1997 / 150 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Contact is a very intellectual movie, and that is a wonderful thing. I love a movie that respects my intelligence, that bothers to make me think rather than being content simply to entertain me. I want a movie that provides food for thought. And “Contact” does a pretty effective job of bringing up points for the viewer to ponder and to mull over later.

“Contact” is the story of a woman named Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster). Ellie is a scientist who has been looking to the heavens for her entire life and hoping that something besides us can be found there. She listens night after night at a radio telescope, hoping for any hint of another race up there anywhere.

One night, she gets her wish. A signal is sent. When the signal is decoded, it appears to be the instructions on the building of a machine that will transport a human being to the home planet that sent the signal. Preparations are made to choose the individual who will go. Ellie becomes a candidate for these preparations, which the entire world are watching with anxious anticipation.

The film does a commendable job of illustrating the problems and differences of opinion that such a meeting, that the proof of life on another planet, would invoke. In particular, it shows the impact that such a meeting would have on the religions. I was worried here. I believe in God and, although religious people can often be the biggest detriment to their own cause, I am a little tired of movies always taking the side of religion over science every single time. I have nothing against science, but I just think that painting all religious people as simple-minded idiots is getting a little old. It was nice, here, to see both sides of the debate given equal footing. It was nice to see both sides represented fairly, and with neither side coming off shallowly.

The government, however, is portrayed slightly as the antagonist. Why must every general think that the arrival of alien beings is a cause to ready the nukes? “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showed the government as wanting to keep the whole thing a secret, but still wanting to talk peace. But not all the government officials in the movie are shown this way, and it is generally pretty fair to them too.

My main problem with this film is the meeting between the humans and the aliens. The entire movie is made to show this meeting, the entire movie builds up to that moment of contact (look at the damn title, for God’s sake). But when the final meeting does come, it’s a bit of a letdown. I won’t go any further into it, I don’t want to ruin it for you, but after two and a half hours something more impressive would have been welcome.

Another thing that bothered me was the lack of zaniness. Robert Zemeckis’s other films all had a kamikaze thread of delightful insanity in them. Even “Forrest Gump”, for which he won an Oscar, showcased a love for the outlandish and the absurd. Here, everything is played very straight. Mind you, I don’t have a problem with that. But when a man can do the zany so very, very well it comes as a slight disappointment when he reins in the insanity. All I can say is that I hope this isn’t the start of a trend. That would be a real shame.

But even these shortcomings cannot change the fact that this is a very good movie with some very good points to make. If you like a movie that respects your brain, you may want to give this one a try.

2001 / 178 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I must admit that the Middle Earth of Peter Jackson’s creation is not the one that I envisioned as I read the books. No. It is far better. Peter saw so much more as he read those books, so many more details must have popped off the pages and into his mind and haunted him there for so long. Thank God he purged them in the form of a film. And thank God that film is so damn good. Peter Jackson has seen beyond the edges of the pages. He has read between the lines. He has found the very life force of Middle Earth and put it on film for all the world to see. Even those who don’t want to bother reading the books.

“The Lord of the Rings” is an epic fantasy adventure tale written fifty years ago by a Mister J.R.R. Tolkien. It is the story of our world long, long before we knew it. Long before history bothered to record it, in fact. It is a tale of the days when elves ruled the forest glades, when goblins prowled and unspeakable beings known as orcs and ringwraiths did the bidding of a force of unimaginable evil by the name of Sauron. It is the tale, in fact, of the salvation of the world. The world itself was on the very edge of darkness and it was pulled out again. All because of a ring. A small ring which came to the finger of a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (the ever-excellent Ian Holm, so good here and in the unjustly ignored “From Hell”).

As the first part of this epic trilogy opens, we are invited to the birthday party of Bilbo. He is celebrating his eleventy-first birthday (I love that phrase so very much) in the idyllic Shire and he has plans for after the party that no one knows. He passes the ring he found many years ago (with a little prodding from the wizard Gandalf) into the care of his nephew, Frodo (Elijah Wood, and I think he is Bilbo’s nephew, I can’t exactly remember and it isn’t important anyway). Frodo accepts the ring, only to discover later that it is the One Ring forged in the dark fires of Mount Doom which, if it were to fall into the wrong hands, would cast the entire world of Middle Earth into the dark reign of Lord Sauron.

Adventures ensue.

That is all I will tell you of Frodo’s quest, because that is all you need to know. Wanna know more? Read one of the books, maybe even all of them. Tolkien described the whole affair much better than I can. But I must admit to you that I did not entirely get into the books. I liked them, certainly, and admired the craft with which they were written. But there were too many pauses for songs and poems. Which is fine. I couldn’t write a song or poem to save my life (maybe a dirty limerick or two) but Tolkien can. He imagined the atmosphere of this world so well that he knew the songs they would sing, the poetry they would create. Often, a writer is good at one aspect of a story like this, but not at others. For example, he may be excellent at creating oppressive and evil villains, but his heroes are hopelessly bland. Or vice versa. Or the tale itself may be a good one, but the backgrounds just don’t quite convince. Well, Tolkien’s rare gift was that he was a master at all these fields, a wiz at them, if you will. He outshone all who had dabbled in the fantasy genre before him, and that is why his books are probably still read yet today, some fifty years later. He enchanted an entire culture (cult?) with these tales. I may have found the use of similar names and so many locations confusing as I read the books, but I suppose I am in the minority. These books have, after all, inspired folks like George Lucas and Led Zeppelin. Who am I to pick them apart?

But, as you are probably saying, this ain’t a damn book report, Dale. Get on with it. And I shall commence to now, my friend, and with pleasure.

The film of “The Fellowship of the Ring” did not confuse me in the least. It cleared a few things up, in fact. It’s like reading the books with an excellent teacher around to tell you things when they get foggy. Only it’s not like reading a book. It’s like living one. “Lord of the Rings” swept me up from the first frame of the prologue to the very last second which wound its way through the projector. “Lord of the Rings” is a dazzling experience. The world of Middle Earth comes alive with extraordinary flare and craftsmanship. The plot is concise and marvelously fleshed out. The vistas and sheer scope of the film caused my jaw to be on my chest throughout the movie. The characters are inhabited by these actors with immeasurable finesse and effortless ease. Each of these actors, while this is not an actor’s movie, per se, just nail their parts. Elijah Wood was so captivating and so mesmerizing as Frodo that I scarcely noticed his effortless English accent until I stopped and thought about it after my second viewing of the film. Liv Tyler finally delivers on the sweet promise of “That Thing You Do”. She doesn’t have a lot of screen time, but she was perfect. Cate Blanchett was not as good as I expected her to be (I must admit, I expected the most out of her) but she does a good job with what she has and she lends an enigmatic presence to the film as a whole.

And Gandalf! My God! There are no contenders, Ian McKellan is the Best Supporting Actor of the year! He batted this one out of the park. He played the character of this wizard, this wise, all-knowing man, in a way that I have never seen. Even Alec Guinness (who was slumming in the “Star Wars” trilogy, let’s be honest) couldn’t give Obi Wan the layers that Ian brings to Gandalf. There is a scene early on, in Bilbo’s hobbit hole, where the ring has been cast into the fire. The results of this are crucial, for they will determine whether this ring is the Ring of Power or not. But none of this is spoken aloud. It need not be. It all is said in Ian’s eyes and posture. He is a conflicted man. A wise man. A magic man. But he’s also undeniably human and warm and hard. This is stupendous acting and it got to me.

“The Fellowship of the Ring” might have a couple of quibbles in it. The Lothlorien sequence seems a little rushed. And it also contains a very strange sort of transformation which is out of character with the rest of the film (it looks like something that would be at home in an “Evil Dead” film). And the hobbits didn’t look precisely how I had always pictured them. (I pictured them a bit portlier) But, again, those are personal quibbles. And they didn’t detract at all from the magnificence of the film. This is an enchanting, adrenaline rush that is nearly flawless. It did not send shivers up my spine as “Moulin Rouge” did, but it addicted me. It made me want to read the books again. It hooked me so much that I saw it twice within two days. I even smuggled in and ate pudding during it the first time, a cinematic first in my book. And the whole audience had the opportunity to boo the commercials. Oh God, the beautiful fun of “boo”ing that lame Chrysler ad and having a hundred other people join in! It was sensational! OH, and the movie rocked as well.

My main complaint, and the biggest one, is that I have to wait a whole year to see the next installment. It’s like seeing the greatest television miniseries of your life, then having to wait until next season to see its resolution. Only worse. Damn you, Peter Jackson, you have done what Lucas could not! Not only have you trumped him on sets, special effects and sheer wonder, but you have made me anticipate something again!

2001 / 83 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

This is going to be short.

I really only have one problem with “Scary Movie 2″: it wasn’t funny. Okay, maybe it goes a bit deeper than that. For example, “Shallow Hal” wasn’t exactly hilarious either, but it had great characters and it was solidly written. It also had warmth and compassion. “Scary Movie 2″ has pathetic movie parodies that mostly misfire, no likable characters (well, okay, James Woods, Andy Richter and the cat, but that’s it) and it has no novelty. Whatever freshness and novelty this sorry franchise (Dear God, please let this be the last one) had was shot the first time around. And, if you will refer to my review of the original “Scary Movie”, you will note that I wasn’t really that enthusiastic even about that one. This one is so bad that, for the most part, I found myself thinking wistfully back to the mild atrocity that was “Scary Movie 1″.

Any discussion of the plot would be an exercise in futility. These sort of movies have no plot. They have no character development. They are machines for the manufacture of laughter and, as such, are comedies stripped directly to their essentials. The essential factor of any comedy is laughter and the generation of it. “Scary Movie 2″ is hilarious for its first five minutes or so (the inspired “Exorcist” parody, which is almost worth the price of a rental on its own) and the scene involving an irate feline and a broken beer bottle. Otherwise, I may have chuckled as much as twice. But that was it. It’s lame. It’s pathetic. You can see every joke hobbling at you from a mile away. This movie is terrible and stupid and irritating at every turn. It doesn’t even stay on target. It’s a bad movie when, as Jones so elegantly put it, even Chris Elliot is slumming with his appearance in it.

I hated this movie. It’s crap with two funny scenes. Now, let’s move on.

1975 / 123 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

The best way to look at “The Eiger Sanction” is to think of it as a James Bond movie with Clint Eastwood inserted into the mix in place of Bond. And hey, let’s be honest. If anyone could replace Bond it would be Clint. The reason I make the comparison is that minus the gadgets this film has much the same ingredients as many a Bond film has contained over the years. You’ve got women all wanting a piece of Clint (in one form or another), you’ve got treachery and above all else there is the close friend who finds a way to get killed. It is the death of this friend that leads to art collecting college professor Dr. Jonathan Hemlock (Eastwood) to get involved in the world of intrigue that is “The Eiger Sanction”.

After sending an attractive young student (who wanted to perform sexual favors to improve her grade) on her way Hemlock bumps into an old acquaintance of his named Pope. It quickly becomes apparent that these men have never gotten along. Despite that fact, Pope has come to arrange a meeting between Hemlock and a Mr. Dragon to discuss certain actions that need to be taken. The meeting is arranged and Hemlock is blackmailed into performing a sanction (a hit) on a man who killed one of Dragon’s agents. Hemlock himself used to be one of these agents and, having no choice, performs the sanction with relative ease.

Thinking his life can return to normal now that he has delivered, Hemlock returns home beds a stewardess and wakes up to find his payment for the sanction missing. It turns out Dragon needs him to perform one more sanction: The Eiger Sanction. Dragon informs Hemlock that the agent who was killed was an old friend of Hemlock’s, who had actually saved his life once. The second of the two killers can be found taking part in a international climbing expedition on a mountain known as The Eiger, but it is unknown which of the climbers he is. Hemlock, who happens to be an accomplished climber, has fallen victim to the mounatin twice before, but knowing he owes it to his old friend takes the sanction on his own terms.

That is just act one. After this Hemlock goes into training with his old buddy, and fellow climber, Ben Bowman (George Kennedy). This is the best part of the film, as it has laughs, intrigue and naked Indian women. Hemlock manages to even run across an old enemy who the good doctor would like nothing more than to kill at the first opportunity. After the training segment of the film we move into the third and final act, which is the climb itself. Amazingly enough, this is the part of the film that I liked the least. It has it’s moments, but for the most part has difficulty holding one’s attention. I guess it’s just not that exciting watching a bunch of guys climbing a mountain, although the cuts to Bowman watching from the hotel with a telescope were a great deal of fun. Eventually the events of the third act will lead to the inevitable unveiling of who the second killer is. To me this wasn’t much of a payoff as I found it to be rather predictable and uninspired.

The performances are fairly average overall, aside from the top-shelf performances one would expect from the likes of Eastwood and Kennedy. These two are at their best when they are together, which is for a great deal of the movie since the training sequence lasts for roughly a third of the movie. It is during this time that I found myself enjoying the film the most. From Kennedy’s unwanted wake up calls to Eastwood’s handling of his old nemesis these two esteemed gentlemen are at their best during this part of the film. The supporting actors fill their roles and do little more with them. They don’t really add anything to the film, but they don’t detract from it either. The same cannot be said for some of the one or two line extras used at the hotel while the climb is taking place. They are given some rather weak dialogue and make it even worse than it already was when they choose to speak it. Thankfully Kennedy runs these people off rather quickly so they don’t have to be dealt with for too long.

“The Eiger Sanction” is one of Eastwood’s earlier directorial efforts and, at times, it shows. For the most part, he does a fine job with, once again, the training portion of the film being the high water mark of the film. His pacing is excellent during this part, as he never allows anything to go on longer than it has to, although the same cannot be said of portions of the first and last acts, which had a way of feeling overdone and decidedly lacking in interest a great deal of the time.

All things said and done this is a good enough movie. I am critical of it, because I expect a little more from an Eastwood movie than I do of others. Maybe that’s selfish, but he is Clint Eastwood and we all know what he is capable of when he sets his mind to it. But then again he is Clint Eastwood and who am I to judge. This film does display the Eastwood of the 70’s that we know and love. The razor sharp wit. The take-no-shit attitude. It’s all there. So, if you’re looking for Eastwood, and his more esteemed works are not available, “The Eiger Sanction” is more than capable of suitably filling the void in your viewing diet.

2001 / 109 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Watching a Wes Anderson movie just makes you realize how much recycling Hollywood does. I mean, most films are just a parade of shots and ideas stolen from other films masquerading as something new. Maybe the shots that Wes does have been done before. But you could fool the hell out of me. Wes Anderson has a way with film. A way that makes you tthk that you are seeing something utterly original.

In short, I had never seen a movie like “Bottle Rocket”. I had never seen a movie like “Rushmore” before I saw that one. And until Saturday night, I had never seen a movie remotely like “The Royal Tenenbaums”.

“The Royal Tenenbaums” concerns a self-proclaimed family of geniuses. Chas Teneeums (Ben Stiller) has been a financial wizard since the age of eight. Margot Tenenbaum (Gwyneth Paltrow, who has never looked quite so forlorn) is a playwright who first won accolades at the age of eleven. Richie Tenenbaum (Luke Wilson) is a phenomenal tennis player. Or, at least, he was before his breakdown at the age of twenty-six.

The children have all fallen on hard times as of late. Perhaps it has something to do with their iconoclast father, Royal (Gene Hackman). Royal has not had anything to do with any of the children (or his estranged wife, Etheline, played by Angelica Huston) for several years. It is only when Etheline considers marrying her accountant and bridge partner Henry (Danny Glover, who seems to have been in hiding since the fourth installment of the “Lethal Weapon” series, having seen that film I can understand why) that Royal appears at the Tenenbaum house, claiming that he is dying of cancer and desperate to make connections anew with his estranged family.

As you have probably noticed, “The Royal Tenenbaums” is a strange, eccentric movie full of strange, bright, eccentric people. Many critics have spent many paragraphs bitching about this. But I fail to see why. Perhaps they are a little too eccentric, but I feel that it is better, and more telling of Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson’s unique talents, that the characters suffer from an excess of personality in this era when so many film characters suffer from a lack of personality. The Tenenbaums and their friends and acquaintences are filled to the brim with quirks and habits and intelligence. They are bursting to the seams with vibrant gusto. And I, for one, could not be happier. Wes and Owen’s script has raised the bar and each and every one of the actors in this film responds in kind. Danny Glover, Luke Wilson, Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelica Huston and Owen Wilson all give marvelous, layered and endearingly eccentric performances. They all seem to be comfortable in the skins of their characters and they seem, also, to be having a ball. Their joy of performance spills over and out of the corners of the screen.

But the real revelation, the life force of the film, in fact, is Gene Hackman. Gene so often seems to be on auto pilot, given nothing real challenging to do. He often seems to be standing in a film, waiting for a reason to be brilliant. In “Enemy of the State”, “Crimson Tide” and many other films, he seems to be a paycheck player. He’s just waiting for someone to challenge him, to give him a reason to be at his best. But in movies like “Unforgiven” and “The French Connection”, he is busting his ass and shining like the star that he is. In those films, he shows you what all the hype is about. He amazes you with the very craft of acting. Well, “The Royal Tenenbaums” is a film like those two. Gene has a reason to believe again as Royal Tenenbaum. He has never turned in a comedic performance this flawless, at least not as far as I have seen. And he gives us, in turn, a reason to believe in him. Each line he delivers with absolute perfection. Each facial expression, each nuance, each bit of body language and moment of his impeccable timing is played to the hilt. Gene deserves recognition here like he hasn’t in years. He is perfection achieved as Royal Tenenbaum, one of his finest creations onscreen.

Which isn’t to say that “The Royal Tenenbaums” is a perfect movie. Oh, it’s damn close. It’s got many moments of utter greatness. More than most of the year’s films, in fact. It has personality, for one thing. It has a sense of itself, of the bizarre. It’s a beautiful balancing act of the absurd and the serious. There are a couple moments that don’t quite gel, and one or two moments where it loses its focus for a bit, but it’s always back on track soon enough. And the film’s production design, cinematography and editing are all superb. New York in this film is a place that doesn’t really exist, but it should. It’s an ideal of New York, a young man’s J.D. Salinger dream of New York City. And it is marvelously realized. It has thousands of unique little touches. It has the sort of layered jokes that made “Rushmore” such a joy to discover over and over again.

No, it’s not as good as “Rushmore”. But few modern comedies were. No, “The Royal Tenenbaums” has to settle for being the best comedy of the year and containing one of Gene Hackman’s finest roles ever. But I think you will find that is more than enough to recommend it.

2001 / 135 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Vanilla Sky” has earned many comparisons to “Memento”, and I can sorta see why. Both of them deal with the nature of the mind, and memory, and experience and reality. Both of them screw quite effectively with the head of the viewer. And both of them involve bodily mutilation. While “Memento” only deals in tattoos, “Vanilla Sky” has a protagonist who loses half his face in an automobile accident. Both of them raise interesting, challenging questions about identity and worth. And both of them are well worth your viewing time and filmgoing dollar. But while “Memento” is a fascinating, enigmatic mystery, “Vanilla Sky” is a…fascinating, enigmatic mystery. But it’s also a lot more. Look closer, as “American Beauty” says, and there are many layers underneath.

While I thought that the critics who liked “Memento” so much were maybe reading a little too much into it (perhaps I was just not reading enough into it, whatever), “Vanilla Sky” exists on so many levels, so many planes, that it’s impossible not to read a lot into it. If you are an intelligent, open-minded viewer, that is. If not, don’t even bother with “Vanilla Sky”, you’re just going to be pissed off by it.

“Vanilla Sky” opens with a guy who appears to have the world on a string. Tom Cruise plays a guy named David. David is the head of a large publishing firm. Though he hasn’t really had to work that hard for it. He basically had it handed to him on a silver platter. He’s a smug, narcissistic child masquerading as a man. He has a great car, a great job that’s easy to maintain, a huge apartment, and a lovely woman who is only his “fuck buddy” (Cameron Diaz). Then he begins to make lovey-dovey eyes at his best friend’s (Jason Lee) date (Penelope Cruz) and shortly thereafter, everything goes into a tailspin. Cameron gets very jealous and takes him for a car ride which culminates in her driving off a bridge and killing herself, leaving him horribly disfigured.

It’s shortly after this that David’s wonderful life goes straight to hell.

The film unfolds like a dream and is open to a couple different interpretations. But fear not, Cameron Crowe explains everything at the end. If you have seen the Spanish film “Abre Los Ojos” (”Open Your Eyes”), then you have seen a version of this film. And if you have seen that version before this one, as I had, then you know where the story is going. And knowing such does not ruin the experience. On the contrary, I believed that this knowledge enhanced the experience and enriched my understanding of David’s journey. I knew where the film was taking me and, therefore, I knew to look for the clues and I enjoyed the ride. Thus, I cannot really judge it from the standpoint of one who has not seen the film. I believe if you just sat back and let the story weave its delirious spell, you will be challenged and entertained. I believe you will have a marvelous time. The structure of this film (like that of the Spanish film which came before it) could have used some fine-tuning. But no matter. It is a puzzle of a film, toying with your perceptions and turning them on their head throughout the course of the film. If this sounds like your cup of tea, if you like a movie that does not take you by the hand and lead you like a child through the machinations of the plot but instead lets you work at what you are seeing and attempt to discover things for yourself, then you and this film will get along just fine. If not, I wish you would give this one a try anyway. But you’d probably just be frustrated and disappointed by it. So just see “Harry Potter” again, why don’t ya.

I’m not saying it’s a perfect film. Not quite. But the performances are all very good. Tom is not at the pinnacle of his expertise here, but he is uncommonly good. Jason Lee is great as his best friend. Cameron Diaz makes a striking impression with her limited screen time, she definitely leaves a lasting mark, in more ways than one. Penelope Cruz was decent, giving one of her finest performances thus far. And Kurt Russell is great as the psychiatrist trying to sort the contents of Tom’s scattered brain. I also dug Noah Taylor (last seen as Stillwater’s manager in “Almost Famous”) in his strange little turn. And Cameron Crowe’s dialogue does the usual magnificent job of popping off the screen and putting most other movie dialogue to shame. He also does a great job of directing the piece. You wouldn’t think that he would do so well with a film that is a mystery, a thriller, a puzzle and a sci-fi film by alternate turns, but he nails it. He brings his mastery of pop culture know-how and his fluidly graceful sense of character development to a new genre and breathes new life into it.

Of the two mind-benders this year, I must say that I prefer this one to “Memento”. It’s much more fulfilling, more rewarding, more engrossing. It worked on more levels. “Memento” always felt like a clever gimmick to me (which is not to say that it isn’t a wondrous little movie) but this one managed to transcend the gimmickry for me and become something more. It’s also better written. Of this and the Spanish version, I would also choose this one. The acting is better, the canvas is a tad broader, and the writing is more sharp.

It’s not quite an “A+” in my book, but it’s definitely a worthwhile ride. It’s a mind trip, true, every bit the one that “Total Recall” was. But the trip is worth taking.

2001 / 135 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I find it interesting that Cameron Crowe chose to start his mind-bending thriller “Vanilla Sky” with Tom Cruise awakening to the Radiohead song “Everything In It’s Right Place”. It seems to me that this is the subject at the heart of the film. When do we really know that everything is in it’s right place? Is it ever possible for everything to be in it’s right place? These questions may have never crossed your mind before, but they most certainly will weigh heavily on your thoughts after viewing this challenging masterpiece of a film.

Cruise is David Aames. The head of a publishing firm that he inherited from his father. For David, the publishing firm is more of a diversion than a real passion in his life. What he truly wants from life is true love, although he doesn’t mind sleeping with a friend (Cameron Diaz) to release his sexual frustrations while looking for Miss Right. Then one night David’s best friend (Jason Lee) brings a date (Penelope Cruz) to a party that he’s hosting. He is immediately intrigued by her and follows her around like a puppy dog for the entire evening. All the while falling in love with her. He eventually takes her home and spends all night talking to her. It appears all will be right as rain, as he walks to his car the next morning. It is at this moment that he makes a decision that will alter his life forever. It leads to a tragic car accident that leaves David disfigured and emotionally scarred. He attempts to overcome his misfortune, but will eventually find himself in jail on the charge of murder, discussing his life with Kurt Russell.

So how did he go from having the time of his life to a murder rap? That is the intellectual side of the coin that Cameron Crowe brilliantly unravels in his own unconventional yet admirably appropriate manner. The use of the device of the jail to tell the story in pseudo-retrospect, with Kurt Russell in the role of interrogator and captive audience, does a great deal for the story. It delivers many questions to the viewer that will slowly be answered as the film plays itself out while, at the same time, answering questions you didn’t even know you had. This becomes readily apparent upon multiple viewings.

There hasn’t been a film that played with one’s mind with such fervor and delight, since “Total Recall”. A film that shares a great deal with “Vanilla Sky”. The parallels are there for you to discover on your own if you choose to do so. The film never ever cheats the viewer. I was concerned about this going into my second viewing, but quickly realized that I had nothing to worry about. All of the clues are there to be found. You just have to look in the right places. The film is so masterfully done that it doesn’t allow the viewer to realize they are in for a journey of true awakening until it abandons it’s fairly linear story after the first hour and changes course into a mind-bending world of lost dreams and displacement of reality.

Tom is in top form in the role of David Aames. This may be the most challenging role he has ever had to tackle and he nails it. For the first time in his career, he is unable to rely on his looks to fill screen time. This is due to the aforementioned disfigurement, which is quite a site to endure. I’ve considered Tom to be a talented actor for years, but it seems that he is unable to shake the stigma of merely being a pretty face despite the many brilliant performances he has turned in. Here he runs the emotional gauntlet. He is playfully disturbed when singing a Joan Osborne song while riding on a gurney. He is charming while wearing a dopey looking hat and hanging out with Jason Lee. He is unrelentingly tormented while losing hope in the aftermath of the accident. He delivers on all counts and he is to be commended for this performance.

Amazingly enough, Penelope Cruz actually turns in a solid performance here. She doesn’t do anything groundbreaking, but she does add some subtle layers to a fairly one-dimensional role due to her being viewed through the eyes of David as a goddess. Cameron Diaz turns in a terrific role as the obsessive bed buddy of David’s. She tells us a great deal about her character’s intensions with very little screen time. It is the things she says that tells us that she truly means what she leaves unsaid. It is a brief, yet captivating performance that deserves every bit of critical acclaim it has received. Lastly, Kurt Russell turns in a poignant performance in his dealings with David. He acts as a surrogate father to David in these scenes. He wants to believe David and, most importantly, he makes the audience want to believe David as well. Why Kurt doesn’t get more work is beyond me. Although he was in “3000 Miles To Graceland” which did rule I might add.

Crowe and Cruise both took a big riskwith this movie. It’s not like we expect a mind-bender from the team that brought us “Jerry Maguire” which, by the way, is also an amazing film. It paid off in spades, however, as it ranks alongside the best work that either of them has done. I can only hope that they both choose to take more chances like this in the future.

The film has been faulted for having an ending that gives everything away at the end. This I don’t understand, since many of the people who say this admit that they don’t “get” the film. So I think it is more along the lines of finding fault for the sake of finding fault. I usually don’t care for movies that tie up the loose ends either, but in the case of “Vanilla Sky” the informative ending adds new layers to characters that otherwise would not have been realized and makes the film a completely captivating experience on all levels.

One can take many haunting images away from this film, but the one that stands out for me is at the very beginning. It is the Times Square scene that much has been made of. The streets are barren and David is running scared through the lifeless void at the heart of the Big Apple, which is typically it’s most lively. This is representative of David’s dilemma. Is there a discernible line between reality and disillusionment, or is everything truly in it’s right place?

That is the question at the heart of “Vanilla Sky” and a question that you will have to search your own heart and soul to find the answer to. For I do not have the answers. Although I can tell you that it does indeed piss on the ridiculously overrated “Mulholland Drive”.

That bit of nonsense can only be described as “Vanilla Sky” done wrong.

2001 / 116 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Rarely does a movie tap so deeply into the very essence of cool so seemingly effortlessly as “Ocean’s Eleven” does. It’s just…cool. From the first frame to the last. It just oozes effortless cool, and it needs to. It’s the sort of movie that must be drenched in cool in order to work effectively. It must wallow in it. It must soak in it. It must exude it even when very little appears to be happening.

Which prompts a question: What is cool? Good question. I sure as hell don’t have an answer to it. I could try to explain it, but that would be an exercise in futility. Cool is simply “cool”. There is no other way to explain it. And when you have seen something “cool”, you know it. You don’t need to be told. And I’m not talking a movie where you see a big explosion that really impresses you, or a great bit of dialogue, which makes your eyes light up and elicits you to say “Cool!” No, true cool is different. True “cool” is a rare commodity, and has little to do with anything to extreme as a big explosion or a twisty plot. No. True cool is simpler, more idiosyncratic than that. True “cool” is an elemental sort of thing. It’s evident in the set of a man’s face. It is evident in the attitude of a character. It is in the way they walk. It is in the way they confront the circumstances in which they find themselves. It simply is. Remember the way that John Travolta walked up that set of stairs in “Get Shorty”? That is what I am talking about. That was “cool”. That’s the sort of “Cool” that “Ocean’s Eleven” has in spades.

George Clooney, for example, is the maestro of cool in this film. He has his motives. He has his doubts and his emotions, we catch a glimmer or shadow of them every so often as they drift over his face. But we don’t catch much of them. He is too cool to be human. Some characters are larger than life. Clooney’s Danny Ocean (a suave and quietly charismatic sort of creation unique to him) is Cooler than Life. Which is not to say that he does not give a good performance. He isn’t Oskar Schindler and he isn’t Lester Burnham, but he is the right man to be the focal point of the film. He exudes the sort of class and respectability and suaveness that makes the whole film click.

But George is not alone as the ambassador of Cool in this film. At his side, behind him, and perhaps even a step ahead of him most of the time, is Brad Pitt. Like Billy Bob Thornton in “The Man Who Wasn’t There”, Brad creates a memorable and understandable (yet teasingly enigmatic) character with the smallest of gestures and a minimum of big emotions. He simply talks, eternally snacks on something, and exudes the same variety of effortless coolness as Clooney. They are remarkable in this picture. No, they are not the average guy. They are the sort of guys that the average guys would all like to be.

“Ocean’s Eleven” is, first and foremost, and pretty much straight up, a heist film. It revolves around the meticulously planned heist of a vault 200 feet beneath Las Vegas (Vegas, baby) which houses the cash from three separate casinos all owned by the same guy (Andy Garcia).

Danny has a grudge against the man, which soon becomes apparent and is eventually explained, and assembles a crew of the best men in order to pull off his daring and complex robbery.

“Ocean’s Eleven” has all the trademarks of a classic heist picture, like “Topkapi”. It has the part where the hero assembles a varied and oddball assortment of players, each with a special ability that will come into play during the course of the heist. Most memorable among these various players are Carl Reiner as a retired master lured back into the frey, Don Cheadle as an explosives expert who looks and sounds like a refugee from the film “Snatch”, Matt Damon as a pickpocket, Elliot Gould as the badly-dressed financier with a perpetual cigar in his mouth, and Bernie Mac as the inside man. These men all give their characters a nice amount of personality and distinguish themselves from one another quite nicely. They aren’t expected to give Oscar quality performances, they are just expected to enliven the pot they have been stirred into. And they do so admirably.

Then there are the other heist picture trademarks, all of which are nicely covered and wonderfully enacted. There’s the part where the leader explains and outlines the plot to his assembled crew. There is the part where they train and acquire the necessary materials. There is the part where complications arise to throw a monkey into the wrench of the whole show. And there is, of course, the big payoff.
There is also the prerequisite love interest. Julia Roberts has little to do but look pretty here.

She could pull this role off in her sleep (though she has more charisma here than she did in the disappointing “America’s Sweethearts” or as the bitch in “The Mexican”) and she occupies the least fascinating facet of the film, but she still does an adequate job. The film’s crackerjack pace does slow a bit during these scenes, but don’t worry. It will soon shift back into gear for the heist segment and the segments which lead to that inevitability.

The manner in which the heist is played out is pretty clever and unique. The performances are enriching. And the whole thing is just a hell of a lot of fun. I can’t think of a movie this year that was more flat out fun (okay, “Moulin Rouge”, but that was a richer experience than simply “fun”) and I can’t think of a heist film other than “Topkapi” which was any better than this one. It’s a brilliant example of what it is. It respects the intelligence of its audience, it provides a glorious dose of pure entertainment, and it’s just more fun than you’re going to have in the theater otherwise.

Plus, and I think I may have mentioned this, it’s pretty damn cool.

2001/ 162 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I would give this new cut of “Almost Famous” a higher grade, if such were possible to do. But since I gave it the highest possible grade on my first review, there is nowhere to go. The amazing thing about this statement is that I thought “Almost Famous” was about as close as possible to perfection the first time I watched it. (In retrospect, it is the best film of 2000, I don’t know what I was smoking when I bestowed that honor to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”, just ignore that, okay?) The original version of the film made me laugh as hard, feel as much, and enthralled me more than any film in a long time. So I was more than a little shocked when the “Untitled” cut of this film did the job even better.

“Almost Famous”, for you poor unenlightened wretches out there who haven’t dipped a toe into its magnificence, is the tale of William Miller. William is a high school student with a love for journalism and rock and roll. At the tender age of fifteen, he gets the opportunity to write for “Rolling Stone” magazine. He gets the chance to tour with the band “Stillwater”. He gets to see behind the scenes of rock and roll. He gets to see, if you will, the lowly man behind the great and powerful Oz. He sees his idols warts and all and gets the chance to report on it. He also gets a crash course in Life, Love, Music and other essential elements. He has a wealth of tutors and influences in the course of this story, and he experiences a cavalcade of emotions and is put to a number of tests. He falls in love with a beautiful young “Band Aid” named Penny Lane (the magically enchanting Kate Hudson) and has mixed emotions toward the band’s lead guitarist, Russell Hammond (the solid and remarkable Billy Crudup).

“Almost Famous” and this cut “Untitled” are essentially the story of a young man running off to join the circus. It’s just been updated for our day and age. He is bewildered by this scene and longs to be a part of it, to experience it and share a distillation of that experience with others. It is about a young man living out his dreams, only to discover that his dreams aren’t always what they are cracked up to be. It is about the sights and sounds of a period in time, captured and preserved on film for posterity. It is, most obviously, a labor of love on the part of director Cameron Crowe. Watching the commentary, one’s suspicions of the film’s accuracy are only confirmed. An astounding amount of this story actually happened to him, and he was bold in the way he wanted to bring it to the screen. And he succeeded miraculously.

Even though this new cut of the film is over thirty minutes longer, it still breezes by. Unlike “Apocalypse Now Redux”, which took a great movie and showed you exactly why editors are an important part of the process (The new cut of that film was fifty minutes longer and about twenty minutes worse), “Untitled” simply takes a film that was already perfection and adds subtle and delicate bits of shading to it. It enhances the film, giving many of the performances and incidents contained within it even more resonance and nuance. It fleshes out many of the characters in even greater detail. It adds a new light to several moments in the movie. It adds depth to a film that was already poignantly deep and wonderful. The film never runs the danger of bogging down. It never grows stale. At the end of this film, we are still left wanting more.

The new cut of “Almost Famous” still achieves a miracle of sorts in our modern cinematic atmosphere. Not only does it involve us from the first frame to the last and beyond. Not only does it reaffirm our faith in life and rock and roll. Not only does it contain passages of simple magic. But it leaves us wanting more, not less. So many films these days are good, but could have used five or ten or even sixty minutes of trimming. “Almost Famous” makes us long for a little more time with these people. It leaves wanting to know more, feel more, be there for more of their lives. That is its simple magic. That is its wonder. Even though there are some moments of sadness and a couple moments of despair and frustration (which are so brilliantly captured you can only sigh with understanding), you wouldn’t trade a second of the experience for the world.

Neither, I suspect, would Mr. Crowe.

2001 / 152 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

The Harry Potter books have caused a national phenomenon, and I, for one, find it refreshing. Think about it. For once, kids and adults are going crazy for a book! A book!

That’s impressive. Usually a craze like this is the result of a video game or a movie, not something that actually requires you to go through the trouble of reading. I never understood why the books were such a big deal, personally, but then, a couple weeks ago, I actually read one. And I must say that they are thoroughly imaginative and enchanting. The storytelling instincts of J.K. Rowling in these novels are unerring, and she has a true gift for creating sympathetic characters that you care about and then embroiling them in fascinating plots and creating wonderful worlds for them to inhabit. In these ways, the books remind me of the thrill of the early “Star Wars” films, where you were fascinated by the result of a single person’s bewildering imagination.

So I was rather pleasantly pleased to find that the film was remarkably faithful to the book, which is the best policy. I have to say that the novel couldn’t really be improved upon. The incidents, characters, situations and atmosphere were pitch perfect. And, by and large, Chris Columbus has just taken all the things that worked on the page and transplanted them whole onto the movie screen. If you’ve read the book, you were probably wondering how on earth any film was going to create the enthralling universe of the novel, but the filmmakers have somehow found a way to do it and do it faithfully. I have to admit that I never expected it from the man who brought us the woefully overrated “Mrs. Doubtfire” (though he did make “Nine Months” and “Home Alone”, both of which were hilarious…though they didn’t prove him capable of a film of this scope and imagination).

The actors are all game and give performances that, while not worthy of Oscars, are perfectly suited for the world they inhabit. Rickman seems to be having fun as Professor Snape, though the most imposing aspects of his film are largely left on the printed page. Richard Harris is magnificent as Professor Dumbledore, lending the right air of majesty and wisdom to the character. Maggie Smith is great as Professor McGonagall, who is stern and yet you can see her goodness lurking beneath the surface. And Robbie Coltrane is wonderful as Hagrid, the gameskeeper of Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry. He’s like a living, breathing Jim Henson creature here and it’s marvelous.

But the majority of the screen time belongs to the kids, which would be horrible if they weren’t absolutely engaging and completely convincing. Fortunately, the kids are engaging and convincing and make their characters come to life. Daniel Radcliffe strikes all the right notes as Harry. It’s a great performance that really convinces you he is a real kid coming to terms with the suddenly outrageous circumstances of his life, where every day holds a new adventure or revelation and nothing is exactly as it seems. And Ron and Hermione becoming living, sometimes skeptical creations in the capable hands of the young actors who portray them. The three of them are wonderful and captivating characters who you are more than happy to spend two and a half hours in the company of.

It’s nice to see a film geared toward families that takes its time and allows you to become acquainted with the main characters, rather than rushing them through the film so that the little tykes don’t get bored. I don’t see how they could be bored with anything in this film anyway.

It’s not like the character development isn’t engrossing, and what kid wouldn’t be interested by a regular kid who gets called upon to go to wizard school? The entire novel simply comes to life in a magical manner. The effects are not the greatest I have ever seen, but they are very good and they convince. The whole movie convinces, and enchants with a sense of playfulness and magic. Hogwarts is right there on the screen, transplanted lovingly and accurately, and the goblins of Gringotts and all the other magical creatures are brought magnificently to life. And many of the film’s sequences are marvelously exciting. The Quidditch game, for example, (a game sort of like football only played on broomsticks) is so completely thrilling that it makes the Pod Race in “Episode One” look like a scene from “Barry Lyndon”.

Sure, some of the effects aren’t all that hot. The centaur, for example, could have used a little work. And the ending of the film, while faithful to the book, just manages to show you the book’s few shortcomings, more obvious now that they are on the screen and not in your head. The ending feels too long and is also a bit unsatisfying (though the incidents involving Lord Voldemort are, for lack of a better word, very cool). But no matter. “Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone” is still one of the best children’s films to come along in quite some time. It’s an enchanting, thrilling ride that weaves a hypnotic spell and causes a smile to stay affixed to one’s face. If you’re in the mood for a fun diversion with the kids or, hell, just a good film, then look no further. You can’t go wrong with Mr. Potter and friends.