who allows the Marquis the privilege of continuing to write. He believes that, by writing, the Marquis will be able to purge the demons which assail his soul and, in such a way, get them out of his system.

What Coulmier doesn’t know, however, is that his stories are being smuggled to a publisher by Madeleine (Kate Winslet, who proves that her fine work in “Titanic” was no fluke), a chambermaid in the institution whose imagination is inflamed by the dark tales of the Marquis. The publishing of his latest book invokes the wrath of the Emperor Napoleon, who sends a sadistic doctor (I know, I know, I couldn’t resist) to “Cure” him with his questionable methods.

“Quills” benefits from a cornucopia of wonderful elements that all work nicely together. Each of the principal actors is a revelation here. Geoffrey Rush has never been bad in anything I have seen him in, but he has never been as good as he is here. He is one of the few front runners in mind for best actor. He gives a wonderful, eccentric performance that paints the Marquis somewhere between genius, tortured poet, Madman and AntiChrist. It’s a breathtaking tightrope walk that never falters. Joaquin Phoenix is simply astounding in the role of the abbot who has taken charge of the Marquis and is dealing with him in his own, quiet way. I recall that my only doubt as I entered the theater for “Gladiator” was the fact that Joaquin was in it. Well, after this movie, I will never doubt him again. In fact, I await whatever he does next with baited breath. He is sensational here. With this and his work in “Gladiator”, he is easily the year’s best supporting actor. And Kate Winslet is exquisite in this film. She has marvelous chemistry with the Marquis as well as Joaquin and she also gives her character many levels to operate on, doing so with such ease that you don’t even realize that you are seeing a performance. I need to see more of this woman’s movies. Michael Caine is good here as well, sinking his teeth into a meaty role. He may not be giving the performance of his life here, but he is better than he was in last year’s “The Cider House Rules”.

The performances are amazing, yes, but the script is more than their equal. It is pungent, wickedly funny, shrewd, lewd and astounding. I can tell that this movie started out as a play, it has that wonderful theatrical quality to it, which is never a bad thing. Doug Wright should be congratulated for his script work here, which brings up thought-provoking and timely issues and gives the viewer immense food for thought all the while keeping them on the edge of their seat and marvelously entertained. Praise should also go to Philip Kaufman, whose work here has gotten the best out of a great script and a sterling cast.

Add all those elements together, and you have the makings of a movie with lots on its mind and a remarkable bite. This is a film that demands to be seen and demands to be at the top of any Best of 2000 List. It is a towering achievement in a year that, at the end, got a whole fuck of a lot better.

2000 / 83 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

From the title, you pretty much know that this isn’t going to be Hitchcock. You know that it will be stupid. But you at least hope that it will be funny.

Well, friends and neighbors, fear not. “Dude, Where’s My Car?” is, indeed, funny. Until it spends more energy on being bizarre than it does on providing laughs, “Dude, Where’s My Car?” is just the sort of movie that you wish a movie by that title would be.

“Dude, Where’s My Car?” is the tender, heart-rending story of two affable stoners and pizza delivery men (Ashton Kutcher and Stifler himself-Seann William Scott, both of whom are so convincing that you believe they might not be acting) who awake one morning to discover that they can remember none of the events from the previous evening. It soon becomes apparent, however, that they seem to have mislaid fifty pizzas, a briefcase full of money belonging to a transsexual stripper and a device which may spell the end of the entire universe if it falls into the wrong hands.

And, oh yeah, their car which contains presents for their hot, twin girlfriends.

The movie is sorta like what you might get if you were to put “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and “Repo Man” in the same room for a couple of hours and had them make the beast with two backs. Sometimes it strives too hard to be different and sometimes it falls square on its own ass, but there are more than enough funny moments that I emerged from my viewing of “Dude, Where’s My Car?” with a sizable smile on my face. I recall fondly the moment where one of them is telling the other to do something with a fire extinguisher. I smile at the memory of one man mistaking an animal for a llama, when it is most certainly not a llama. And I get a little giggly when I think about the scene at the school for the blind.

You know from the title whether or not you want to see this movie. Why are you reading my review? It has hot chicks, stoned guys, a monkey, Kristy Swanson and gay, Nordic aliens going for it. Even though it does eventually wear out its welcome, it at least has the good sense to end itself shortly thereafter, and the Lifetime Supply of Pudding actually serves the plot.

So, if you are still thinking about going (or if you are thinking about going now but weren’t before) then, by all means, go. It’s a good excuse to sit in the dark and eat popcorn and remind yourself how hot Kristy Swanson is at the very least. And one should always use any excuse to indulge in this kind of behavior.