1957 / 162 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Kubrick, Spielberg, Scorsese, and Hitchcock. If you are making a list of the gods of cinema, I believe you would have to include these men on it. If you didn’t, I don’t think you could really call it a complete list. These are the men who have left their indelible fingerprints on cinema history, entering the movie industry and not quite leaving it the same way that they found it. Their input has made the theater a better place to be. I think it would be safe to say that.

To this list of masters, I think you would have to add David Lean.

I have, thus far, only seen two David Lean films. But I have to say that the amount of craft in them, the mastery of camera and character and story that he shows in these two films (this one and “Lawrence of Arabia”) is nothing short of awesome. He has a control of visual sweep. He does the epic better than any man who has ever tried his hand at the genre. And, most importantly, he does not let the characters get lost in the scheme of his tales. The characters are, in fact, the most impressive part. The characters stand at the center of a David Lean film, as they should. The events do not overwhelm the characters in a Lean film. Instead, the characters control a great deal of the events onscreen rather than vice versa.

“Bridge on the River Kwai”, the best of the two Lean films I have seen thus far, succeeds because of its characters and the men who inhabit them. The story would not work without this, and because of it it works extremely well. “The Bridge on the River Kwai” is a story of determination. It is a story of pride. It is a story of keeping face.

And, above all, it is a story of futility and madness.

Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness, in top form) is a driven man. He has read the Geneva Convention and knows that it is wrong for General Saito (the great Sessue Hayakawa) to make his officers work alongside the enlisted men. He defends this point, even though it could very well mean his death. No matter what obstacles he faces, he defends this point.

Later, Nicholson takes the task that his men have been given and makes it a point of pride to excel at it. His men are to build a bridge over the River Kwai, a vital bridge that will transport Japanese men and materials to aid in the War. Some of the men under Nicholson’s command want to sabotage the bridge. Not Nicholson. He wants to build a lasting bridge. He wants the bridge to be a lasting achievement that will illustrate British superiority to all those who use it and see it.

At the same time that the battle of wills between Nicholson and Saito is taking place (and as Nicholson is becoming obsessed with the building of his bridge) we are introduced to Major Shears (William Holden, also excellent). Shears is a cynical man. A very cynical man. Very early on he masterminds an escape from Saito’s POW camp and ends up at a commando training base in the jungle. Much to his chagrin, and against his wishes, he is drawn into a mission that is meant to go into the jungle and destroy the newly-formed bridge.

These parallel stories play very well off each other. Lean directs the proceedings with an exquisite grasp of his characters, an assured grip over his story, and a brutal sense of truth and irony. The film has some good points, and it makes them indelibly. But it does not pummel one over the head with its points either. Like I said, Lean has an assured grip over this material. It is all marvellously done. There is a great deal to make you think, a great deal to stir your emotions, and some truly powerful stuff here. And the actors are no small part of its success as well. Hayakawa, Guinness and Holden all deliver the performances of their careers. Anyone who knows Guinness only from the “Star Wars” films will forget all about Obi Wan the moment he speaks. He IS Colonel Nicholson. It is not a mere performance, it is a metamorphosis.

In short, this is everything that great filmmaking should be. It is just as sharp today as it was in the 50’s. It has not aged at all. Great movies don’t. Whatever else “The Bridge on the River Kwai” may be, it is most definitely a great movie.

Share on Facebook

1941 / 119 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

So this is it, eh? The greatest film of all time? According to pretty much every critic known to man, the AFI, and Sight and Sound magazine, among countless others. This is it, man. The one and only. There has to be a film that’s called the greatest and I suppose it may as well be “Citizen Kane”. If the critics of the world have to be stupid enough to make such a list, you may as well put this at the top of the list.

It goes without saying that this is the most overrated film of all time. I mean, shit, how can it not be? Other titles I would put on a Most Overrated List would go as follows: “The Searchers”, “The Godfather”, “Psycho” and “Barry Lyndon”. But since I have kicked the dead dog that is “Barry Lyndon” once too often, I shall turn my spotlight instead on Orson Welles’ undisputed masterwork: “Citizen Kane”.

I would like to take a flamethrower to this film. I would like to rip it to shreds, set it on fire, and ceremoniously piss upon the ashes. The only thing is that I can’t. Damn, just forget that this film is supposedly the greatest thing ever. Just forget for an instant the bloated reputation of Orson Welles and the whole film. Forget all that stuff and experience the film on its own terms. From a technical aspect, this film is astounding! It really is. The amount of technical skill and brio that is on display here boggles the mind. Almost every shot is constructed brilliantly. The use of light and focus and matte paintings and camera movement is simply awesome. Realize now that this was one of the first times that the camera was given the license to actually move! Gone are simple two-shots of two people, cutaways from one person delivering dialogue to the next person delivering dialogue. The camera here moves like a relentless animal, weaving and bobbing and never resting long. The use of shadow, reflection, sound effects. All are quite acute and supernaturally aware of themselves. Look for an instant at Welles’s eyes in this film. He was twenty-five years old and he was making the greatest film of all time. And I’ll be damned if he doesn’t look like he knew it! He fucking knew he was making the film of the century! His cockiness, his ego shines through the entire production. This film is as much a document of what happened to Orson when he went to Hollywood as it is the fictionalized account of Charles Foster Kane and his legacy (or William Randolph Hearst, if that’s what you want it to be). Welles never reaches these dizzying heights of artistry again, and it’s a shame. He came close on “The Magnificent Ambersons”: a film that may have trumped Kane had it not been for the meddling of the studio. He did make a marvel in “Touch of Evil” also, but he never quite paid the check that he wrote with “Kane”.

If he had, well, to hell with Hitchcock.

Forget, as I said before, all that stuff about this film being the greatest ever. Think about it this way: this is the man’s first film. It is his first movie and he has gathered a level of technical craftsmanship that other directors can only dream of. Many will use that “auteur theory” crap to suggest that this was Welles’s show and his only, but that is just plain stupid. Look at the hypnotic, magician’s mastery of shadow and mirror that cinematographer Gregg Toland creates in each shot. Listen to the crackle of Herman Mankiewicz’s dialogue (oh, I’ll let Welles have a piece of that). Marvel at the editing of Robert Wise (who would go on to make the original “The Haunting”, “Sound of Music” and “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” among others) which lends this film a spry pace that most “great” old films lack. Listen to the music of Bernard Herrman, one of the original gods of film composition. Hell, look at the special effects which seamlessly blend Welles into stock footage nearly sixty years prior to “Forrest Gump”. When you forget the hype and set aside the rather mundane story, the films visuals alone warrant your entire concentration.

Ah, but there is the shortcoming. Storywise, and often in terms of character, this film is hopelessly melodramatic. Sometimes, the emotions onscreen remind one of a soap opera. It’s all just a little too much. The movie is so eager to please, so anxious for you to surrender to it, that it’s often a bit too much. It’s sometimes a little too bold, a little too overwhelming. It has major lapses in logic (”The desert coast of Florida?”) and it’s use of fog and mirrors and its labyrynthine plot basically are there to disguise the enigmatic hollowness of the entire enterprise. Sure, it looks great and it moves briskly. But still. Shouldn’t the greatest film of all time have a better framework to hang all this on?

There are some marvelous themes under the surface here, however. Stuff about the loss of innocence and the way that time and life can cause us to forget where we started from and all that jazz. And Welles, Joseph Cotton, Paul Stewart, Everett Sloane and the rest of the cast do a marvelous job. And, hey, if I gave “Days of Heaven” an “A” for simply looking really, really great (and it does) then why can’t I give “Citizen Kane” an “A” for its better qualities. It may be overrated but it still feels like the film is inventing modern filmmaking before your very eyes.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 101 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

There are moments in this film, not many, but it does have them, where the film achieves the sort of magic and wonder that it strives for all along. But there are a lot of moments where the film is merely adequate. It’s never bad, or even less than decent, but one can’t help thinking that something is slightly off about the whole affair.

“Hearts In Atlantis” is the story of Bobby Garfield (told by David Morse in flashback, of course, Lord I am sick of flashback) and the summer in which he lived the best moments of his childhood and also lost his innocence. I don’t mean that he bumped and grinded in the backseat of his car with Carol Gerber. No, it was simply the summer that he learned that the world had teeth and it could bite. Or so it was said in the novel on which this film was based.

Such a cynical statement is never uttered during this film’s running length. That might jeopardize this film’s wrongheaded sense of nostalgia.

Anyway, during this summer, a kindly old man named Ted Brautigan moves in upstairs. Ted (played with the usual finesse by Anthony Hopkins) is a mysterious old man. He is vague about the details of his past. He seems prone to odd “fits”. He pays Bobby a dollar a week (big money in those days) to keep a watch for “low men”. Bobby’s tightwad single mother (Hope Davis) dislikes him immediately. There are some odd things about Bobby’s mother, as well, but not in the same way. Bobby’s mother seems to have something against pretty much any and everything.

When Bobby and Ted are sharing time together, the film is effortless. The time flies by. And the moments between Bobby (Anton Yelchin, very good and natural child actor) and Carol are also among the film’s best spots. The two of them have a natural chemistry which is rather nice. I also liked the moment between Bobby and a shady cardsharp at the fair.

The movie’s pace is languid, which would be nice if the whole film added up to something of more circumstance. Sure, it’s nice and it’s cute. But the villains of the piece, the afore-mentioned “low men” exude absolutely no menace. Nor do the bullying children who all seem too refined to resort to bullying. I missed the oblique overtones of the book and I miss the tone of darkness. The film is beautiful to look at, there is no denying that. The whole film is seen through that haze that good childhood memories seem to exist in. Kudos to the cinematographer. And to the actors. But…well, if this is the summer that Bobby lost his innocence, came to love Brautigan and Carol and hate his mother, would he really be so nostalgic about it? I sorta doubt it. The plot is solid (it was written by King, consummate storyteller that he is). But there’s just something missing.

Sure, it’s a nice movie. But it could have been so much more. “Nice” is nice, but, well, you’d sorta like something more.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 89 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

If you would have told me, two weeks ago, that I would have a burning desire to see the film “Zoolander” I would have promptly informed you that you were on crack. Yet, as the days grew closer, I found a strange thing happening. Suddenly, I needed a braindead comedy. Not just any braindead comedy either. No, I wanted this one.

Well, “Zoolander” supplied my fix, and then some. It’s not a very bright movie. But it’s not about a very bright man. It’s swipes at the fashion industry are broad, yes. But they work. And any really in-depth satire of the fashion industry would probably go sailing over our heads anyway. But it is unique and it has its own sense of style and it remembers what it’s like to be wacky and relishes in its own wackiness.

“Zoolander” is, naturally, the story of Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller). Derek is a self-obsessed, self-important moron and male supermodel. He has won the VH1 model of the year award for the past three years, but this year his title is usurped by upstart looker Hansel (though Derek gets all the way up to the stage and delivers half of his speech before realizing that he is actually in error). Suddenly, his life is thrown into a tailspin. What does it all mean? If he is not the most perfect man on Earth, where does he fit into the cosmos/ Is there really more to life than just being “really, really, ridiculously good looking”? Derek searches his soul, and is also brainwashed into a plot that involves the assassination of Malaysia’s prime minister (who is about to throw a monkey into the wrench of the fashion industry by outlawing child labor). Suddenly, people are trying to kill him, he must join forces with a reporter who has recently ridiculed him (the yummy Christine Taylor) and the song “Relax” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood takes on new, nefarious meaning.

The great thing about this film is that it keeps the laughs coming quickly. There is never more than a couple of minutes where there isn’t something that draws large belly laughs. Some of this stuff is utterly hilarious. The showdown between the supermodels, for instance, left me gasping for air. The celebrity cameos (particularly those of David Bowie and David Duchovny) are also quite witty and well-placed. Another benefit of the film are the wonderfully pitched performances of Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson as the dim-witted stars of the fashion world. They are perfect here, knowing effortlessly how to modulate their performances in order to inhabit and enhance the zany world around them.

Speaking of this world, the film does a remarkable job of establishing its own, silly universe with its own silly rules. In this way, I would compare it to films like “Men in Black” and the original “Austin Powers” which created a perfect microcosm completely for the purposes of their films and then filled it with wall-to-wall inventiveness. It’s a lot of fun to spend two hours in this wacky universe with these morons. I had a hell of a time. It’s characters are established along these rules and parameters and have their own ludicrous concerns and dilemmas that exist nicely within the absurd framework of the film.

Is it perfect? No. There are many jokes which do misfire and the film’s structure is really nonexistent. But it’s fun and it is an enjoyable way to spend at least an hour and a half in a theater. A lot of critics have hailed this as the perfect film to take the country off its various problems. While I won’t ascribe that level of importance to it, I will say that it hit the spot. I needed a good laugh and, with “Zoolander”, I got it. End of story.

Share on Facebook

1990 / 113 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

If there is one thing that an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie is supposed to provide it is an escape from reality that allows your brain a much needed two hour rest. This, friends, is what makes “Total Recall” such an enigma. It actually challenges the mind to unravel the complexities of it’s plot in a manner similar to what one does when watching films like “Memento” or “Vanilla Sky”.

Have no fear though. Arnold still delivers a nice pile of dead bodies through the use of practically every method at his disposal. Unlike most lame action heroes, Arnold is wise enough to shoot no less than three of his enemies in the head. That’s right. The head! As an added bonus he also drives a spike into a guy’s neck, uses a civilian as a shield, and drills another guy to death. Much the same as in “Commando”, only with more gore, Arnold has instituted a Zero Tolerance policy for taking shit from people. It’s pretty simple. You annoy Arnold. You die. And you know what? I loved every minute of it.

This film challenges the viewer by way of it’s deceptively complex plotting. It all starts with Doug Quaid (Arnold) being decidedly bored with his life (despite the fact that he wakes up next to Sharon Stone every morning), which leads to him going to a place that specializes in delivering people’s dreams as true memories. He has been having these nagging dreams of Mars and wants to act upon them, so he signs up for the “Ego Trip” which provides the customer with a two week secret agent fantasy. The only trouble is… Problems arise during the procedure, Quaid goes nuts, and all hell breaks lose. But were there problems during the procedure, or is everything that happens from that point on merely a dream? That’s for you, the viewer, to decide.

That’s a pretty thinly veiled plot outline, but I feel it would be a disservice to those who have not yet seen the film to divulge any of the details of the plot. All I will say is that Arnold goes to Mars, bumps into a bunch of mutants, and kills practically everybody on the planet before all is said and done. He does this because he is pissed. He is pissed because everybody is trying to kill him. I don’t know about you, but that works for me.

Not only do you get the aforementioned body count, but you also get some of Arnold’s most memorable one liners. During the drilling the guy to death sequence I mentioned earlier, Arnold grabs a drill and uses it to kill a guy in some sort of excavating machine while yelling “Screw you!” at the guy. Tell me that doesn’t rock. You can’t! Another great one is the “Consider that a divorce” line that you will learn to love if you watch the film some day.

Aside from Arnold delivering on his promise of dead bodies and one liners, you also get director Paul Verhoeven (”Basic Instinct”, “Robocop”) delivering on his signature self indulgent need to film gore and tits at every opportunity. Unlike some of his other movies, it works here, because it never takes itself too seriously. I mean come on! You’ve got a Martian Sex Club loaded with interesting specimens such as a three titted woman and a midget whore as one of the principal venues! It’s played chiefly for laughs and I enjoyed every minute of it. This film is one of the rare instances where Verhoeven’s involvement in a film actually paid off by making it better.

This may not be the best of Arnold’s films, but it’s defnitely the most challenging. Valid arguments can be made on either side of the dream or reality debate with no real resolution available. I side with reality, but you can come to your own conclusion if you’d just go and watch the movie already!

If the challenges of the plot aren’t enough for you, just keep in mind that there is an action sequence that involves the midget whore stabbing a guy in the crotch and then, shortly thereafter, laying waste to a group of henchmen with a machine gun.

Now go and watch it already! You know you want to.

P.S. - I know all the guys out there are sold on this one. But a word to the wise. If you watch this one guys, be sure to pull the cup out of the sock drawer because this movie is tough on the business. Not only does the midget whore stab a guy in the crotch, but Arnold even gets kneed in the crotch. Twice! Thus proving that nothing is sacred in action films anymore.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 109 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

So there I was. Sunday night and there’s nothing better to do than watch “The Princess Bride”. Not that, that’s a bad thing. In fact, it’s a very good thing. So much so, that after I watched it for the first time, I watched it again. Only this time with the William Goldman commentary track on the DVD turned on. I had to do this, because Goldman rules. He’s a cranky yet humorous veteran of the Hollywood trenches. He pulls no punches and, for this reason, I listen when the man speaks.

What does all this have to do with “You Can Count On Me” you ask? Well, we all have our motivations when it comes to making the ultimate decision of choosing a movie to watch. For me, it can often be a simple thing like seeing a picture of Kevin Costner, walking away from a flaming building, with a pissed off expression on his face that gets me to watch a movie (For those interested, this image resides on the back of the DVD for “3000 Miles to Graceland”).

Usually I say something along the lines of: “Look at him! He’s pissed!!” and moments later I can be found at the checkout with the film in hand. This same concept applies to Goldman as you soon shall see. During the aforementioned commentary track he discusses the benefits of “word of mouth” advertising in relation to the success of “The Princess Bride” once it reached video store shelves. In doing so he mentions the fact that he felt “You Can Count On Me” was the best film of 2000 and that he would tell this to anyone who would listen. When this film was in theaters, I wanted to see it, but never managed to find my way into a seat. Now with Goldman making this grand statement, I felt it would be idiotic of me to put off the viewing any longer.

So here I am. Fresh off the viewing and I can safely say that Goldman’s reputation is intact. It is a great film. Not quite “best of the year” material, but most definitely “top ten” material.

It is a great film, because it is driven by it’s characters rather than it’s plot, which is no small feat in this day and age of the contrived nonsensical plots that populate the majority of the screens at your local multiplex. It is the story of a sister Sammy (Laura Linney), her son Rudy (Rory Culkin) and her brother Terry (Mark Ruffalo). Sammy likes to think that her life is pretty well ordered. She goes to church, maintains a steady job, and tries to always be there for her son. Terry drifts through life, from town to town, with little to show for his efforts. They were orphaned at an early age and these are the paths they have chosen to take in their parentless lives.

It has been ages since Sammy has heard from her brother, when one day he writes her and shortly thereafter returns to his hometown. The reunion between brother and sister is a heart wrenching one that shows that these two have shared a lot of difficult times together. Sammy quickly realizes that Terry has only come back to borrow money from her, which infuriates her because she wants nothing more than to have him stay at the house for awhile. She gets her wish eventually, but, as the old saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.”

Before long Sammy finds that Terry is inadvertently placing her son in undesirable circumstances, which makes her realize that she has to decide between rehabilitating her brother and the welfare of her son. As all this is going on, she strings along a potential fiancée, while having an affair with her boss (Matthew Broderick). Proving that she is hardly a model of decency for her son or brother.

“You Can Count On Me” proves to be a mesmerizing character study. The relationship between Sammy and Terry is the heart and soul of the film. Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo both deliver powerhouse performances of admirable intensity and emotional fragility in the lead roles. Linney garnered an Oscar nomination for her performance and it’s not hard to see why. Pick just about any scene from the film and you can see this incredible actress take you on an emotional roller coaster in a matter of a few moments. I noticed many times that actor/writer/director Kenneth Lonergan just allowed the camera to rest upon her performance by allowing her reactions to her brother’s words tell the story. The lunchroom scene, early in the film, is just one of a number of perfect demonstrations of what I am talking about. Watch the film and you’ll see what I mean.

For Linney’s performance to work, she had to have an equally strong lead to feed off of and she got that in the form of Mark Ruffalo. I don’t know what this guy has done in the past, but I know you’ll be hearing a lot about him in the future. Just as Linney feeds off of his character, he feeds off of hers. This is one of those wonderful cases where two great performers get on the same wavelength and make one another better in each and every scene. They are so good together that it’s actually hard to believe that they aren’t brother and sister in real life. I’ve heard Ruffalo compared to Marlon Brando by some reviewers for this performance. Personally, I’ve never seen Brando as good as Ruffalo is here. He goes from laughter to tears in mere seconds. This is powerful stuff.

I started this review by discussing how one goes about being motivated to watch a particular film. Sometimes it’s Costner laying waste to gas stations, Dennis Farina uttering a stream of profanity, or William Goldman stating that a film was the best in any given year. In the case of “You Can Count On Me” it was the latter for me. I can only hope the kind words I have given the film will be the motivation you need to discover this wonderful little gem of a film.

Share on Facebook

1987 / 98 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Jason Jones

It is a rare moment when one can say that a film has something for everyone. It is even rarer when that film is a fairy tale, but in the case of “The Princess Bride” it is an accurate description on all levels.

The beautiful thing about it is that it is not your typical fairy tale. Sure it’s got the princess, the peasant who loves her, a giant, a tyrannical prince and many of the other things one would expect to find in a film of this nature. What it has that almost all others do not is a zany sense of the humor that is inherent in films of the fairy tale sort. Instead of the typical swamp that one would expect to find, here you get a fire swamp. That’s right! A swamp that shoots bursts of fire into the air! That’s not all though. It also has lightning quick sand and rodents of unusual size for our heroes to contend with. Now, if you think the phrase “rodents of unusual size” sounds funny now, wait until you seem them in action in the movie. There are other fun things to be found here such as a six fingered villain (Christopher Guest) and swordplay, but the real fun results from the great cast that we have the pleasure of spending an hour and a half of our lives with.

Westley (Cary Elwes) is a lowly peasant who loves Buttercup (Robin Wright) very much and one day she realizes that she loves him as well. Problem is that he’s broke, so that puts a wrench in the wedding plans. He decides to go off in search of prosperity, pledging that he will come back for Buttercup when he finds what he is after. Five years pass and in that time Buttercup hears of her true love’s demise. Eventually the prince of the kingdom chooses her to be his bride. In the month before they are to be married, she is kidnapped by a band of three men of differing size. The leader (Wallace Shawn) has his eyes on starting a war by killing the princess. His two cohorts in crime, Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) and Fezzik (Andre the Giant) are in it only for the money and want nothing to do with murdering an innocent girl. They are followed to their destination by a mysterious black clad swordsman, who confronts each of the three in situations that quickly lead to a number of laughs. The black clad swordsman eventually takes the princess from the three men and his identity is revealed to her at last.

Inevitably the princess will fall into the hands of the evil prince and will, of course, be in need of rescuing. How the rescuing is done is what makes this film such a wonderful treat to enjoy. Inigo, Fezzik and the swordsman all team up to get the job, but each role has it’s own quirks as the story reaches it’s climax. The swordsman is in a humorous state that requires Fezzik to drag him around like a rag doll, which I must say is quite hilarious. Inigo’s story is a passionate one that provides a great deal of the enjoyment derived from the film. He has been searching for the man who murdered his father twenty years earlier. He knows the man has six fingers on his right hand and he knows exactly what he will say to him when he finally confronts him. “Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.”

Believe me. When you hear him say this you want nothing more than for the man to get his wish.

“The Princess Bride” works for many reasons. It is marvelously written by William Goldman, brilliantly acted by one of the best ensemble casts imaginable, and told with an impeccable tone of humor and emotion. At it’s heart it is a story about “true love”, but it is smart enough to know that this is not enough to be high spirited entertainment. To bolster the love story it takes a mostly satirical look at the genre by cracking jokes at every opportunity yet managing not to go to the well too enough. It is rare that a film hits on all cylinders like this one, but it makes me very happy that it does.

One thing that I have yet to touch on is the brilliant contrivance of having the story told to us by a grandfather (Peter Falk) who is reading it to his sick grandson (Fred Savage). Director Rob Reiner uses this concept masterfully to break moments of tension, such as those spent with the shrieking eels, by cutting to the storyteller in order to turn the moment into a laugh. It’s an interesting idea that has been done before, but I don’t know if it has ever been done this well.

Fun rarely comes in such an enchanting package. This is the sort of film that the whole family can enjoy without trepidation. The more I think about it the more I laugh. It’s one of those magical films that gets better and better with each viewing.

It was said on one of the “making of” documentaries I watched, that this film is this generation’s “Wizard of Oz”. I guess the two films are pretty much formed out of similar molds, but with much different results. In my opinion, of the two, one would be much better off going with “The Princess Bride”. It is a smarter film in that it knows enough to have fun with the genre in which it exists, while still remaining true to the natural boundaries of that genre.

Fantasy doesn’t get much better than this. Swordplay, a giant, pirates, rodents of unusual size, revenge, six fingered villains and so much more await you.

So what are you waiting for?

Share on Facebook

2001 / 197 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

There are many images from “Apocalypse Now” that one finds impossible to shake after your first viewing. They are the reason that one revisits it so often (at least, the reasons that I have): the Napalm airstrike that lights up an entire section of Vietnamese (Philipino) jungle like a bonfire, Martin Sheen’s camouflaged face emerging from the river covered in fog, Marlon Brando (truly larger than life) glimpsed half in shadow like a wily demon trying to sell Sheen on his own imagined brand of truth.

“Apocalypse Now” is a film that one will never forget once they have seen it. It is a classic meditation on good and evil and the short distance between the two. It is an intoxicating journey up a river into Madness, Despair and Insanity. It is about a man in a war transported to more primal events and times. As he moves up the river, it is as though he is traveling through time. On his journey, we see the technology of the modern stripped away and replaced by something more basic. Bullets give way to arrows. USO shows give way to tribal cults. The war is never any fun in this film (except perhaps for Duvall’s fascinating Lt. Col. Kilgore) but as the film and Sheen’s journey progress, the war becomes more and more demonic and frightening. It spins further and further out of control until we emerge at the end into the total madness of the Kurtz compound with its decapitations and invented morality. Kurtz has invented his own value system, one that is far removed from the army’s, and they send Willard (Sheen) to make him pay for it.

“Apocalypse Now Redux” is still about such fascinating and intoxicating ideas as Madness and the duality which exists within the human soul. And some of the additional scenes added in the extra fifty minutes of footage are worth seeing. There is more footage of Duvall’s remarkable performance as Col. Kilgore (including the theft of his surf board, which garners more than a couple laughs). There is a scene in which Willard trades a barrel of fuel to get the men on his boat a few hours with some Playboy bunnies who have crash-landed in the midst of this moral chaos. I’m not sure what to make of this scene. It does heighten the insanity of the whole affair (a movie in which a man can sleep with the Playmate of the Year in the middle of the Vietnam War is a movie in which ANYTHING can conceivably happen) but it isn’t really necessary. It doesn’t detract from the rest of the film, however, unlike the “Plantation Scene”.

The Plantation Scene is the biggest mistake Coppola has made between the original vision and the new one. I can see why it ended up on the cutting room floor. It is disastrous. Important dialogue is given to characters whose accents we can’t understand (a lesson Francis might have learned from his friend George Lucas’s inclusion of Jar Jar Binks into “The Phantom Menace”) but that isn’t even the worst thing about it. The worst thing is that it fatally disrupts the flow of the entire film. Before this point (and after it) the mood of the movie is one of sustained intensity and insanity. But this scene takes the film out of its mood and into twenty minutes of talking. It even includes a disastrous romantic subplot. This film is the completely wrong film for a romantic subplot. Romance has no place in “Apocalypse Now”. It’s actually quite horrible. And the film’s political agendas are no longer hidden subtext, they are now made painfully clear, which is a very wrong move. But, as I said, the worst thing about this new scene is that it disrupts the mesmerizing flow of the film and makes it nearly impossible to invest one’s self in it once again. It’s a bad move. When I buy “Redux” on DVD, I plan to skip this scene entirely.

But is it worth seeing on the big screen? Indeed. Even though it is now three and a half hours long (and it certainly feels it) you still get to see an impossibly young Laurence Fishburne, reminding us how many young men have been lost in our skirmishes over the years. You still get to see Robert Duvall embrace the madness of war and continue to surf, despite the presence of Charlie all around him. You get to see the “Ride of the Valkyries” attack in throbbing, digital surround and on a huge screen before you. You get to sit in the dark with total strangers (and a few friends) for three hours and take a dark, dangerous ride. I’d have preferred to see the original version on the big screen, but I will take what I can get.

You still get to smell the Napalm in the morning. And, despite the horrible French plantation episode, it still smells like victory.

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

This year has sucked, as far as movies are concerned. Oh sure, we’ve had a couple decent flicks. We’ve had “Moulin Rouge”, which was an amazing movie and probably would have been head and shoulders above all others in ANY film year. We’ve had “The Tailor of Panama”, my second favorite film of this year, which was remarkably witty, powerful and daring. But for the most part, it’s been tough going at the cineplex. Even the other great stuff has been fairly overrated: “Shrek” was cute and pretty funny, but I am officially sick of hearing about it. “Memento” was a neat trick, but I still think that far too many people have been jizzing over it. It’s not bad, but it’s not as amazing as everyone else seems to think. And the great critical response to “A.I.” just proves how weak this year has been. Until the last twenty minutes, this is Spielberg (Kubrick?) at his best. But then you’ve got those last twenty minutes, which shoot the entire, intelligent and fascinating film directly in the foot.

So I eagerly anticipate the rest of the year. There is some promising stuff yet to come. Thank God. Perhaps, like last year, the greatest films of the year are still ahead of us. I sincerely hope so. I am getting tired of disappointment. These are the films that I have the most hope for. They are the ones that I am keeping my eye on with anxious anticipation.

So, without any further ado, here it is.

1. “The Gangs of New York”

Scorsese has been passionate about making this movie for years. That gives me hope. I mean, come on. When the man responsible for “Raging Bull” and “Taxi Driver” is passionate about something, it’s worth your time. Scorsese is one of the legends and it will be nice to see what he does with this story: the story of warring factions on the streets of New York City as it is born in the 1860’s. The cast is also worthy of note: Leonardo DiCaprio (who I believe is one of the best actors of his generation), Daniel Day Lewis, Liam Neeson, and Cameron Diaz. My highest hopes are riding on this film. Should be interesting, to say the least.

2. “Vanilla Sky”

I would line up to see anything that Cameron Crowe does. He has never disappointed me. In fact, the opposite is true. Each time he crafts a film, he puts such a wealth of heart, soul, humor and brains into it that it just reminds you how hollow eighty percent of other films are. This is said to be a departure for Crowe. It is Crowe’s stab at a Hitchcock type of movie, from what I hear. It stars Tom Cruise (who was never better than in Crowe’s amazing “Jerry Maguire”: “Magnolia” be damned!), Jason Lee, Cameron Diaz, Penelope Cruz (not so thrilled about that) and Kurt Russell. In fact, early word that I have heard claims that Russell is so good in this that an Oscar might be in order. Don’t know about you, but any movie that might get Snake Plissken an award is definitely worthy of my time.

3. “From Hell”

London, 1890’s. Fog. Dark, cobblestone streets. Shadows. Gaslights. Jack the Ripper. Stylish direction. Johnny Depp. Sounds fine to me. I’m a sucker for Victorian England movies. Anything involving Sherlock Holmes, for example. So I’m waiting eagerly for this one. Plus, it had a cool trailer.

4. “The Majestic”

It’s by Frank Darabont, who batted his last two films (”The Shawshank Redemption” and “The Green Mile”) out of the park. So it should be interesting to see what he does with something that is not only not a Stephen King adaptation but is also a Capraesque comedy involving McCarthyism and amnesia. Plus, BRUCE CAMPBELL is in it! Yay! Oh, and Jim Carrey is the star of the piece. Martin Landau is here too, which is worth noting. But, uh, BRUCE CAMPBELL is in it! Would be higher on the list if not for the fact that Carrey looks like he’s trying to wrangle an Oscar again. It’s still got me excited.

5. “The Man Who Wasn’t There”

It’s by the Coen Brothers, two of the most original voices in modern cinema. It’s their return to their film noir roots. It’s got a laconic barber played by Billy Bob Thornton in it. Also on hand are James Gandolfini, Frances McDormand and Tony Shalhoub. Outta be fun.

6. “Monsters Inc.”

Pixar is back. Since Pixar have made movies that are both innovative and funny as hell with the “Toy Story” flicks and “A Bug’s Life”, I’ll see anything they have to offer. It also has the voices of Billy Crystal and John Goodman. I could use a good laugh, and this looks like the best chance for it.

7. “The Royal Tenenbaums”

It’s by the guys who made “Rushmore”! It’s got Bill Murray, Gene Hackman and Luke Wilson in it! It should be sharp and hilarious. Hell, “Bottle Rocket” was even excellent!

8. “K-Pax”

Jeff Bridges, meet Kevin Spacey. Kevin Spacey, meet Jeff Bridges. You two play nice now. Two of my favorite actors, one of them may be an alien. No, that’s the premise of the film. Though, you never can tell…..

9. “Heist”

David Mamet (”The Untouchables”, “State and Main”) wrote and directed this heist film starring the likes of Danny DeVito, Gene Hackman, Ricky Jay, Sam Rockwell, and Delroy Lindo. I’m a sucker for a heist flick, and this one certainly sounds promising.

10. “The Fellowship of the Ring”

Read the book, guess it was good. May as well see the movie. I just love it when a small, independent film like this gets a chance. If you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. I suppose I have to see this movie. May as well get it over with.

So there you are. Though something tells me that none of these movies is going to top “Moulin Rouge”. I don’t know, man, I just don’t see myself going to any of the ones I have just listed six times. But I do hope that I’m wrong. I just wanna be knocked off my feet by a movie the way that “Moulin Rouge” did. But I will settle for being marvelously entertained.

Share on Facebook

1994 / 142 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

When I first saw this film, I was utterly obsessed with it. I didn’t expect much from it when it first came out, quite frankly. I didn’t know what to make of it. I don’t think anyone did. It’s one of those great success stories where a movie doesn’t have the shit marketed out of it in order to secure itself a boffo opening weekend and then falls shortly thereafter. No, this was one of those great cinematic moments like “The Sixth Sense” or “There’s Something About Mary”, when a movie comes out and no one really expects anything of it…and then it just catches the right chord with the country. Call it timing, if you will. But I think success stories like this speak to something else, something more substantial, something very simple. I think it just boils down to making a film that is really good, an excellent story with a great idea behind it.

The idea behind “Forrest Gump” is fairly ingenious. It’s the not-so-simple tale of a very simple man making his way the best way he knows how through the treacherous events of the mid-twentieth century. It was a time of bitterness and strife, when the nation had a hard time just keeping itself from imploding. It was a time of crooked presidents, wars that no one understood, civil rights marches, political assassination, free love, massive drug use and much, much more. “Forrest Gump” shows us this confusing and dark period of American history through the eyes of a simple, optimistic man. We see the events that transpire to change the atmosphere and the minds of an entire nation through the eyes of a man who knows he does not understand them. Who really did understand them? No one, not really. Forrest at least knows this. He knows that he does not understand anything, and that makes him special. It also makes him the ideal narrator and focal point of the film. We see all these extraordinary and chaotic times through his eyes, and it is the best possible vantage point. It imbues the film both with a surprising immediacy and a satirical distance. It is the reason that the whole thing works, and works magnificently.

We see the degradation and loss of the nation’s innocence during this period in the guise of his one true love: Jenny. Jenny makes all the wrong choices, as many of her generation did, and we see what happens to someone whose dreams die as she succumbs to the most dangerous choices available to her. We also see the cynicism and rage of this generation at what is happening around them in the character of Lt. Dan (Gary Sinise, in his finest hour): a lieutenant who loses his faith, his ideals and his legs in Vietnam.

And as for Forrest? He simply goes with the flow. He takes life as it comes. He takes it one step at a time. And he comes out better for it, though he does see more than his fair share of tragedy. He is touched by more tragic events than any of the other characters in the piece, but his homespun philosophy, his sunny optimism, and his dim perceptions (or are they really so dim after all? Take another look at him and tell me, exactly, what makes him stupid?) give him the right attitude so that he is not dragged into the abyss that all those around him are drawn into. And it is ultimately he who offers them redemption. When they learn to take life one step at a time as Forrest does, they do grow a bit wiser and adjust a bit better for it.

Do I love this movie? You’re damn right I do. Not only does it contain all the marvelous social commentary that I mentioned above, it’s structure is simply unimpeachable. The film may not even seem to have a structure, but take another look at it. Take another gander at this superb and magical film. What of the way that events keep re-occuring with fresh spins upon them? All the assassinations? Lt. Dan’s family history? Bubba’s? And the random nature of events that is very much like reality itself, the way that each event effects another event and so on and so forth, giving us the hint that life and even the most extraordinary and seemingly famous of events and people has a catalyst among the common man. The common man has an effect greater than he could ever guess, as I’m sure he does in reality. Each event, each life touches another and another and leads to something greater than the sum of its parts. Or does it? Some events, again, as in life, seem to have no point other than their own existence. Look at Forrest’s trip across the country on foot, for example. Is there a greater goal? Is there some higher purpose to it? Or is it just there because it is exceptionally entertaining and utterly wonderful all by itself? Who can tell.

The performances are all excellent. Tom won the Oscar and he earned it whole-heartedly. He is the heart and soul of the film as well as its surprisingly sly brain, and he is phenomenal. Gary Sinise is awesome, intense and magnificent as Lt. Dan. Robin Wright is underrated and undervalued as Jenny. If she didn’t convince, then nothing else in the movie would. Unless we can see why Forrest would be enchanted by her, then his single-minded quest to gain her love would not involve us as deeply as it does. Mykelti Williamson is a hoot as Bubba, but astoundingly soulful as well (and am I the only one who thinks he’s basically the same character in “Con Air”, with Nic Cage as Gump with long hair and tattoos? Notice his death in both films…but I digress). And Sally Field is as great as always as Forrest’s sweet and remarkably wise mother.

The special effects are so great that we barely even notice them. The direction is pitch perfect. I’ve never seen a Best Picture that was this flat-out funny, yet with such a wealth of heart and soul and such a vital, throbbing brain behind it. I’ve never seen a film that entertains and enlightens with equal gusto, as this one does. It’s nimbly paced, beautifully filmed, wonderfully scored, daringly and audaciously edited, whimsical, witty, wise, tragic, potent, powerful, subtle, beautiful and enchanting.

It has every right to be on the 100 Greatest Films of All Time list. It’s an utterly original and unique epic with a personal slant to it. Forrest’s journey is nothing less than a chronicle of the past thirty years and an effort to gather some sort of sense from them. If Mark Twain were working today, this is the sort of story he’d be telling: a warm, big-hearted story told from the seeming idiot’s point of view that exposes human nature at its most basic while presenting us with a satiric view of the bigger picture.

I’ve never seen a film like “Forrest Gump”, maybe that’s why I’ve watched it so many times. And I doubt I will ever see a film like “Forrest Gump” again. Most films have pretensions that they are this intelligent, but fail miserably. “Forrest” makes no such pretensions, it would prefer to surprise you with its uncommon depth. To hell with “Pulp Fiction”. “Forrest Gump” is, once and for all, the Best Picture of 1994. It’s also one of the best films EVER.

Share on Facebook