2000 / 94 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

One almost feels tempted to reward the movie just for its vision. It is, after all, trying to do something unique…at least for an animated film made in the United States. Japan has understood for years that the animated feature need not be the exclusive province of the childhood set, but we are a little slower to catch on. “Titan A.E.”, however, begins with the destruction of our entire planet by a sinister alien race that means to destroy us before we can threaten their superiority. Disney, this ain’t. At one point we even get to see Matt Damon’s animated tushie.

But alas, its ambition is not quite matched by the strength of the film itself. Which is not to say that it doesn’t have its moments. There are moments of wit and ingenuity here, not to mention some truly gorgeous animation. There is a good deal of imagination on display here also. There are a couple planets we see in this movie that are more dazzling than anything we’ve seen in a Star Wars or Star Trek movie. This movie also brings some delicate and downright whimsical touches to the realm of Outer Space. There is a planet where the trees are large bubbles of hydrogen. There are dolphin-like apparitions which cluster before ships, daring them to a race almost. There are some wonderful moments here, stuff that we really have not seen before.

How is it, then, that the movie is hampered by a rather routine feel? The heart never quite soars the way that we feel it should. The pulse never beats as quickly as we suspect that the filmmakers meant it to. Maybe it is because, although some of the animation is truly breathtaking, some of it seems very average. Maybe it is because none of the characters are rich enough to divert our interest from the beautiful landscapes of the planets they are on. Maybe it is because much of the dialogue just isn’t that great. Maybe it is because the movie still felt a Disney-ish need to populate its gorgeous universe with cute supporting creatures (some of which aren’t as cuddly as they look). Yes, I suspect that all these things are to blame.

“Titan A.E.” has a great idea and some wonderful visuals. It has some moments of true wonder, some moments that serve up a sort of otherworldly spectacle that has been sadly lacking in the cinema these days. It’s a pity that they didn’t work a little harder to make the rest of the movie live up to those moments. It’s a pity that more time wasn’t spent making the characters live and breathe for us rather than look pretty. Ultimately, the film is overwhelmed by the bigness of its own ideas and collapses under its own weight.

Though one has to give it points just for trying.

Share on Facebook

1998 / 170 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

“The Thin Red Line” is one of those rarest of films. The type that I feel like I cannot do justice to with my scant reviews, but I feel the need to tell of the spectacle that this film is….. No matter how poorly I may do so.

It is a film that exists on a level with “2001: A Space Odyssey” in terms of the craft and perfection inherent in it’s design and execution. It is the grandest of all war films. Bar none. This is no small feat considering the competition, but it tells it’s story with such mastery and ease of pace that I cannot help but feel like I have witnessed a film that deserves to be on the extremely short list of best films of all time.

“The Thin Red Line” is defined as a war film, but it is more the study of the effects of war upon the men who fight it, rather than the war itself. I won’t get down to specifics, because I cannot go into that much detail within the limits of this review.

“The Thin Red Line” is the sort of film that any director, other than Terrence Malick, cannot even dream of putting to film. He haunts the viewer with the camera. You become a soldier amidst the chaos, as he deftly moves the camera through the grassy hillside. One scene in particular demonstrates the harshness of war, as the camera slowly sways from side to side and then plunges into the grass. You have just experienced death firsthand.

Malick thrusts you headlong into the battles. It begins with an eerie quiet and then the gates of Hell are opened before your very eyes. You see the life you once knew pass you by, as you are thrown into the belly of the beast.

I liked the fact that “The Thin Red Line” demonstrated the fact that wars can be fought on nice sunny days. Think about it. Practically every other war movie has the battles take place on dark and dreary battlefields. I always wondered if this was some sort of prerequisite for a major battle in a film. Thankfully this film lays waste to that train of thought.

The performances are all of the utmost quality. All are worthy of examination, but I feel the need to discuss the merits of Nick Nolte’s often overlooked performance as Colonel Gordon Tall. Easily the best performance of his career. Yes, even better than his work in “Down and Out in Beverly Hills.” He is what I guess you would say is the typical career army man. Longing for his moment of glory in the war he has waited his entire life to fight. He finds himself conflicted in his duties, as he wrestles with his dislike for his position, as he reminds himself of his duty to his family back home. He eventually has to play a role he never envisioned himself in. Sending men to their deaths to sate his lust for glory. War has it’s effects on the men who take part in it. Colonel Gordon Tall is no different.

“The Thin Red Line” is a modern marvel in the world of cinema. It has so many layers, that one cannot possibly unravel them all in a single viewing. If there can be such a thing as a beautiful war film, this is it. In fact, I would have to venture to say that it is the most beautifully shot movie I have ever seen. It is truly a wonder to behold. In my opinion, this is Terrence Malick’s masterwork.

Thank goodness he came back to the world of cinema to remind us all of just how truly meaningful a film can be. He is an artist in every sense of the word. “The Thin Red Line” is to cinema what the Mona Lisa is to the art world.

A profound statement that will be remembered long after it’s contemporaries have been forgotten.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 99 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

If you don’t want to see “Charlie’s Angels”, well, then you aren’t a red-blooded American man and I don’t understand what could be going on inside your head. It is just that simple. I feel sorry for you, really, if that statement applies to you. Because it means that some major part of you, some fundamental place within your heart or groin is just not in proper working order. If I were you, I would ask God for an exchange or possibly even a refund.

“Charlie’s Angels” is, quite frankly, everything that a movie called “Charlie’s Angels” should be. “Charlie’s Angels” is the heartwarming (and other region-warming) story of three very attractive young women who have been charged with the task of solving crimes, looking beautiful, and kicking a lot of ass. And they excel at each and every one of these things. First of all, the Angels are drop-dead gorgeous. Wow. The eye delights in every costume change, and there are plenty of them at which to rejoice. The girls dress as Oriental massage therapists. They dress in tight little German girl outfits (think “Heidi” only hotter). They dress in tight fitting wetsuits and as dominatrixes with whips. Every kinky little fantasy that you have ever had? It comes to life at some point during the ninety minutes that you are staring at the screen.

And that isn’t all! Aside from feeding your libido (a vital function) the movie delivers more action than any movie this year! This is the supercharged action fest that “Mission: Impossible 2″ wanted to be. Hell, this is the movie that “Mission: Impossible” wanted to be. It is the coolest spy movie in years. There is lots of sneaking around, lots of impossible stunts and lots of disguises. The plot involves rival computer companies, one of which is up to no good. The main designer from one company has been kidnapped and it is the task of the Angels to get him and his revolutionary software back. This is, however, only the bare framework upon which to hang the most jaw-dropping action sequences of the year.

Are the action sequences jaw-dropping? Oh My Yes! Compared to most of the other crap that we are supposed to interpret as action sequences, these will blow you out the back wall of the theater. I have not felt this much adrenaline pumping through my veins since “The Matrix”. Speaking of “The Matrix”, the technique with which these sequences are rendered owes a large debt of gratitude to that movie. If you think I am just finding a nice way to say that “Charlie’s Angels” lifts those techniques wholesale, you would be right. But I didn’t even care. I was so marvelously entertained that by the end of the first exhilarating fight sequence, all such points were rendered moot. I was hooked and dazzled and just plain giddy. Giddy! I had a hell of a lot of fun!

The women in the movie, aside from being gorgeous, all know the precise tone to play their characters. They balance a daring and lovely tightrope between cheesy and straight, between sexy and innocent, between flirty and dangerous. It is an intoxicating mix that never failed to make me smile. These are not your average action heroes. They seem to enjoy their jobs, they seem to love one another, and they never use guns. Before you start bitching about this, let me tell you that you will never miss them. The way these girls kick, the sheer ballet of their acrobatics, the dizzying adrenaline of it all, will keep you on the edge of your seat in a way that the standard movie shootout will not.

In addition to the nicely-balanced work of Drew, Cameron and the luscious Lucy, there are some other amusing performances in the film. A particular favorite of mine was the performance of Crispin Glover as a violent sicko who never speaks. You will likely remember Crispin as one George McFly from “Back to the Future”. Here, in a completely different role, he proves himself not only dangerous but oddly hilarious as well, without speaking so much as a word. It’s all in the way he walks, the way he sucks at a cigarette as if his entire life depended upon it, the way he sniffs a stolen lock of an Angel’s hair. He is a real treat here. It’s also nice just to see him working again. Sam Rockwell is good as the man who has enlisted the Angels’ services and Bill Murray is a droll treat as always as their manservant (of sorts) Bosley. Bill is always a welcome sight, and this is no exception.

In short, “Charlie’s Angels” is rejuvenatingly fun. It is pure delight from beginning to end, for the eyes, the ears and the libido. It may not be the most cerebral movie of all time, and most of the goings on here depend on an enormous suspension of disbelief. But you should have known that the moment you heard they were making the movie. That’s besides the point. In that way it is like a Bond movie. You don’t expect “2001″ and I, for one, don’t even want it. I just want beautiful women to kick a lot of ass and wear skimpy outfits and crack funny jokes.

And “Charlie’s Angels” delivers with flying colors.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 102 Minutes / Unrated
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Dreams….. We all have them. Large and small. Possible and impossible. They are one of many things that bind is into that collective society, known as humanity, that we are all members of in whatever way we choose to do so. Some dreams are realized and others are never pursued. Some are viewed as dreams and nothing more and still others are fit to reside in this category, but some choose to pursue them despite the dangers that lurk within.

This is the subject matter that director Darren Aronofsky illustrates brilliantly with a film that is unlike anything I have ever seen, or that I likely ever will see.

Powerful. Profound. Thought provoking. Awe inspiring. Gripping. Heart wrenching. Disturbing. Bleak. These are all words that I would use to describe this film if someone were to ask me to share my thoughts about it.

It is, doubtless, the most powerful film I have ever seen. I literally could not move afterwards. Shivers were coursing throughout my body, as a numbness fell over me. Here I am, hours later, and I still feel numb. It had invaded my inner self and raped me of any innocence I may have had left. I am thankful for that. The world has no place for innocence and this movie illustrates that beautifully and disturbingly all at the same time.

“Requiem For a Dream” is, on the surface, a study of four people and their addictions. Beneath the surface it is a torrent of emotional hardship that manifests itself throughout the movie in the descent of the four principal characters into their own, respective, personal hell as a result of these addictions. If you haven’t figured out by now, this film would not be described as fun for the whole family. Those with a weak stomach need not apply. It is not a fun ride by any means. It is quite the opposite really. It is much like a car wreck in that you don’t want to look, but curiosity gets the better of you and you look anyway. You are horrified by what you see, but you keep looking because you don’t want to miss anything. If for no better reason than that it will make for fascinating conversation at the water cooler the next day. Society is sick and we all know it. I know it, you know it, and Darren Aronofsky knows it and he has chosen to show us society’s grim underbelly to us just in case we had any doubts left.

In his view of that grim underbelly reside Sara (a dear old lady who dreams of being on television one day and spends every waking moment in front of her “fix” the television), her son Harry (he dreams of making enough money so that he can set his girlfriend up with a clothing store that she has always wanted to open), his girlfriend Marion (she dreams of the life that Harry wants to give her, as well as recognition from her parents) and their friend Tyrone (he dreams of a life without drugs, but he is conflicted because he feels he needs them as a means to that end).

The film begins in the summer and all is well. Sara has received a phone call that has informed her of the impending realization of her dream: she is going to be on television. She has a wonderful red dress that would be perfect for the show, but she finds that she has expanded since the last time she wore it. She begins dieting in an effort to squeeze herself into the aforementioned dress with limited results. In the meantime Harry and Tyrone have hatched a plan to make a big score through the sale of heroin. Marion is anticipating the realization of her clothing store given the current success of Harry and Tyrone’s plan.

All is well on the surface, but come Fall that raging torrent of activity beneath the surface begins to show itself. Sara’s attempts at dieting have failed. She still cannot find her way into that dress. Out of desperation she makes an appointment with a doctor one of her friends informed her of. He gives her a prescription that leads to results, but not without consequences. Harry and Tyrone have fallen on hard times and have run out of stuff to sell. Out of options Marion engages in sex with her shrink to get them the money they need. Things are spiraling out of control and this is just the beginning. They still have the Winter to make it through.

Sara becomes addicted to her diet pills. Tyrone, Harry and Marion have fully transformed from recreational drug users into full fledged addicts. There are no kind words that can be applied to the final chapter of this story. I don’t care how jaded you think you are. You will find yourself shocked, damaged and dismayed as you continue to watch the car wreck unfold before your very eyes. You will want to look away, but you won’t. You won’t find find yourself titillated by Marion’s depraved sex acts. You will be horrified by heroin being injected into a gangrenous arm. You will and won’t be a great many things throughout the course of this film. What I can tell you for certain, is that you will be forever changed. I know I am.

This film is unrated and for good reason: it shows society for what it is. It is not a pleasant thing to see, but it is something that we owe it to ourselves to see. This film should be mandatory viewing in health classes worldwide. If you ever want to think about doing drugs again, or for the first time, after seeing this movie then you either just don’t get it, or you are just flat out stupid.

The performances are all, to say the least, incredible. Ellen Burstyn gives the performance of a lifetime as Sara. She is going to give Julia Roberts some serious competition for Best Actress honors. Jennifer Connelly is equally magnificent as Marion. She should be handed the Best Supporting Actress right now. She is nothing short of astounding. It’s hard to believe that this is the same sweet, innocent girl that stole my heart in “Labyrinth” so many years ago. Jared Leto and Marlon Wayans give great performances as well. That is a sentence that I never thought I would utter in a million years. They deserve it though. Marlon proves to be a Wayans brother with considerable talent and Leto proves that he is not just another pretty face.

I must applaud all four of these wonderful actors and actresses for displaying the courage to take on roles such as these. These are roles that are nothing but degrading and require a large amount of bravery to bring to life. For that they should be applauded. For doing it so well: they should be rewarded.

I can think of no better way to describe this film than in the way that Darren Aronofsky chose to. He described it as something akin to jumping out of a plane with no parachute on and having the film end three minutes after you hit the ground.

Finally 2000 has a film that has the same sort of daring ingenuity that so many films did in 1999. The cinematography is nothing short of jawdropping. The editing is frantic, yet perfect. It is for lack of a better word flawless. Movies like this don’t come down the pike very often. With less than a month to go in the year “Requiem For a Dream” stands as the undisputed best picture of 2000.

If you think you have the stomach for it coupled with the mental toughness that is required to make it through the ordeal that is “Requiem For a Dream”, you owe it to yourself to be put to the test. You and humanity will be the better for it.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 102 Minutes / Unrated
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

At the end of this movie, I knew that the guys I was with wanted to stay through the credits. Perhaps they were even too hooked not to stay through them. But I had to get out. I had to escape from the darkness and into the light of the lobby. You see, I couldn’t take it anymore.

And I don’t mean I couldn’t take it any more for the reasons that I wanted to rush out of “The Grinch” as fast as my legs could carry me. No, no. I wanted out because it was too much.

Just too much. I was slightly disappointed by the movie at first, but that was only because I was expecting the movie to be the most disturbing movie ever made. It isn’t quite that, perhaps, but it is only the most fucked-up person’s idea of a picnic.

“Requiem” is a trip through Hell and Jared Leto, Ellen Burstyn, Marlon Wayans and Jennifer Connelly do magnificent jobs of putting faces to the Damned. It is every bad acid trip rolled into one. It is mesmerizing and thought-provoking and terrifying. It rubs the nerves raw and creates an experience that is almost too much to bear. It’s not that there is any one moment that is more disturbing than anything I have ever seen. It’s just that the sum total of these dark moments, daisy-chained together for a harrowing two hours, is very, very grim. Even two days later, whenever I think of this movie, I feel myself get depressed a little. I think of Jared Leto’s arm, ravaged by drug use just as his brain has been. I think of Ellen Burstyn and the way she has began to look like a Holocaust victim by the end of the film. I think of the horrible smile that crosses Jennifer Connelly’s face near the end. And I just want to burn these images from my brain. They hurt a little too much.

Aronofsky has fashioned a hellish film that should deter all but the stupidest of people from punishing themselves with drugs. He goes a bit too far sometimes, I think, not that it’s entirely a bad thing. And none of the points he makes are really anything that an intelligent person would not have already discovered about drug use just by thinking about it for a while. But it is a gripping and haunting film with images that may even be more impactful a few days later than they are upon first viewing. I think many of the moments here are meant simply to shock the viewer, and that is why they never seemed as organic to me as they should have. I felt that, at times, Aronofsky bludgeons us with images rather than just letting the plights of his characters speak for themselves. But there are enough moments where the plights of the characters do the talking. Enough quiet moments that are totally without cinematic trickery that do their job just as well as the ones that do resort to tricks. The tricks are astounding, and superb, but many of them never drew me in as anything but tricks. This is why I think that Aronofsky may just go too far a couple of times.

But still, it is definitely a scary film (not as scary and disturbing as “The Exorcist”, but it gets points just for trying) and one that will haunt you afterwards. It is a totally unique and chilling ride for which Ellen Burstyn deserves an Oscar. So does Marlon Wayans (of all people). Even the bright moments (and there’s only one moment of the film that I can think of that lives up to that description) are underscored with ominous music that just makes you dread the price that the characters may pay for such moments. And none of the images here chilled me to the bone the way that the dead baby in “Trainspotting” did. But it is still far from pleasant and should be required viewing for Robert Downey Jr.

Though it is a trip that I won’t be taking any time soon, thank you very much. A good movie, but once is more than enough.

Share on Facebook

1988 / 110 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Tucker” is the astounding true story of a man who, in the late 1940’s, tried to start his own car company. He had no real financing, just a few connections. He had no prototype. He had no factory. All he had was an idea. The rest fell into place later. But, unfortunately, his dream never quite became the reality he hoped it would be.

First off, let me just say that the main point of interest in this film is the story itself. This is a totally fascinating true story that I, personally, had never heard. Probably that’s the way that the Big 3 auto companies wanted it. Tucker had many revolutionary ideas for his time. He was the first guy to think about putting seat belts in cars, the first to put the engine in the trunk. He had cool ideas like three headlights and windshields that did not shatter but rather came apart in one big chunk. He was a dreamer, an innovator, a man with good ideas.

Maybe too good. He was hindered at every turn of the way, hampered along his road to success. The movie chronicles the ups and downs of a man who dares to dream (more downs than ups, I’m afraid) and it is never anything less than remarkable. In this way it reminded me of the movie “Ed Wood”, another great film about a dreamer who is ultimately destined to fail. And it is every bit as good as that film. Possibly better.

Aside from a true and compelling story to tell, there are many other virtues to recommend “Tucker”. The production design is nothing less than stunning. The look of the film is absolutely beautiful. Every moment is a marvel to the eye. From the first frame, you are utterly absorbed into this bygone world. You can almost smell it.

The performances are all top shelf as well. Jeff Bridges is magnetic and amazing as a man whose dreams are a little bigger than he can actually make them. And even when he falls a bit short, he is mostly undeterred, pressing forward on an almost impossible reserve of optimism. He is also quite high on the idea of making the world a better place, even if it is just giving people a better car. That isn’t to say that he is a totally perfect person, however. He explodes on occasion and claims that the Big 3 auto companies should be “charged with manslaughter” (a statement which does nothing to endear him to others in the business). But he keeps his head pretty well for a man who seems to have an endless amount of opposition.

Joan Allen (in an early performance) is likewise excellent as his long-suffering and supportive wife. She’s no doormat though, either. She can be tough as nails when she must, and is sometimes a lioness when it comes to protecting her husband’s fragile dreams. This was long before the world of cinema had truly recognized Joan for the dynamic performances that she is capable of giving, but it just shows that she just didn’t become good a couple of years ago. She has been outstanding for years, we just haven’t caught on until recently. Dean Stockwell and Lloyd Bridges are also wonderful in cameo turns in this movie and Elias Koteas (”The Thin Red Line”, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”) does a fine job as the man assigned to bring Tucker’s schemes to reality.

More of the blame for this magnificent film must be laid squarely at the capable feet of Francis Ford Coppola. Many have accused him of sucking recently. Many would go so far as to say that he has not done a great movie since “Apocalypse Now”. I beg to differ. In my eyes, this one and “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” are two of his all-time best films. He’s had his share of missteps, sure, but name me one director who hasn’t been responsible for the occasional lapse of judgment. (And even “Jack” wasn’t THAT horrible.)

Bottom line: this is a great movie. It is rich in texture, emotion and clever cinematic devices. It stuns the eye, captures the heart, and involves the brain. It is a movie to watch and discuss afterward. It is, thus, everything that great filmmaking is all about. It is the sort of movie that Frank Capra might have made. Although I doubt he would have done it this well, or with such a hidden dark side.

Share on Facebook

1996 / 129 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

My reaction to “Primal Fear” is really quite simple: Holy Crap!!!!!!!

I was walking through Wal-Mart, about to leave for the day, and I decided: “Hey, I need to see a movie. Something I have not seen. And it should be cheap.” I consulted the Budget Rack and found “Primal Fear”. Now, I do not much care for Richard Gere. In fact, if I had to name one actor I could safely do without, and I couldn’t pick Pauly Shore or David Spade, well, Richard would be somewhere near the top ten, I’m sure. But it had Edward Norton in it, who I had just seen do a delightful job in “Keeping the Faith” and it had Frances McDormand in it (Go Margie!) so I figured I would give it a shot.

It begins as your typical courtroom drama would. An archbishop has been murdered. A young man (Edward Norton, and, hey, he’s stuttering) is seen running from the crime scene. Richard Gere watches this chase on television and is immediately captivated. He takes quick steps to get himself the case. After all, it will get him some headlines. He snags it and begins to represent the kid.

Basically, this is all that I can tell you without ruining the surprises this movie abounds in. I was perhaps most surprised to find that I actually liked Richard in this. He plays his character with just the right amount of smug arrogance. This is a man who is not entirely likable. He represents people he KNOWS are guilty. Yet he actually thinks this boy, who looks extremely guilty, may be innocent. He has won many cases for people who are geuinely guilty, he thinks, so how hard can it be to win one for someone he believes in? He gets a psychiatrist to talk to the kid (Frances McDormand, not as good as she was as “Margie” in “Fargo”, but still a big step up from most other actresses). Revelations come to light. Suddenly, the film is not so typical. Huh, maybe I will watch a little more before I go to the kitchen.

Soon, I found myself unable to turn the thing off. Why? Because of Edward Norton.

Sometimes you see an actor, and you think he is good, but you still don’t quite see what all the fuss was about. Then you see them in the right movie and it all clicks for you. This was that kind of movie for me and Edward Norton. I used to think that Cuba Gooding Jr. stole his Oscar from William H. Macy. Now, I know that he stole it mostly from Edward Norton.

Wow. That is all I can say about his performance in this movie. It carries the movie. We have seen courtroom dramas before, but none with anything like this in it.

And then comes the ending. I would put the ending of this movie on a par with “The Sixth Sense” and “Psycho”. Just when you think you have it all figured out “BAM!”. When the ending of this film hit me, I actually felt a bit numb. My jaw, literally, dropped. I was floored.

Then, I smiled. I said in my revised “The Phantom Menace” review that I felt as though I had been duped by a master con man.

Well, sometimes that can feel good too. It’s like the end of “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”.

Sometimes you can discover that you have been fooled, and admire the person who made a fool of you for doing it so effortlessly. This is not a perfect movie. But Edward Norton gives a perfect performance.

Wow.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 93 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

This movie reminded me of an episode of the “Simpsons”. Perhaps you will remember it too. Homer was watching a Garrison Keillor on a pledge drive for PBS. The people in the studio audience are laughing. Then it cuts to Homer pounding on the top of the television set and shouting “Be more funny”. As I watched “Bedazzled”, there were moments in which I was laughing and enjoying myself, but there were a lot of moments where I felt like Homer. I didn’t want brilliance. I didn’t want blistering social commentary. All I wanted was for the movie to “be more funny”.

“Bedazzled” is the story of a man named Elliot Richards (played with great effort by Brendan Fraser, no matter what else you might say, you can’t accuse him of not trying). Elliot is an annoying man who tries too hard to fit in. He tells jokes that aren’t all that funny. He mistakenly uses phrases like “posse” and wants to high-five all the time. He’s one of those guys who wants to be your best buddy, but is trying way too hard at it. Sort of like Jim Carrey in “The Cable Guy”. Many of us know people like this, and cringe at the knowledge. Elliot is in love with a woman who does not even know he exists. He approaches her one night at a bar and discovers this. Forlornly, he says that he “would give anything to make her mine”.

Enter Satan in a low-cut, red dress and high heels. Satan (played by Liz Hurley in a performance that begins droll and then turns a bit too repetitive and doesn’t yield any new tricks) offers Elliot seven wishes in exchange for his soul. “It’s like your appendix, you’ll never miss it”. Elliot signs the contract and then, no pun intended, things go straight to Hell.

Each wish involves a complete change in Elliot’s life. He wants to be rich and powerful and he turns out to be a Columbian drug lord. He wants to be sensitive, he’s too sensitive. Each of these wishes is granted and then backfires. Some of them are ironic. Some of them (like his wish to be an NBA basketball star) are pretty hilarious. Some just lie there and die before your very eyes. In this manner it reminded me of a Saturday Night Live episode. And, like any episode of Saturday Night Live, its a mixed bag. Some are funny and some are not. Some are very much not. If I had a watch, chances are I would have checked it more than once during the course of “Bedazzled”. The part where he is an NBA player has a lot of fun with its premise and is the high point of the film, having a lot of fun at pro basketball’s expense. But the others aren’t all that great, even when they do work.

Yet “Bedazzled” has likable characters and its own gentle charm. In a comedy, however, gentle isn’t always the best thing. I like my comedies with a bit of a raw edge to them, a smart bite. I also expect more than this from Harold Ramis, a man who constantly crafts films that are at the peak of what a comedy can do. Take “Groundhog Day”, “Analyze This” or the underrated and remarkable “Multiplicity” for example. Not to mention the fact that he directed “Caddyshack”, “National Lampoon’s Vacation” and co-wrote “Ghostbusters”, “Stripes” and “Animal House”. This guy is no slouch, and we expect a little more from him.

All in all, this is not a bad movie, but it leaves one feeling a long way from “bedazzled”.

Share on Facebook

1963 / 115 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

He works for the British secret service. Women find him irresistible, most of the men he encounters want to kill him. His name is Bond.

James Bond.

“Dr. No” had already done a successful job of introducing us to dashing British agent James Bond by the time “From Russia With Love” came out, and Bond’s (and Connery’s) personality, wit and deadly charm were already quite apparent to moviegoing audienes around the world. “Thunderball” would be a bigger hit at the box office, and “Goldfinger” would be universally acknowledged as the best of the Bond films, but in my opinion, none of the others top this one.

It starts out with an amazing pre-credits sequence, the best of the series, in my opinion, and one that shows the Bond films were already having fun with the mythos they had created. The pre-credits sequence shows that the rest of the movie will toy with our expectations, thrill us, move us and, above all else, entertain the hell out of us.

A Russian female agent (Daniela Bianchi, one of the best of all Bond girls) is assigned to seduce Bond and also make him think that she is going to be giving him a top secret decoder device. She has no choice except death, and she thinks that she is doing it for her country, so therefore she does it. Who wouldn’t? Little does she know that SPECTRE, a worldwide criminal consortium operated by an ardent cat lover, is really behind the whole thing. Bond is assigned to retrieve the decoder, that way SPECTRE can get revenge for the death of Dr. No at the same time that they are getting their hands on the secret decoding device and, just maybe, starting World War Three.

The plot is airtight, filled with twists and turns, none of them implausible. I have nothing against the implausibilities of the other Bond films, mind you, I just find the relative authenticity of this adventure to be exciting. Connery is sharp, sexy, charming, witty and dangerous here. He is the very epitome of coolness, and everything that the later Bonds aspired to. He owns the role of James Bond, and he demonstrates it nowhere as well as he does here. Daniela Bianchi is a superb Bond girl, and a much more resourceful one that most of her later counterparts. Rosa Klebb (played with subtle skill by Lotta Lenya) is a vicious and worthy adversary. And Grant (a young and sleek-as-a-panther Robert Shaw) is absolutely the best villainous henchman in the entire series. He is Bond’s match in most every way, and the most ruthless and cunning operator you could imagine. His fight with Bond aboard a dark Orient Express is worthy of its place in the annals of cinema history.

This movie is popcorn escapism at its absolute best: thrilling chases, daring escapes, romance, witty humor, and well-acted all around. Bond’s double entendres and one liners are the best he has ever had. Everything about this movie is the best. “Goldfinger” introduced more of the conventions that the Bond films would adhere to, but “From Russia With Love” is Bond at his sleek best. This is what the series was far before it fell victim to routine and near self-parody. Movies simply don’t get much better than this one.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 121 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Finally! After a long and tedious search, I have found reason to hold Robert Altman in as high a regard as so many others before me. That reason is “Dr. T. & The Women”. The films of his that I had previously seen were of varying degrees of quality. Some good, and some not so good. Usually the downfall of his films seems to be that they don’t have any sense of purpose. They just kind of hang there.

Many will invariably say that, that is exactly the case with “Dr. T. & The Women”. To be quite honest, they might very well be right. This movie, however, really doesn’t need that sense of purpose that would have aided many of Altman’s previous films.

Although it may not have a damn thing to say, “Dr. T. & The Women” is a film that definitely knows where it wants to go in the allotted time. It may not seem so at first, but as you watch the story unfold you feel assured in it’s course despite it’s lack of complexity.

So, aside from Dr. T. and women, you’re probably wondering what this film is all about.

Sorry to disappoint, but that is what makes up the meat of the program. Dr. T. is a gynecologist (Richard Gere) and, not surprisingly, the women in his life. These women include his deranged wife (Farrah Fawcett), Dallas Cowboy cheerleader daughter (Kate Hudson), conspiracy theorist daughter (Tara Reid), often inebriated sister-in-law (Laura Dern), the new golf pro (Helen Hunt), head nurse (Shelley Duvall), cheerleader daughter’s maid-of-honor (Liv Tyler) and a slew of others. Needless to say. This man is knee deep in…….. Well. You get the idea.

In the early stages of the film we are treated to Dr. T’s wife going off the deep end, which leads to her dancing in a mall water fountain naked as the day she was born. I must say that the years have treated Farrah well, or should I say the plastic surgeons? Regardless, it is a sight to behold. As a result of this wondrous display, she is put into a clinic to get help. Dr. T. finds himself quite lonely in his wife’s absence, but that my friends is where the women come in. He finds himself practically tripping over them, while trying to juggle the hectic nature of his job (which is more of a social hotspot than a clinic) with his wife’s problems and his daughter’s impending wedding. Amidst all this he needs to find time to hunt, and there is the matter of that cute little golf pro that just moved to town.

All this adds up to a man who is nearing the end of his rope. That man is played with admirable exuberance by Richard Gere. This is an actor who, unitl the role of Dr. T., has never done much for me. When I think of Richard Gere, not much of anything comes to mind. That is, until now. Finally he has given me something to get excited about. I actually found myself welcoming, and enjoying, his mere presence on the screen. I can’t say that I ever thought I would say that about the man, but it’s nice to come across the unexpected from time to time I must say. It’s not the sort of performance that will be noticed come Oscar time, but I think it should be. He grounds the character in reality so well that we actually begin to accept that this is this man’s life no matter how crazy it may be. A charming performance that I won’t soon forget. Hmmmmmm… Could Julia Roberts (”Erin Brockovich”) and Richard Gere pick up Best Actress and Best Actor awards respectively, in the same year? Probably not, but it would be rather ironic wouldn’t it?

Among the other additions to the movie is the cinematography. In what has become an Altman trademark, there is an incredibly complex continuous shot during the opening credits of Dr. T’s waiting room. I didn’t have my stopwatch with me, but I would have to say that it lasts three to four minutes, if not longer, and is made up of no less than 15 actresses. There are also a couple of moments where Altman lets his sense of irony seep through by showing store titles in relation to events of the movie, that bring a laugh or two depending on whether or not you find that sort of thing amusing. The aforementioned glistening wet body of Farrah Fawcett is another addition to the film. Sorry for sounding like a pig, but it’s so beautiful that it could quite easily be described as art. Okay. Yeah, that was a pretty weak cop out. I’m a pig. Deal with it.

If you need more reason than that to go to the theater right this minute, I will give it to you. The conclusion of this film has to be one of the most shocking I have ever seen in the theater. Probably second only to “Magnolia” in terms of completely blindsiding the viewer. What you see at the end of this film is every bit as unexpected as the conclusion to “Magnolia” but it is something that happens everyday, rather than being of biblical proportions as is the case with “Magnolia”. I think after bearing witness to this film, I can safely say that I am now a man for having seen that which lies within.

Robert Altman finally delivers with one of the best, if not THE best, films of the year. “Dr. T. & The Women” is a pure joy to behold. You will find yourself having to wipe the goofy grin (that has ruled over your face for the previous two hours) from your face as you exit seeing this gem of a film.

That much I can assure you of.

Share on Facebook