2000 / 126 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I should have known better. I really should have. On the day I was to see this movie I began to doubt it. That’s right. For whatever reason I chose to lose faith. Maybe it was the multitude of marginal endorsements I had received from acquaintances who had already seen the film. Maybe it was the lack of a need for a romantic comedy in my viewing agenda.

Maybe. Maybe? Maybe! Those maybes were then compounded by a disgruntled viewer who was the first to stumble out of the showing prior to the one I was to attend. For reasons unbeknownst to me he chose to pull me aside and tell me that I should most definitely see something else. He pointed to the theater showing “Vertical Limit” and told me, in all of his worldly wisdom, that he figured that would probably be a better use of my entertainment dollar. Being that I was in line with no outlet for escape coupled with the realization that the only reason I felt like seeing “Vertical Limit” was because Scott Glenn looks like death on a cracker crossbred with Daniel Day Lewis, I chose to stay in line and accept my fate.

Throughout all of this I forgot one simple little point.

Mel never fails to deliver.

Did you get that? Here. Let me get a little closer.

MEL FUCKING RULES!!!

By any chance did you get that?

That’s right. Once again Mel Gibson delivers a good time. This time he does so in a film that has his character being blessed (or damned depending how you want to look at it) with the ability to hear what women think. Now I always thought what women really wanted was Mel Gibson. Now I know that they want a whole Hell of a lot more. To all of us mortal men out there I have one message……We’re screwed.

Before Mel gets this rather odd talent he is an advertising executive at a company that has been making it’s money at the expense of women and catering only to men. These are the sort of ads that you see from companies like Budweiser involving their bikini team. Now I have no problem with these adds, but I can see where women wouldn’t exactly feel compelled to run right out and buy a product with ads such as these. Things are going well for Mel until he comes into work one day expecting a promotion only to find that the job he lusted after has been given to, of all things, a WOMAN! Helen Hunt is that woman and Mel, who does not have a problem with admiring her finer features, is not amused by the present state of affairs at work. He is told that the company wants to turn their focus more towards women now and that they felt Mel was not exactly in touch with that demographic, besides sharing a bed with a different one every night that is.

During their first meeting with Helen, Mel and his coworkers are given an assignment. They are to take home some feminine products and devise an ad campaign for at least one of the products, if not all of them. Upon arriving at home that night Mel decides to get in touch with his feminine side. He does so by using many of the products including the hair removal treatment. There are some big laughs to be found during this scene. It is during this time that he manages to spill some bath beads, which he slips on to inevitably send him flailing into the bath tub with a hair dryer in tow. The shock doesn’t kill him, but, when he wakes up, he finds that he can now hear what women are thinking. This leads Mel on a number of fun adventures throughout the remainder of the film.

I don’t think this movie could have been done with anyone other than Mel in the lead role. He has exactly the right combination of charm and machismo to pull it off. Clooney’s a little too smug and Crowe’s a little too somber. Mel is just right and he proves it at every opportunity. He actually makes you believe that he is hearing the thoughts of the women around him, which is no small feat by any means. Mel can convey so much with mere facial expressions that, oftentimes, he has no need for words of any kind. Definitely one of the finest actors in the business who, for what reason I do not know, rarely receives any sort of respect for his work.

One of my favorite moments from the film involves Mel and Bette Midler. It is just after Mel has realized what is happening to him and he has decided to confide in his former marriage counselor played by Bette Midler. She opens the door not recognizing him at first, then he says a couple of things that remind her of him. She then thinks to herself: “Oh Christ. Not HIM!” To this Mel replies: “Ah! So you do remember me.” This is just a small sampling of the laughs one can expect to find in this gem of a romantic comedy.

My only fault with the film is that there are a few moments where it gets overly sappy. Now I know what you’re thinking: “What the Hell is this guy’s problem? He just said it’s a romantic comedy?!?” I agree on that, but there are a few times, late in the film, where it seems to wander to the point of nearly losing itself in prolonged scenes of unmitigated eye-gazing and what not. It was during these scenes, and only these scenes, that I felt my mind wander during the course of the film. A small problem in the film, but a problem nonetheless.

If you haven’t seen this movie, you owe it to yourself and those around to check it out as soon as you can. It’s the most fun you can have at the theater as of this time. It’s a romantic comedy with a nicely done dramatic edge thrown in to give the film a little more weight than it might otherwise have had. If you still have reservations about the film. Cast them aside! Don’t fall into the same trap that I nearly found myself in. When in doubt. Just remember……

Mel always delivers……ALWAYS!

1974 / 113 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Perhaps I have been ruined by modern movies. That is entirely possible. Maybe I can no longer appreciate a movie with a slower pace, a film that takes the time that it needs to and develops in its own time. No, wait a second. I think I have liked many movies like that. I point to my appreciation of “2001: A Space Odyssey”, a film that doesn’t care what you think, it moves at its own speed, the speed at which objects in space really do travel. I also liked “The Talented Mr. Ripley” which is paced just as fast as it needs to be, and is nothing less than fascinating in revealing the shadows and mystery of its main character.

But for a movie with a slower pace to work, it has to draw me in somehow. There has to be some hook that keeps me watching, that fascinates me. “2001″ is slow but never, ever boring. Though the pace may be a fairly slow one, the movie has something interesting to say and there is always a fascinating image or idea on the screen. The world of the film is so well imagined that you cannot help but be hooked. What movie was I talking about again? Oh yeah- “The Conversation”. “The Conversation” did not hook me.

The plot is this: Gene Hackman plays Harry Caul. Harry is one of the best surveillance men in the business. Though it is curious that he really doesn’t seem all that great at it. Take, for example, the way that his phone number is a closely guarded secret yet his landlord and a client both manage to have it. Take, for example, the way he invites people back to his apartment for drinks after a convention and they discover a secret recording that no one is supposed to know about. Or any number of such screw-ups. Anyway, Harry has made a recording of a conversation in the park for a powerful client. At first, the conversation really doesn’t seem to mean anything. It is only when things start turning suspicious around him that Harry starts investigating the conversation and trying to discover some deeper meaning to it all.

What is the deeper meaning to it all? I’m not sure. I hope this is a movie that reveals more layers on later viewings, because it didn’t reveal a hell of a lot on its first one. I don’t mind a slow pace and languid plotting, but I would like for SOMETHING to happen in the course of a film. At the end, when revelations are made (or are they?) they really aren’t anything that special.

There are a couple of interesting things in this movie. One of them is Gene Hackman’s performance. It is perfectly modulated and fulfills my ultimate test of a great performance: do you think of any of the actor’s other roles instead of thinking of the one he is playing? The answer is no. I never even connected him with the man in “Unforgiven” or “Loose Cannons” (I’m sure Gene is happy about that: I’m thinking he wants as few people to connect him with “Loose Cannons” as possible). He simply becomes this guy, warts and all. The problem is that, as good as his performance is, it just can’t make up for the relative dullness of the whole thing. Except for a pretty creepy scene involving a toilet (worthy of its reputation and, no doubt, the whole reason that this movie is still discussed) there aren’t many moments that stimulated me. My mind wandered quite a bit during this movie, even though I didn’t want it to. I love Coppola, and I like Gene Hackman, and I liked pretty much all the cast, and the scene with the toilet was pretty involving, but there just isn’t much else to draw the viewer in. Maybe I was missing the point of it or something, but I don’t think so. I think it’s about privacy and security and stuff like that.

I just didn’t really care. And I think that’s kind of the point to a movie, isn’t it?

2000 / 106 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I must admit, I had my doubts. For one thing, Harry Knowles (on that Ain’t It Cool News website) liked it far too much. Everyone I knew who had seen it told me that it was good, but people have told me that before and I still managed to hate the film (I cite “Ace Ventura” and “Billy Madison” as prime examples of this).

But all I can say about “Unbreakable” is “Wow”! For two hours life ceased to exist outside the theater. I did not care about anything but Bruce Willis and his problems, his new discoveries, his startling revelations. I watched this movie, literally, with my jaw hanging open for at least three-quarters of the film. My Nachos sat on my lap, forgotten. In my opinion, that is what great films are supposed to do.

“Unbreakable” is, no doubt about it, a great film. It is the story of David Dunn (Bruce Willis), a Philadelphia security guard for a football stadium. One day, while traveling back from New York by train, Bruce is involved in a horrible train accident. Everyone else on the train is killed. Bruce not only survives, but does so without a scratch. Soon, a mysterious comic book collector with a rare bone disease (Samuel L. Jackson, who is perfect in capturing the odd obsession of a true comic book aficionado) contacts him and starts raising some interesting questions. Bruce starts by denying these questions, but eventually he can’t help but think that the collector might have a point. He may, in fact, just be onto something.

Try not to be totally captivated by “Unbreakable”. I guarantee you won’t be able to. M. Night Shyamalan has crafted a totally absorbing film. This is a comic book movie for intelligent adults. It is a comic book movie without one true action scene, but you won’t miss it. M. Night has now crafted two remarkable, intelligent movies that respect your intelligence and yet still manage to floor you at the end. And he does so while playing fair the whole time. The plot twists in both of his movies, both coming so close to the end that you are about to walk out of the theater thinking that you have arrived at the story’s end when they show up, are not shoehorned in just to fool the audience. They are organic and lurk beneath the surface of the film the entire time. I don’t know how the hell M. Night does this, but he is a genius. In the Sixties, he would have been a staff writer on “The Twilight Zone”. But since last time, M seems to have learned a great deal about camerawork. The cinematography of “The Sixth Sense” was good, but this film raises the bar substantially. The camera is always positioned perfectly. And, much like the use of red in “The Sixth Sense”, upside-down is the big technique in this one. It symbolizes something and it results in many unique and wonderful shots and it all makes sense at the end.

Many people will probably sneer at M for making the same sort of movie twice. Movies that involve the supernatural in a subdued way and involve remarkable performances by Bruce Willis and, yes, he has. But Frank Darabont also directed two pretty damn good movies based on Stephen King novels and set in prisons during the Thirties. Both men are masters at this sort of thing and if that is what they choose to do for the rest of their careers…I have no problem with that. Sure, I’d like to see what M can do with a movie that doesn’t have a cool twist at the end, but I still liked the twist at the end of this one and thought it worked rather well. Not as well as the one in “The Sixth Sense”, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t thoroughly intrigued by “Unbreakable”. Even if it isn’t a radical departure from what M did before.

After all, Alfred Hitchcock found interesting variations on the same theme and the same genre of film for more than forty years.

P.S. - I raved so much about the excellent structure of this film that I think I forgot to mention part of what makes it so damn special: the way it is grounded in the real world. The way that the characters are so well-written and wonderful. The way that it reminded me of a Stephen King novel in all the best ways. Or the way that it showed the dark underbelly of society with more piercing insight than any film I can remember. It’s one of those movies that, the more I think of it, the more I find to like in it. It’s one of those movies that provides food for thought and excellently sets up a sequel….. Please let there be a sequel. Do your part and see “Unbreakable”, just so that I can see what happens next.

1992 / 94 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

The main reason that Russell Crowe is such an amazing and original talent is quite simple. In an era when most of our lead actors are little more than pretty faces, handsome guys, likable guys next door, Russell is another creature entirely. Russell is the only Nineties leading man who can perfectly sell the idea that he is a dangerous man. There are some actors who try their hand at being dangerous, scary men but you can still see that they are nice guys deep down, that it is all an act. Not so with Russell. There is a ferocity to him, a true wild, brute spirit.

His casting is the best thing about “Romper Stomper”. As played by Russell Crowe, “Hando”, the leader of a group of Australian skinheads, is a brutal machine of rage. From the first moment that we see him confronting an unfortunate Asian youth, we do not look at this as a performance. Russell becomes this guy, and that is something truly scary. In his eyes, in his speeches, in the way he swaggers and seems to command his crew of White Supremacists without even trying, we know that this is not a man to trifle with. He is not someone we want to meet in a dark alley. He is, in a word, evil. It is not Russell’s best performance but I would not call it my least favorite Russell performance either. All of Crowe’s performances seem equally blistering and brilliant.

If only the rest of the movie were as creepy as Russell. For the first half hour, this is an intense movie. The very first scene should get your skin crawling pretty efficiently. Some of the scenes which follow this one do much the same thing. As you watch a veritable war begin to escalate between Russell and his gang and a group of Asian immigrants they have been tormenting, you are squirming in your seat. The effective thing here is that there is no easy side to take. You hate the skinheads for their ideas and their brutality, yet there is no one in the Asian side that really make you care about them. They seem to respond to the viciousness of the skinheads with a viciousness all their own. As far as figuring out who to root for, well, there is no one to root for. Again, this is not a bad thing necessarily.

But then, just when things are getting really hairy, it is as though the movie chickens out. It comes right to the brink of exploring some really interesting ideas and then it just goes into territory that we have seen in independent movies since the beginning of time. Or, at the very least, since the beginning of the Nineties. There are the usual robberies and weird love affairs and domestic strife. There are the usual moments of violence (which really aren’t that brutal or affecting or unique, they’ve all basically been done before) and the usual jealousies and faceoffs. Coming on the heels of the nightmarish, in-your-face grittiness of the opening, this comes as something of a letdown. The movie doesn’t even focus on Russell anymore. The focus instead whirls onto another of his gang (Daniel Pollock). Daniel is a decent actor, yes, but he can’t compete with Crowe and the movie suffers. What’s more, Daniel is a nice, sensitive soul, it turns out. After you get to know him, it’s hard to see how he ever became a member of the skinheads in the first place. Oh, he’s the NICE skinhead. Well, isn’t that special.

I’m not saying the movie is bad. No way. Even when it veers into familiar territory, it still is pretty mesmerizing and it still has Crowe’s performance to bolt your ass into the seat. But it isn’t quite what the first half hour prepared us for. It isn’t quite the brutal film that I half hoped for and half-feared. If the movie had continued as it started, it might have given “A Clockwork Orange” and “Taxi Driver” a challenging run for their money. Instead, it lurks in the memory solely for Russell’s chilling performance, a performance which became his calling card and got his foot in the door on movies like “L.A. Confidential” and “The Quick and the Dead”.

But if it had let us more inside of Hando’s head, it might have really had something.

2000 / 104 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

A few years back, Jim Carrey did another movie sorta like this one. It was another movie where he wore green makeup and was outacted by a dog. That movie was known as “The Mask”. The only difference between that one and this one is that “The Mask” was actually good.

The only question I had while watching “The Grinch” was Why? Why did they waste all this money on a story that had already been told immaculately in a half-hour cartoon by animation maestro Chuck Jones? Why rape Dr. Seuss’s beloved book? Why add a stupid subplot explaining why the Grinch hates Christmas? Why make the fucking movie at all? Why? WHY? WhY? Why? Why?Why? WHY? Why waste an hour and a half of my time and God knows how much of the director and the producer and Jim Carrey’s time on this monstrosity? Why does Anthony Hopkins have anything to do with this misguided misuse of resources? It boggles my mind. I can almost explain why bad things happen to good people, but I can’t for the life of me figure out this one.

Oh, wait. Maybe I can after all. I think it was money. Pure and simple. A shitload of it, in fact. And that is too bad. No one is going to learn a lesson from this. This movie has made a ton of money at the box office and will probably go on to earn millions more through toy and happy meal and tie-in merchandise and video sales. And that is too bad. Because that means that the American public will be fed more insults to their intelligence as grossly inane and mentally damaging as this one.

What don’t I like about it? There are so many things that I scarcely know where to begin. First of all, you’re a rotten Mr. Grinch, Jim Carrey. He tries, I give him that. But he tries way too hard. His performance is oddly miscalculated and is generally more annoying than funny. He has a moment or two of comic inspiration, but when stretched over an hour and a half of movie, that just ain’t gonna cut it. The Grinch’s faithful dog Max (poor dog never asked to be in this movie) is a better performer than nearly anyone else in the movie. Cindy Loo Who isn’t that bad. Yes, she has moments of insufferable cuteness, but at least she isn’t as awful as Carrey, who mugs relentlessly and to no effect. I thought that Carrey was done with all this after his brilliant roles in “The Truman Show” and “Man on the Moon”. He deserved Oscars for those two. He deserves to be tarred and feathered for this one. Compared to this one, his talking out of his ass in “Ace Ventura” was restrained and subtle.

Another problem: the Whos. I hated the Whos. No wonder the Grinch hates them. I wish he would have rode into town with an Uzi and dispatched them all, rather than just taking their presents. As it is, they suffer too gentle a fate. They are ugly, mean-spirited, immensely and insultingly stupid (if there were actual Whos in the world, they would be lining up to picket this film) and greedy. They are also as easily swayed as sheep. They follow their asshole of a mayor no matter what he tells them. Sure, they hop on Cindy Loo’s side during the movie, but they seem to follow anyone who tells them anything, so one wonders just how long their changed ways are going to last. In this movie, the Whos are the epitome of everything commercialized and wrong with Christmas. Hmmmm, that’s odd. I thought that the Whos were filled with genuine Christmas spirit. In the original story, they celebrated Christmas because they loved it. Didn’t they? They knew the true meaning of Christmas. That was why they still celebrated even when they awoke to find all their presents gone. That is the whole reason that the Grinch reformed. Here, they lament the loss of their presents and are about to turn against each other until Cindy’s dad gives a big speech. The loss of their presents actually makes them better people. So when the Grinch gives them back the presents they have lost, it all feels wrong. It just doesn’t sit with the rest of the story, even though it is everything we expect.

Also, the back story that they have prepared for the Grinch sucks all the magic right the fuck out of it. It neuters the Grinch. The Grinch doesn’t need a reason to hate Christmas. We all know why he hates Christmas. It’s why we hate it ourselves sometimes. The motivation is not only lame, but it makes the Grinch less powerful. As does their decision to have him ruin Christmas before he steals it. It makes the whole ending anticlimactic. And it makes him less of a mystery and makes his stealing of Christmas less powerful.

This version of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” actually is filled with everything that we hate about Christmas and everything that the cynics are often so right about. It is a commercialized, greedy movie filled with stupid and horrible people and it is about as fun to sit through as an insurance seminar. It comes pre-packaged with a happy meal and a line of toys and a shitty song by Faith Hill. It has a sitcom, treacly ending that only makes one want to flip off the screen and the Grinch’s adventures and pithy one liners are neither relevant nor insightful nor amusing. This movie is one of those rare films that fails in just about every way that it is possible for a movie to fail. I generally like Ron Howard, but here….sigh. The production design is even gaudy and as noisy as the movie itself. This movie filled with me with bile and disgust and sadness in the knowledge that I had paid to be so disgusted. It made me feel bad for having given it seven dollars. I have, after all, encouraged this sort of thing.

Kids might enjoy this movie. But, since I want to have a little faith in the future of America, I hope not. I wish that you people in the general public would stop lining up for shit like this, I really would (hey, I just did it to review this thing). But you aren’t going to listen to me anyway. Why do I even bother. Just remember when you see Adam Sandler portraying “Frosty the Snowman”, complete with yellow snow, that you all brought this on yourselves.

2000 / 123 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I like Arnold, okay. I like him a lot. As Jones would say, and did say the other day, in fact, “Take away the muscles and the accent and everyone would acknowledge what a major talent he is”. I think he makes a damn good point. And though Arnold’s latest film is not one of his best, it certainly is a good time and a great deal more thought-provoking than one might expect when shelling out seven bucks to see Arnie kick some ass.

The film is set in the future, not too distantly. And right at the beginning we can tell that this movie is going to have some fun with the future. The future as seen in “The Sixth Day” is not quite the grim place realized in “Blade Runner”, but I don’t think it’s going be anyone’s idea of a utopia either. The Extreme Football League is paying a quarterback 300 million dollars, there are shops where you can clone a deceased pet for a reasonable price, and children’s toys are innovative and yet still exceptionally annoying at the same time. Somehow, this future has a believable feel to it at the same time that it is being outrageous. Arnold is the owner of a helicopter charter company and, truth be told, a little bit of a geek. You won’t believe how funny that is. He is a loving family man and a good husband and an all-around swell guy (maybe a little too good, but we can forgive) and yet he’s still a geek with big muscles, which helps to make us accept him as this movie’s idea of a normal human being.

One day, Arnie comes home to find another guy who looks exactly like him kissing his wife and eating his birthday cake. Needless to say, Arnie wants to know what the hell is going on. His interest is piqued even further when some people try to kill him and he ends up falling off a dam (shades of “The Fugitive”, sigh). So he tries to get to the bottom of it all in a way that only Arnie can. In the process, many people end up dead and lots of things have a tendency to explode. This is, after all, a Schwarzenegger flick. We expect these things.

The action is by far the most disappointing part of the movie, but it isn’t that bad. It just doesn’t break any barriers or get us to the edge of our seats the way that sequences in movies like “True Lies” and any “Terminator” flick or even “Eraser” did (an overlooked gem that we shall discuss at a later date) but one can hardly bitch because the plot is truly interesting. It touches on every angle of this subject and is never anything less than intriguing.

This is one of those rare action movies where you are actually compelled by the premise and the characters and want to know how it all turns out, rather than just sit there waiting for the next explosion or shootout. It is also surprisingly clever. The bits involving the “Repet” company are pretty witty, as well as the scenes involving Michael Rapaport’s virtual girlfriend. And The Arnold has a rather lovely line to the villain that ranks with his best one-liners.

The action scenes are not the greatest, but everything else about the movie is top drawer. It is well-thought-out and clever and a good deal of fun (not as much as “Charlie’s Angels” but oh well) and Robert Duvall is even in it. In my book, that is well worth a gander. Plus, you get two Arnolds for the price of one.

What a deal!

1980 / 124 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I must start this review out by stating that I am twenty-two years old. I feel this is important in any review of the “Star Wars” movies. It is important to note this because I am part of the “Star Wars” generation. We were there when the movies first came out, and we were at precisely the right age to get the maximum amount of enjoyment out of them. We were at the age where the ads for the toys were playing on the Saturday morning cartoons. We lusted after those toys. They were not toys, they were the Holy Grail and we would beg our parents for them whenever we went to town. I barely understood what a movie was, and I had never seen the movies, but I had to have the action figures. I probably lost more “Star Wars” action figures than most collectors have under glass. I think that I lost about three of the Chewbacca figure alone. I used to bury them in the backyard and try to find them again. I wasn’t too good at the finding part of this equation, though it must be noted that I was dynamite at hiding the damned things. I was too little to sit still for the movies, though, and when they put the “Star Wars” films on television, I didn’t really watch them. I just ran around the house acting out my own versions of them with my action figures.

The point? For my generation, movies started with “Star Wars”. They were the first ones that were big when we were small. They were the first ones to make us care, the first that we got excited about. They were the end-all, be-all of cinema and we still have a big place in our hearts for them. We can’t really help it. They were the movies that popped our collective cherry as far as movies were concerned. You always remember your first time, and you always tend to make her a little prettier than she actually was. For us, movies began with a blonde kid and a lightsaber. And any movie where Burt Reynolds (with or without Jerry Reed) drove a cool car really fast.

I think I was about ten when I actually sat down and watched them for the first time. “Star Wars” was the first one. I remember that it wasn’t quite what I was expecting, but that I watched it about once a day for the next week anyway. But I think the first one I saw was “Return of the Jedi”. I may have broken the tape on that one. I certainly didn’t do it any good. Then I moved onto the others. I was hooked and I have gotten little periods of obsession ever since. Once in a while, I just get an itch to visit my friends in a galaxy far, far away and they never cease in putting a smile on my face.

My viewing tastes are not what they once were. Now I never watch movies where Burt Reynolds drives a car really fast. Now I associate him with the sleazy, yet enthusiastic porn director of “Boogie Nights”. I am more apt to watch “Pulp Fiction” than “Bambi”. And although the “Star Wars” films are not the kings of cinema that they were when I was still counting my birthdays in single digits, they still have the power to enrapture and entertain. When I was less than twelve, I never noticed that the dialogue was not that great. I never noticed that Harrison Ford’s performance in “Return of the Jedi” is a little off. I never gave a moment’s thought to the fact that Luke receives months of Jedi training in the couple of days that it takes Han and Leia to elude the Empire.

And, in the long run, none of these things really matter. The dialogue in “Empire” is not “Pulp Fiction” caliber, but it does not harm or distract from the movie either. The characters may not be Shakespearean, but we care about them and root for them. In the end, it is the vividness of the world that Lucas has created which keeps us coming back. It is a magical world, filled with great images and rousing adventures and terrifying dangers. It is a place with bounty hunters and princesses and wookiees and droids. It is a place fuelled by pure imagination, and it has been lovingly and meticulously thought out. That is why we love it and cherish it, even when we know that parts of it aren’t perfect. There is no perfect anyway. Not really. And this space opera, this battle between good and evil (Republicans and Democrats?) wages on in the corners of our imagination and holds a special place in our hearts.

The thing that makes it so continually great for me is that it is filled with remarkable human touches. I, as the owner of a 1987 Dodge Aries, can identify with the fact that Han’s spaceship is always breaking down and needing repairs. I can identify with the supportive and undying friendship between Han and Chewie, and the wisecracking comedy duo of C-3PO and R2-D2. I can identify with the dreams and longing of Luke and the moments where, because he is human, he falls short of his goals. He does not always win and he does not always do the right thing. “Empire” is the prime example of all these things. It is a darker, richer universe, a bigger landscape of the imagination than either its predecessor or its successor. It is a dangerous world where the people and the not-so-people have more realistic problems. It is a place where the odds are higher and the stakes are greater and the bad guys hint at secret schemes going on beneath the surface. We also start to wonder what is going on in the head of Darth Vader, and are drawn a bit deeper into his character. What is the deal with him anyway?

And plus, the light saber fights are more thrilling; the space battles and chases are more breathtaking; the level of sheer ingenuity has been ratcheted up a notch or two. Yes, dammit, this is brilliant filmmaking. And it is more thrilling and more flat-out fun than any trip to the cosmos that we have ever been on. “2001″ was a better, albeit totally different movie. Yes. But for the lighter (yet still deliciously dark) side of space exploration, “The Empire Strikes Back” is a person’s best bet.

Though I doubt I have to tell anyone to go out and rent it.

2000 / 106 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Just when I thought I could forget about “Ghost” along comes a movie like “Bounce” that brings all the memories flooding back of why I once grew so tired of films laced with romance. That is until I saw wonderful little films like “Notting Hill” and “The Story of Us” which reminded me of what these movies could be if they actually tried.

This is not to say that “Ghost” was a bad film. Not by any means. I actually remember enjoying it the first couple of times I saw it. The problem was that a couple of times wasn’t enough for my mom. This movie picked up for her where “Dirty Dancing” and “Steel Magnolias” left off. Just the mention of those films sends shivers down my spine. Not that they are bad either, but after I saw them fifteen times a week for months on end I began to get a little jaded. Instead of feeling sad when misfortunes befall the occupants of these films I chose to cheer. Rooting for death and damnation at every opportunity. It just felt like the right thing to do under the circumstances. Tell me I’m not alone on this one. I know there are others out there who have been through the “chick flick” gauntlet much the same as I. This whole paragraph sounds like the basis for an essay in the future. I just may have to do that, but for now I suppose I should discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the film “Bounce”.

Why I even bothered to watch a movie starring both Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow in the first place is beyond me. Anyone who knows me knows that I have little room in my heart for either of these, ahem, actors. I have liked them on a couple of occasions in their respective careers. Ben was quality in “Mallrats” and his performance in “Reindeer Games” is not to be missed. As for Gwyneth, I enjoyed her performance in “Seven” and felt that she did a fine job in the much overlooked romantic comedy “Sliding Doors”. Notice how I have done nothing but mention movies other than the one that I am reviewing so far? That’s because I would much rather watch or review one of those movies rather than have to deal with “Bounce” anymore, but the trip has already begun so I might as well complete it.

In what has to be one of the most contrived plots of the year 2000, “Bounce” centers around Buddy Amaral (You want contrived, you got it.) played by Affleck and Abby Janello (How did they come up with these names?) portrayed by Paltrow. Buddy is an ad executive on his way home when, in a gesture of Christmas spirit, he swaps tickets with Greg Janello (Tony Goldwyn) and oh my goodness the plane crashes and Greg is toast. Buddy now has to deal with the fact that he should be dead and feels that he has to somehow make amends. After enough time has passed, he contacts Greg’s real estate selling widow Abby, not disclosing who he is of course, and tries to make things better for her. He does this by landing her a real estate deal that will net her a nice commission, which will hopefully allow her to better provide for herself and her children. Awwww. Isn’t that nice of Buddy? Of course it does not end there. Before it can end we have to become mired in sap in the form of the inevitable romance that develops between the two. As the movie drug on, the only thing I could think was: “Will Buddy make his way into her pants before she finds out who he really is?” When I find myself asking myself questions like this in a serious manner, I know that I am watching a film that is in trouble. A better film would either not allow that question to arise, or treat it as a joke when it did come up.

The only other thing that popped into my head during the course of this film was to think of poor Tony Goldwyn. How does he keep getting involved in these dead husband movies? First “Ghost” and now this. Obviously, this is how I first made the connection between the two films, but then I started analyzing the two and found that they use the same basic premise to cater to different levels of emotion. “Ghost” was the sad, weepy movie and “Bounce” is supposed to be the happy, uplifting movie. Both have dead husbands whose collective demise was brought about by the character who attempts to woo the wife once the husband is out of the way. The wife finds out about her husband’s demise. Don’t even try to say I ruined that for you either, because it always happens in movies of this ilk. “Bounce” does not include Whoopi Goldberg, however, so for most of the public that is a plus in favor of this otherwise negatively endowed film. In the above comparison between “Ghost” and “Bounce” the difference between the two is that “Ghost” did those things well, whereas “Bounce” barely even tried to make them passable. “Ghost” made me forget that I was watching actors. It made me care about the people whose stories it had to tell. It made me loathe certain characters and allowed me to be enchanted by others. “Bounce”? Well “Bounce” did not make me care for it’s characters. I don’t know if I ever truly thought of Ben and Gwyneth as Buddy and Abby. No, I pretty much always thought of them as Ben and Gwyneth and that my friends is not going to win any points in my book.

Sure “Ghost” was sappy and maybe even a little manipulative, but what it did was tell a genuinely interesting story that reached for the heart of it’s viewers. More often than not it found it. I know it did in my case. “Bounce” is just plain sappy. It makes you feel like you are drowning in pretentiousness to the point that you become encased in sap, much the same as those mosquitoes from “Jurassic Park”.

So if you’re looking for a good Tony Goldwyn movie that deals with dead husbands, or you just want an enjoyable night watching a romantically entangled movie then do NOT watch “Bounce”. Watch “Ghost” instead. Yes, I know it has Patrick Swayze in it, but just trust me on this one.

2000 / 84 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I have never been a great admirer of Adam Sandler. He has never been the reason that I ever saw a movie. I watched “Happy Gilmore” and I did end up enjoying it, but watching it in the first place was not my idea. I was at the house of a friend and they wanted to watch it, so, in the interest of not being a prick, I watched it. It wasn’t that bad. Actually, compared to crap like “Tommy Boy” and “>Black Sheep”, it’s pretty darn funny. I hated “Billy Madison”, on the other hand. Though it did have a couple moments that elicited laughter from me. And “The Wedding Singer” actually worked, in my opinion. It was a sweet, funny little movie that brought a lot of smiles to my face. Still, I had a great deal of trepidation regarding his latest flick: “Little Nicky”.

But I must admit to loving it. It’s fun. A lot of fun. Sure, it’s far from perfect. The effects suck. The acting is never going to win an award. The script has its share of lame jokes. Some of the jokes fall flat. There are some dead moments. But then there are moments that seem genuinely inspired. The idea behind the film is at the very least a lot more original than most of the films that pass for comedies these days. And it has some really big laughs. Truly, honest laughs! Who would have known?

The plot of the film concerns Satan and his family. Satan (Harvey Keitel) has ruled Hell for 10,000 years and it has come time for him to select a successor. So he assembles his three sons: Adrian (Rhys Ifans, the MAN from such movies as “Notting Hill” and “The Replacements”) a guy who seems a bit like a glam rocker and has a penchant for peppermint schnapps, Cassius (Tiny Lister, of “Friday” and “The Fifth Element” fame) a bad-tempered bruiser, and Nicky (Adam Sandler) the black sheep of the family and more gentle and nice than he is nasty and evil. But Satan screws them all over by just choosing to keep the throne for another ten millennia. Nicky is fine with this, but Adrian and Cassius are pissed. So they decide to go to New York and make it their own private Hell that they can rule with absolute authority.

Except that when they leave Hell, it throws things all out of whack and causes their dad to get pretty ill (pieces of him start falling off, which isn’t really all that funny). There is never any good explanation for this, though, in this sort of movie, you don’t expect rocket science anyway. So he sends Nicky to Earth to retrieve his wayward siblings in a magic flask(?) and bring them back, restoring order to everything. Nicky has a hard time getting the hang of life on Earth, which results in problems that are both funny and not. But the funny outweigh the not.

Basically, that’s how the entire movie is. There are some funny scenes and some that are not as funny, but the funny stuff seems genuinely inspired and is so good that the not so funny stuff isn’t hard to take. It’s not, after all, bad stuff (for the most part, though I won’t say that some of it isn’t pretty lame) but it’s not bad enough to detract from the stuff that does work.

What does work? The cameos, for one thing. And the sheer ridiculousness of the whole thing for another. The film has a reckless and cheerfully rebellious spirit to it that overcomes much of its problems. And Adam has the usual thing going of using a really dumb accent to be funny, but the accent actually works after while (it made more than one line funnier than it might have otherwise been). Plus, you get to see Quentin Tarantino as a blind prophet and Jon Lovitz as a peeping tom who goes to Hell and gets humped by a giant bird. You also get to see Hitler get a pineapple shoved up his ass, which is just as funny as it sounds. Rodney Dangerfield, Henry Winkler and even Ozzy Osbourne all show up to show their support. Just for the cameos, as well as seeing Rhys Ifans have a more major role in a film, the movie is worth a viewing.

So give it a shot, why don’t you. If I like it, then odds are good that you will too. If you’re still on the fence, let me say something: Jon Lovitz gets humped by a bird! A BIRD! How often do you see that happen? Plus, it’s shorter than an hour and a half, so, even if it isn’t your cup of tea, it’ll be over sooner than you think.

1999 / 111 Minutes / G
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

A lonely old man sits on a riding lawn mower. He is slowly making his way to a small town in Wisconsin from a small town in Iowa. People think him a fool. People call him crazy. People tell him he will never make it out of state, that he will barely make it out of the county. They laugh, they mock. The old man does not care. He rides the lawn mower because he must. He must see his brother. His brother has had a stroke. It is just the thing that Alvin Straight (the old man) needs to see the foolishness of his ways. He must make amends with his brother. His brother, Lyle, may survive the stroke. He may live for decades. Or maybe he won’t. From what the doctors have told him, maybe Alvin won’t either. Either way, it doesn’t matter. Alvin has seen that this is pointless, whatever their feud may be. It is time to put things right.

Alvin has no driver’s license. His eyes and his hip are in bad shape. He does not want to ride a bus. He doesn’t like the idea of another man being in control of his destiny. And the train does not stop somewhere as small as Mt. Zion, Wisconsin. The way Alvin sees it, there is only one way to get where he needs to go. He stocks up on liverwurst and hot dogs, attaches a trailer to his riding lawn mower, and hits the road.

There are setbacks. There are moments of beauty. The world does not depend on this man making it to his brother’s house. It will not stop world hunger. It will not cure cancer. He rides forward, determined despite the odds. He does not make a big show out of it. He will not allow himself to be beholden to others. He meets a few people along the way. They are not extraordinary people. They are not quirky. They are not big characters. They have no hidden agendas, no ruthless schemes, no particularly great ambitions in life. One lady just wants to be able to go a week without hitting a deer. This is the story of ordinary people. It is the story of people who are mostly ignored by mainstream Hollywood. It is a gentle, beautiful story. It has a wonderful performance by Richard Farnsworth who gives one of the most perfect old man performances I have ever seen. He is not a crotchety old coot. He is not a caricature of an old person. He is the genuine article. He has stories to tell and others that he will share with no one but himself. He is filled with quiet wisdom and yet he does not make a fuss of it. He is a simple, straightforward man with attainable and small goals. He is not out to make news or set a world’s record. He is just doing what he has to.

It’s not a movie: it’s a perfect portrait of a time and place. This is the real Midwest. This is what they mean by ordinary people, by salt-of-the-earth people. It does not pretend to be about anything important. It just captures a slice of life as vividly as a snapshot or a documentary, and yet it has the feeling of something epic and wonderful. It, in fact, IS something epic and wonderful. David Lynch has never shown himself capable of something so beautiful, so humane, so tender and honest and perfect before. He has never tipped his hand to show that he could make something that would make one so awestruck. Watching this movie unfold in its pure, perfect, quiet way is like being blindsided by something delicate and yet powerful in its sheer simplicity. I am reaching for delicates here, reaching for something sublime to describe the sublimity of this film, and I am floundering miserably.

At the end of this film, I was on the verge of weeping. Not because the ending is particularly sad, but simply because I had loved these people so much, because I had been shown TRUTH in a medium of pretty lies. And because I was humbled before the experience of this film. When it comes to writing characters, I now know, I have miles yet to go before I sleep.

This is not like making something wonderful, it is like mining for something valuable and finding more of it than you ever expected. If there is perfection in the world, then “The Straight Story” is perhaps an example of it.