2003 / 201 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Well, my friends, this marks the end of an era. The last “Lord of the Rings” film has arrived and that means that I will have nothing to look forward to next December. (Once you get beyond the age of 12, Christmas just means more socks and that you have to do a lot of shopping for people with whose wants you are unfamiliar.) Over the past three years, “Lord of the Rings” has become something of a holiday. It’s always on a Wednesday near the end of December and it’s even accompanied by certain traditions, at least between my friends and I. Each year, we have smuggled pudding into the first showing of “Lord of the Rings”. Don’t ask me how this got started; I’m no longer even sure. All I know is that when we saw “Fellowship” I somehow had some pudding in the pocket of my trenchcoat, two servings of pudding, actually: one for me, and one for my friend Ben. The next year, we made a point of bringing pudding to “The Two Towers”. And this year, to commemorate the last of the three films, we brought more pudding than we could even eat. We were even accompanied by a third person, and we still had more than enough pudding for all three of us. Some people like to celebrate their “Lord of the Rings” day on the day itself. Me? I like to do it the night before, the way some people open their presents on Christmas Eve or get drunk at Noon on New Years Eve (okay, I don’t know anyone who does that one, but it sounds like fun, doesn’t it?). I celebrated “Fellowship” on Opening Day, but that was because I had no idea that it would be so great, that it would make me an instant convert to its world. By “Two Towers”, I was a slathering fool who had seen “Fellowship” in the theater seven times (my own personal record). Thus, I had a ticket for the Midnight show on the Tuesday night before traditional “Lord of the Rings” Day. I did the same this year as well. I even took the night off of work for it. Doubtless, many of you will call me pathetic for these antics, and I’m not going to argue that. You naysayers do have a pretty good point. But the quality of the films is what has gotten me so excited. “Lord of the Rings” Day is so special to me because, unlike other holidays, you know that you won’t be disappointed. Once I had seen “Fellowship of the Ring”, well, I knew that I wouldn’t be getting socks.

You see, if movies were wristwatches, “Return of the King” would be a fine Swiss watch that kept immaculate time whereas a movie like “The Matrix Reloaded” would be a shitty Seiko that needed to be wound a hell of a lot. “Return of the King” finally proves something I have suspected ever since I saw the first “Lord of the Rings” film: this is a better trilogy than the “Star Wars” trilogy. Yes, the ORIGINAL “Star Wars” trilogy. Now, bear with me here. Compare the character of Obi Wan Kenobi with the character of Gandalf. I’ll grant you that Alec Guinness was a better actor (of that there is no dispute). But Gandalf is the richer of the two characters. Both characters are wise and magical and majestic. But Gandalf is the only one enriched with moments of doubt and fear and pain and inescapable humanity. Gandalf is wise and powerful, but he can also be wrong. He can be hurt. And he has doubts. He doesn’t have all the answers and he doesn’t pretend to. And that is what makes him such a powerful character. That’s just a single character, mind you. Compare Frodo to Luke Skywalker. There is no comparison. Compare Gimli and Legolas to Threepio and Artoo. Okay, Artoo may kick ass, but if I had to put up with either Threepio or Legolas, well, I think any of us would know whom to choose.

Now, given, George Lucas does not have the benefit of great source material like Peter Jackson has, but that just means Jackson had further to fall. He had more people to disappoint if he did things wrong. Look how many people Lucas has disappointed with his “prequels”. But forget all that, for a moment, and simply judge this film on its own terms. The entire trilogy has seamlessly crafted a fantasy environment more engrossing and fascinating and just plain inhabitable than most of the ones that movies have treated us to before. Like Lucas at the top of his game, Jackson has used a vast army of craftspeople and creative minds to conjure magical worlds of fantasy before our very eyes. He has captured the essence of these timeless stories and distilled them onto the screen in each of these three movies and he has done so particularly well in this one. Not only that, but he has managed to bring everything to completion in a more satisfactory manner than any trilogy in recent memory. There isn’t a particularly weak link movie in this saga (and, by the way, as long as I’ve already mentioned Lucas, let me say one thing more in his defense: the last time a series like this was brought to a close in such a satisfying and heart pounding manner has to be “Return of the Jedi” which, all bitching about ewoks aside, was a heart pounding spectacle that actually had a heart and actually did a great job- I stand by this statement). But the “Lord of the Rings” movies are richer and deeper than the Star Wars movies, taking on interesting subjects like obsession and addiction and power and even friendship and family dynamics. Like the best fantasy work, these stories use the fantasy realm to hold a mirror up to reality and examine its various aspects, from a refreshing angle. That is why these movies will endure and that is why this movie in particular has more subtext and food for thought than any film I can remember from the past year. In fact, I think one may have to go back to “Titanic” to find the last time a film was so relentlessly entertaining and yet powerfully effective, action-packed, and mesmerizing at the same time.

The actors are all excellent, but the performance I must single out this time belongs to Sean Astin. He’s been doing great work all the way through this trilogy, but it’s been the kind of work that is largely done to complement the rest of the cast, to be a true supporting actor. But here, he finally gets a chance to shine and also to remind those of us who enjoyed Tolkien’s novels why we have such fond memories of Samwise in the first place. He’s arguably the most heroic character of any of the novels, simply because he does so much with no thought to recognition and without deliberating all the angles. He simply knows what is best to do and does so whenever it is required of him. And Astin plays that magnificently. He is the best character in this movie and, by far, the most noble. Every other actor in the movie does a great job, as well, but Sean Astin is the best of the bunch. He’s the one that I think back most fondly upon.

So, yes, “Return of the King” is the best of these films, providing spectacle that causes our jaws to drop, spectacle that rivals such classic films as “Lawrence of Arabia” and “Ben Hur”. There is a scene where watch fires are being lit that put a tear in the corner of my eye. It is a simple moment, and there is definitely an element of grandeur to it, but it is the beauty and visual poetry of the sequence that truly sticks in one’s heart. The movie even includes a few of Tolkien’s famous poems and songs (such is a testament to how richly JRR imagined this world of his) that lend an extra, haunting majesty to the events onscreen. There is very little, if anything, that doesn’t work 100% in this movie, but that statement doesn’t really get to the heart of what makes this film so damn magical. Nothing I can say does, really, or even could. You’ve got to experience this film, you’ve got to let it live in your heart (as it will, if you have one and if you let it) to really appreciate this movie. It’s the sort of film I’ll be watching with my grandchildren and, despite the fact that it is three and a half hours long, I’m sure they will be thoroughly riveted. I know I am.

Share on Facebook

2003 / 117 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Alright, kids, here it is; secret confession time. I am a sucker for romance. Does that mean I am a romantic? Probably so. Yes. I believe in the idea of romance, of falling head over heels in love with someone and having them love me back. Maybe I believe in it even more since I have never really experienced that sort of thing. I’ve thought I was in love plenty of times, mostly with the same couple of women over and over again, but, alas, they have never quite returned the favor. That is why I believe in romance so strongly, because I want it to be true. I want to believe that it really can happen to me, even if the evidence is to the contrary most of the time. Also, maybe the sheer number of romantic comedies I have seen over the years have given me unrealistic expectations. Maybe the reason I’ve never had that kind of love is because I want movie love rather than the real deal. I want it to be magical. I want it to upset my life. I want it to be like it is in the movies. And I don’t believe that it is too much to ask.

The only conceivable reason I can think of for pouring my heart out over the keyboard like this, for sharing my pathetic little soul with all of you out there in cyberspace, is because I have seen a great romantic comedy and it has awakened these feelings in me all over again. I want to go out to a bar, right now, meet the perfect woman and spend the rest of my life with her. But I doubt that the perfect woman is currently at a bar, right at this moment. And, also, I am pretty much broke having just spent my paycheck on Christmas presents and, oh, all right, a couple things that I bought for myself. You see, a great romantic film makes you feel lonely and happy all at the same time. It makes you feel lonely because you are not currently involved in the sort of relationship that you have just seen onscreen. And it makes you feel happy because it makes you think that there is a chance, however remote, that you actually could be involved in that sort of relationship sometime in the near future, and that it could be simply amazing. A bad romantic film arouses none of those feelings, however, and just leaves you feeling pretty much the way you did before you saw it. And I don’t believe in that. I believe a movie should have SOME sort of effect on you. In that way, I would value a movie that inspires revulsion or depression more than one that inspires absolutely nothing at all.

As you may have already gathered from these ramblings, “Something’s Gotta Give” is a great romantic comedy. It has two leads who seem meant to be together, from the very first frame, and then shows you how they come to be together. It also shows you the little problems and pitfalls along the way. Because, even in the movies, love ain’t easy. Not in the good ones, anyway. And the reasons why the two main characters can’t connect should be honest, realistic reasons rather than contrivances. I will not accept such plot contortions as one character having to pretend to be gay or a character thinking that the other is actually their brother or something ridiculous such as this. But in this movie, we see what might happen if a woman embittered by the failed parts of her life and a man who shies away from commitment as a habit and chases after woman a fraction of his age might meet and fall in love. And at no time did this movie make me cry foul. The film plays fair with its two main characters, it believes in them and it believes in the idea of love and, for the two hours and fifteen minutes that you are sitting in the theater staring at the screen, it made me believe in these things too. It is a well-written film, devoid of gimmickry or smugness. It is an honest film, as I said before, that earns every emotion we devote to it, without pandering or reducing itself to an exercise in sappy clichés.

Most of that has to do with the writing. This film is expertly plotted and often quite hilarious. The characters feel like actual people rather than caricatures and the developments of the plot feel organic. This is the way I wish all romantic comedies were written. Bad or even simply average romantic comedies adhere strictly to a certain paint by numbers approach. If you’ve ever seen any romantic comedy, you know exactly what is going to happen at every step of the way. But the great romantic comedies mix things up, they shake everything up a bit and make it seem fresh, hell, even realistic. Sure, when Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson first meet in “Something’s Gotta Give” they hate one another, and at the end of the movie, they are complete soul mates. We might have suspected as much simply from the trailer. But I didn’t know how things would progress between them, or where it was going from one scene to the next. And I love that. In writing and directing this affair, Nancy Meyers has done a fantastic bit of work.

Another of the major components in this whole thing working are the leads. If you don’t believe Jack or Diane (hmm, wasn’t there a John Mellencamp song about this?) are who they say they are, the whole thing falls apart. Thankfully, Nicholson and Keaton are two consummate pros that slip into these roles like a pair of well-worn slippers. Sure, neither actor is really stretching into completely new territory, but I have come to believe that this is an overrated quality. Jack Nicholson has basically made a career out of playing slightly chauvinistic commitment-phobes, but that’s because he has this down to a science. I believed in him a lot more here than I did in his overrated turn in “About Schmidt”. Sure, he was good in that, but he never quite made it effortless to me. Here, he’s absolutely perfect. And Diane Keaton has made a life out of playing neurotic, fast-talking women, but she truly shines here. I doubt anyone could have made heartbreak as truthful and hilarious all at the same time as she does in this film. Both leads are perfect. So perfect, in fact, that the rest of the cast seems to be wasted in their minor roles. Jon Favreau has literally nothing to do here. Keanu Reeves is charming, but the movie requires nothing more from him. Frances McDormand is great in the few scenes that she is in, but she’s in the trailer more than she is in the movie. And you know what? Jack and Diane’s characters are so good that to give these other characters more screen time would have been a distraction. The movie isn’t about them. They are there to do what they must do to make us believe in Jack and Diane falling for one another. That’s all they have to do and they do it as well as they are allowed. I didn’t wish for more of them, though I was glad to have them here in the limited capacities that they occupy. Nicholson and Keaton are both magnificent here, and it’s refreshing to see a love story about two world-weary people in the later part of middle age. These two are senior citizens, yet they still exude more charm and finesse and grace than people half their age. (And, incidentally, Diane Keaton is still lustrous to behold.)

The movie doesn’t have a whole lot to say, sure, and it isn’t going to change the world. Fine. So be it. If that’s not your cup of tea, you have been warned. And it’s not revolutionary filmmaking either. But style has only a limited place in a movie like this. “Down With Love”, by contrast, has boatloads of style but amounted to a very hollow piece of work that was actually a little too clever for its own good. “Something’s Gotta Give” has as much style as it needs, and it never feels too long, it never feels overdone, it never feels sappy. It just feels right. And it made me feel the way that a good romantic comedy should make me feel: lonely but optimistic. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to watch “To Live and Die in L.A.” I’ve never seen that movie, but it promises to be exciting and thrilling and, hopefully, gritty and dangerous. But if I wallow in this feeling of optimistic loneliness too much longer, I’m probably going to do something stupid like calling a girl that I really shouldn’t. And, again, that’s the feeling a good romance should have.

Share on Facebook

2003 / 93 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

He doesn’t know when you’ve been sleeping. He doesn’t quite know when you’re awake. And he probably doesn’t give a shit if you’ve been bad or good. He drinks. He swears, sometimes directly at children. He robs the safes of shopping malls on Christmas Eve. I think it’s safe to say that this is not your ordinary Santa Claus.

As played by Billy Bob Thornton, Willie is probably the biggest loser I have ever seen in a movie. Most so-called losers in film have a drinking problem. The only problem Thornton’s character seems to have is that there isn’t enough booze in the world to slake his screaming alcoholism. We get a hint of what may have turned Willie into the heavily flawed, almost irredeemably nasty man that we see onscreen, but I doubt any trauma is enough of an excuse for this man’s behavior. He is a vile, disturbed and deeply flawed individual. It would take an entire team of psychiatrists working in shifts around the clock to begin to scratch the surface of fixing this man’s problems. The movie opens with him in a bar recounting, via narration, the various troubles that got him here. He doesn’t seem to care that’s he’s a loser. He knows it. He’s embraced it. And when he says something about straightening up and making something out of his life, of abandoning his wicked ways, it takes only a single glance into his eyes to know that it’s all bullshit and that he doesn’t even buy it himself. Nor does his partner, Marcus (Tony Cox), the black midget who accompanies him on every grift. Willie gets the Santa gig because he brings his own midget to the table. The midget also crawls into spaces that Willie can’t get to and tries, mostly in vain, to keep Willie on the straight and narrow. Or at least to keep him in check long enough so they don’t get fired before they can make their annual score. He calls Willie early on in the film, right when Willie has hit the bedrock at the very bottom of rock bottom, and the two of them move their act to Phoenix. Within a couple days, Willie meets a sweet woman with a Santa fetish (Lauren Graham) who is almost saintly in overlooking or ignoring his flaws. He also meets a disturbing and deluded child who latches onto him like a puppy latching onto a rawhide chew toy (Brett Kelly).

Like Uma Thurman’s character in “Kill Bill”, The Kid doesn’t even have a name. Yet there’s something unnerving about this kid that gets under not only our skin but Willie’s as well. When he sits on Willie’s lap, Willie wants him to get the hell off it immediately. The Kid barely talks. He knows, deep down, that Willie isn’t Santa, yet he calls him “Santa” constantly and acts like Willie is the real McCoy. Willie is an extremely lonely little boy. His father is in prison, though he has been told that his father is “climbing mountains” and he is being taken care of by a grandmother who is practically comatose (an underused Cloris Leachman). He has no friends. Bullies target the boy so often that he practically has a bull’s-eye on his back. He’s the sort of kid who looks set to grow up and strangle nurses, burying their bodies in the desert. If we saw Norman Bates as a child, then he’d probably look a lot like this. Willie moves in with The Kid initially seeking to rob his house. But he doesn’t. Soon, a tenuous thread connects Willie and The Kid’s lives. Each one comes to need the other to redeem themselves. Their own salvation seems to depend on the other. It’s a bizarre relationship, to say the least, but it makes an insane sort of sense in the confines of the movie.

Billy Bob Thornton has said that he thinks this movie is like an episode of “South Park” that turns into “It’s a Wonderful Life”, but I think that’s selling this dark film decidedly short. Neither “South Park” nor “It’s a Wonderful Life” has anything this disturbing yet hilarious going on. Billy Bob’s portrayal of Willie is almost too pathetic, and it’s that sense of larger than life human misery that provides the comedic framework for this film. As fractured and flat out fucked up as this film may be, it’s also easily the funniest damn movie I’ve seen all year. It’s also one of the ballsiest. It’s a Christmas movie in which the word “fuck” is used more than 140 times (according to the Internet Movie Database, I didn’t sit there counting). It’s sharp, surreal, blistering, gleefully vulgar, and hilarious. That makes it just the right movie to watch when you’ve been to the Mall and it seems that everyone else on Earth was there too. It’s like the “anti-Christmas” Christmas film. And yet, what I didn’t expect, was the amount of heart buried deep in its lump of coal soul. This movie doesn’t stoop to cheap sentiment, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t moments of quiet redemption and true emotion here. Billy Bob and Brett Kelly invest themselves whole-heartedly in their roles and earn every moment of sympathy and compassion they get from us. These are two great, naturalistic performances that really get under your skin. I also loved the work by Tony Cox, who plays the angry, black midget with gusto (the scene between him and Bernie Mac’s mall security guard is priceless). He takes a one-note sort of character and gives it enough angles to make it interesting. Lauren Graham fills her role with sweetness and Bernie Mac takes a great supporting turn and just runs with it. He’s so good in this that you can nearly forgive him for embarrassing himself in “Charlie’s Angels 2″. Nearly. And this film is a very interesting sendoff for John Ritter. He’s great as the manager of the mall where Billy Bob works, a man who desperately wants to fire Willie (and with very good reason) yet can’t quite get up the nerve to do so.

It’s not your average Christmas movie. Hell, it’s not your average movie. But it colors outside the lines and it doesn’t look down on its characters. It’s brimming with intelligence and oddness and even a hint of non-sugary sweetness. Plus, it’s the perfect film for when you’re so entirely sick of Christmas you could scream. There’s something oddly cathartic about seeing a man dressed as Santa swearing at kids and throwing an empty booze bottle at a parked car without seeming to care. So, Merry Christmas, everyone. Oh, and fuck off.

Share on Facebook

1969 / 165 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Jason Jones

A trio of outlaws arrive at a train station. These men need not say a word. You know that their purpose in being here has no good will behind it. The ticket salesman is put under lock and key and a young lady is sent fleeing. The men take up positions outside the station and wait for a train. One of the men is pestered by a fly, another by water dripping on his hat and the last of them just plain looks pestered. After a time, the train arrives, a harmonica wails and three men are dead and another wounded in a brilliant flash of fury.

Welcome to the world of Sergio Leone.

Sergio is a man who shouldn’t need an introduction, but probably does given the sorry state of a world that is bludgeoned to death by Jerry Bruckheimer films on a near weekly basis.

Sergio was a God among directors. He made some of the greatest films the screen has ever seen including “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”, “Once Upon a Time In America” and this film to name a few. He had a way with the camera that has been often imitated, but seldom reproduced. His films relied on restraint while being bold and brash at the same time. The heroes (If you want to call them that.) of his films were men of few words who allowed their actions to speak for themselves. Scenes such as the one involving the train station, lasted ten minutes with a minimal amount of dialog being spoken, but Sergio keeps you riveted to the screen with his keen eye for human nature, as well as the anticipation of what is to come. He has been behind some of the most gorgeous and dramatic shots in film history. He was a man with no equal. He was, and is, a God.

As I mentioned before “Once Upon a Time In The West” is one of the films that elevated him to this “God” status. It is a film that is epic in design, but has a very noble down-to-earth quality about it as well. There are two central questions to this film. The first being: “Why is “Harmonica” (Charles Bronson) intent on tracking down Frank (Henry Fonda)? The other is: “What is so special about the land that Jill (the infinitely gorgeous Claudia Cardinale) resides on? These questions are pondered and investigated through the interlocking stories of Frank, “Harmonica”, Jill and Cheyenne (the incomparable Jason Robards).

The story begins at the previously described train station and continues with Frank showing just how evil he really is. I won’t ruin it for you, because it is an amazing feeling when you realize that it is Henry Fonda who is committing these cruel acts. Jill arrives at a different train station only to find no one there to greet here and a life that is now in shambles. Along the way to her new home she stops at a saloon only to run into Cheyenne. He has just escaped from the police and drops into the saloon to wait for his men to arrive. While at the saloon he makes the acquaintance of “Harmonica” in one of a slew of memorable scenes from the film. It turns out Cheyenne was set up to take a fall and he’s not too happy about it. He, along with “Harmonica” as self -appointed protector of Jill, have vowed, in their typically unspoken manner, to get to the bottom of what’s going on.

And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg. It is a beautifully told tale with many unforgettable scenes to make you repeat the film over and over in your head after you first see it. The performances are all brilliant in every way imaginable. I mean what can be said about Jason Robards that hasn’t been said already? He is brilliant in the role of the sympathetic outlaw Cheyenne. Everything the man does is exquisite. The way he delivers his lines. The way he carries himself. Everything I say! December 26, 2000 truly was a dark day for cinema, as it marked the day that this legend of a man left us for greener pastures. May you forever rest in peace Jason Robards. You will be forever in my thoughts and memories.

It’s difficult to go on after realizing such a loss, but Robards, being the consummate man that he was, would have wanted the show to go on. One of the other standout performances is delivered by Charles Bronson as the soft-spoken man-with-an-agenda that is “Harmonica”.

He, as is typical for Leone’s central characters, is a man of few words. When he does speak people would do well to listen, because the man does not waste his words. The incredibly gorgeous Claudia Cardinale brings a great amount of passion and determination to the role of Jill. I don’t think I have ever laid my eyes upon a more beautiful woman than Ms. Cardinale. She is a woman of many talents as she can act just as wonderfully as she looks.

She is one of the more intriguing female characters in the history of cinema. A woman who is very strong-willed that also knows when it’s time to accept a man’s help. She washes the men, who take pleasure in her body, away with a hot bath that makes her feel pure again.

She gains the respect of men like Cheyenne and “Harmonica” by way of her actions and her strong will. You wouldn’t expect men like them to respect her, but they do anyway. That is just a small part of what makes Jill such an interesting character. Henry Fonda delivers one of his most unusual performances. He is the bad guy! He does a fine job with a role that is most definitely not one that he is accustomed to. Frank is a heartless, soulless prick and Henry plays him to perfection. Few villains have ever been so ruthless. Rounding out the cast are Gabrielle Ferzetti as a railroad baron of sorts, as well as some cameo appearances by the likes of Jack Elam, Keenan Wynn, Woody Strode and Lionel Stander. The cameos are all short, but memorable, and they all do nothing but add to the film as a whole.

I have already praised Sergio earlier in the review, so I will not belabor the point now. His work can speak for itself. Someone I will take the time to praise now is composer extraordinaire Ennio Morricone. Much the same as Sergio is the God of directors, Ennio is the God of composers. The man has done so many scores that he has lost count. Some of the most distinctive scores belong to this man. Whether you know it or not you have heard his score from “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” and you should hear his work in “The Untouchables”. These are just two of a whole library of incredible film scores that we will never hear the likes of again. Unless, of course, Ennio chooses to bless us with something reminiscent of his past in his future work. What makes this score so special? There are too many reasons, but I shall attempt to touch on the majority of them.

He takes simplicity and makes us fall in love with it. Something like a harmonica for instance. He makes it haunt and enliven us at the same time. It sounds beautiful, yet disturbing at the same time. It is the theme of Bronson’s character and it suits him well. He is a simple man who is capable of goodness, as well as violence much the same as his them. I think that is what makes Morricone such a master. He gives each character their own individual theme that defines them perfectly without them ever having to be seen. Take Cheyenne’s theme for instance. It is sinister, playful, and mysterious all at once. I can think of no better way to describe Cheyenne than in this way, which is exactly what Ennio’s theme has captured. I get goosebumps just thinking about it. Out of all of Morricone’s work, it is his work on this film that I feel is him at his best. A work that is very diverse and rewarding, without which this film would not be half as good as it is.

Oh how I do love this movie. It even flirted with favorite film status for me for awhile before “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” reasserted itself, in it’s proper place, as the heart and soul of what makes me love movies so much. I love them, because of movies like “Once Upon a Time In The West. They can be truly magical experiences when the right people are making them. People like Sergio Leone and Ennio Morricone make me love movies more than any man should.

And I love them for it.

Share on Facebook

2003 / 129 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

When the first “Matrix” film ended, I was left wanting more. I wanted to see the liberation of those still stuck inside “The Matrix”, I wanted to see the machines be defeated, I wanted to see the world become human again and I wanted to celebrate this along with the characters in this world that I had come to love so much. So when it was announced that we were getting not just one but two sequels, I was excited. I was excited because I expected to see what my imagination prepared me to see.

Unfortunately, the Wachowskis had something different in mind than I did which, as the creators of this universe, is their right. But their ideas have been such a polar opposite from my own ideas of where this series was going that it has been hard for me to really get into the groove of “Reloaded” and “Revolutions”. Especially “Reloaded” which seemed to dick around for an hour and a half before finally giving us a thimble-full of relevant information that seemed to explain something plot wise. My problem with “Reloaded”, one that is only magnified by repeat viewings, is that nothing much happens in it. Sure, the sentinels are digging their way toward Zion, the last refuge of free humans. Sure, we find out something about the Matrix. But the revelation that was made at the end of “Reloaded” doesn’t seem to have a fucking thing to do with anything that goes on in “Revolutions”, therefore, that entire movie seems to have been, as I suspected, an enormous waste of time. There are one or two little things in “Reloaded” that pay off in “Revolutions” and those mostly involve the character of Agent Smith. Otherwise, “Reloaded” may as well not even have existed. I’m serious. It didn’t add up to much of anything and, impressive as the freeway sequence might have been, it didn’t justify two hours of my life being somewhat entertainingly wasted. They could have used these two hours to do so much more with the concept behind “The Matrix”, that is what pisses me off about that film.

However, very few of my problems with “Reloaded” apply to “Revolutions”. “Revolutions” is all business. No more of the dicking around that was the majority of the screen time in “Reloaded”. “Revolutions” dives right in and doesn’t slow down until the credits roll. And it’s about fucking time. “Revolutions” has to make up for all the time that was wasted in “Reloaded” and, for the most part, it does so. Not only that, but the dark tone that was so great in the first “Matrix” has returned in full force. If anything, this film is the darkest of the trilogy. If anything, “Reloaded” was too lighthearted. Thank God this one is not. It’s brimming with menace and, finally, you sense what is at stake in this world that has been created for our entertainment. The philosophy is more cleverly and unobtrusively integrated into the narrative this time. It does not slow the whole picture to a screeching halt as it did in “Reloaded”. The characters become people that we care about once again and, for reasons that will be obvious once the last frame of “Revolutions” has unspoiled, that is of vital importance. If we didn’t care about the characters then, conversely, we wouldn’t care about the movie. (I didn’t care that much about the characters in “Reloaded” and it might be the reason I don’t care that much for that film and find it little more than a rollercoaster ride with few highs.) And the spectacle in this film is dark and important and nail-bitingly good. I have very few qualms with this film, in fact. The only thing I had a real problem with on first viewing is the ending, and that is something I can’t really get into without ruining the film. Let me just tell you this much, I think it’s a damn good one. I have a slight problem with the resolution; one that first made me downgrade the film but the more I think about it, the more I have come to appreciate it, and the movie up until that point is simply astounding. It’s as exciting and intense as anything the first movie had to offer. Okay, maybe not quite that good, but worth favorable comparison, nonetheless. I was simply shocked, after the disappointment of “Reloaded” at the greatness and rollicking action this one provides. The big set pieces of the movie are undoubtedly the fight against the sentinels attempting to invade Zion and the final fight between Neo and Agent Smith. And, during both of these, one nearly has to remind themselves to breathe. The battle for Zion is particularly engrossing, despite the fact that it doesn’t involve any of the main characters. It is as close to a gritty war film as I have ever seen a science fiction film get. It’s like watching “Saving Private Ryan” at certain points, only with machines in place of the Nazis. It goes on for quite a while and is never less than amazing. And even though we’ve seen Neo fight Smith (even a hundred Smiths) the final fight here is pretty breathtaking. It goes on a bit too long, and there’s also the fact that, as good as this fight is, we have seen these two square off before, but the stakes behind this final conflict are huge, and that gives the fight a gravity that makes it rather intense. Oh, and there is a truly dazzling gunfight near the beginning of the movie that was completely inventive and sent my pulse racing.

So the characters work, the storytelling works, the philosophy works, and even the love story between Trinity and Neo finally works. Everything that was off in the second installment clicks into place here, and it even redeems a few moments of “Reloaded”. This film goes places that I never expected it to go: dark, ballsy places. Keanu acts like a real person with real dilemmas again, and I loved that. Trinity matters again, and I love that. Morpheus takes a back seat, but it’s fine. And Hugo Weaving conveys effortless menace once more as Smith, and I loved that too. He works better in this film, because he’s more like the badass Smith we had in the first movie. And the resolution, well, it’s definitely unexpected. It’s not how I would have ended the series, and it certainly leaves a large window open for a sequel, but it’s hopeful and strange and definitely different. It’s got spunk, I give it that much. The movie is guilty of having a few clunky moments of dialogue, and some of the characters might suffer from an overdose of solemnity, but the movie works far more often than it doesn’t. It provided me with thrills from the first frame to the last and it sends this trilogy out on a darkly optimistic note, filling it with the humanity that seemed to have been sucked out of the second one. And I liked that. I liked that plenty. You don’t always get what you want in trilogies, and there is a LOT more that I would have liked to see done with this whole concept (Hell, pretty much everything I wanted to see in the sequels wasn’t even touched on by them) but I was enthralled and I was even moved. Sometimes, getting what you don’t expect is all right too.

Share on Facebook

2003 / 111 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

If you took the movie “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and hooked its nuts up to a car battery and pumped about a thousand volts into it, then you might get “Kill Bill”. That’s one way of looking at it. Yet another way of describing “Kill Bill” would be to call it a spaghetti Eastern. But the best way to describe this movie, I believe, is for me to make one simple statement: “Kill Bill: Volume One” is probably the ballsiest, most audacious film in the history of cinema. I’m really trying to think of anything else that even comes close to pushing as many envelopes as hard as this one…and I’m just not coming up with anything.

You wanna talk envelope-pushing? Okay. Violence. This is the goriest non-horror film I’ve ever seen. Not since the one-two punch of “Robocop” and “Total Recall” has there been this much blood gushing onscreen in an action flick. Gorgeous fountains of arterial blood are spraying like Old Faithful at certain moments in this film. It’s the only film I’ve seen where you can start a sentence by saying “My favorite gush of blood was…” I’ve never spoken of a movie that way before, so far as I can remember. (By the way, my favorite gush of blood is when a certain Japanese Yakuza boss has his head lopped off and we see Lucy Liu kneeling before him with samurai sword in hand and a geyser of beautiful, red blood fanning upward before her.) Limbs are hacked off in every conceivable manner, blood flows like the Red Sea in an old Biblical epic, eyes are gouged out, mouths are sliced open wider, any form of carnage you can imagine and probably a few that had never even crossed your mind are on display in this film. It’s frankly refreshing to see an action film with such a cavalier attitude toward blood-letting. And the carnage is filmed in a strangely beautiful manner. This is a gorgeously gory film, a phrase that I don’t think is warranted by any other movie. Not only that, but there is a scene in this film that is probably the most vulgar thing I’ve seen in a movie. I’ll give you but one hint: it takes place in a coma ward. It’s a scene that should be ugly and brutal with its mere use of language and yet, somehow, it’s so ridiculous to be hearing this discussion in a film that I was laughing hysterically. It also helps to know that the men responsible for this discussion will, no doubt, be dead in a matter of minutes. In fact, the violence in the movie is often so ridiculous as to inspire laughter. Not because it’s poorly done, no, not at all, but because it’s so over-the-top, so ludicrously sick that you are laughing at the fact that anyone had the sheer balls to place it on the silver screen.

Another area in which the movie pushes the envelope is the mere way in which it is constructed. It does unfold in a linear fashion but, from the words “A Quentin Tarantino Film” everyone should be able to guess as much. No, the real kick in the head is the very amount of invention poured into the making of this film. Not only is there more gore than you’d have if you took every ounce of blood in every studio film for the last decade and stuck it in a single movie, but there is a sequence done entirely in Japanese anime. That’s right, the movie has a five minute cartoon in the middle of it. Not only that, but the cartoon is effective and fits within the film flawlessly. There are flashbacks, some flash-forwards, black and white photography, Japanese dialogue, a sequence done in silhouette with some truly ghastly gurgling sound effects, a score that would do Ennio Morricone proud and a sequence that is such a great homage to Brian DePalma that it looks like an outtake from the movie “Dressed to Kill”. (This sequence is, in fact, more like vintage DePalma than anything DePalma himself did between “Raising Cain” and “Femme Fatale”. It even recycles a Bernard Herrmann theme from a little-known movie named “Twisted Nerve” and puts it to diabolically effective use.) The plot is not all that original: a woman is betrayed and beaten and shot in the head and left for dead only to recover from her coma four years later and seek vengeance against those who wronged her. We’ve seen Clint and Charles Bronson and even Steven Seagal do this many times before. But we’ve never seen it done like this. The plot outline may not be original, but the movie sure as hell is.

The film is basically an exercise in style and a tribute by Tarantino to every filmmaker that he has ever loved. It is a better homage to Sergio Leone than anything in “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” (the little flashbacks accompanied by a weirdo score whenever she meets one of her assailants were an especially Leone touch). It is also a nice nod toward the 70’s low budget kung fu films that Tarantino grew up on (cult kung fu legend Sonny Chiba is even in the cast as a master Japanese sword smith, and he steals virtually every scene he is in). There are clever asides to DePalma, as I mentioned, and to Japanese anime and even the whole blaxploitation genre (wronged, foxy female who can kick anyone’s ass). But it adds up to more than the sum of its parts. A lot of films could not mix all those disparate elements into a cohesive unit, let alone make that unit so relentlessly entertaining without so much as a hint of kitsch or cutesy tribute. Tarantino manages to make the whole concoction into a cool breeze blowing through the multiplexes to take out the proverbial trash. He envisioned the film as a three-hour epic but it has been hacked in twain by the geniuses over at Miramax. At first, this angered me. Now, I have come to a personal realization: if the next hour and a half is as entertaining and gleefully violent and utterly amazing as this one, I don’t think I could have taken the full dose all at once. The final sequence of the film is the “Crazy 88 fight” in which Uma Thurman’s Bride character takes on 88 fighters armed with samurai swords and hacks through them like Michael Douglas hacking a path through the rain forest in “Romancing the Stone”. And they don’t just attack one at a time the way they might in a lesser film. Oh no. The fighters are attacking Uma in waves of five or six or ten at a time and Uma dispatches them in the goriest ways possible. This sequence is a visual marvel that will leave any moment of “The Matrix” or its first sequel in the dust. It’s an eye popping, exhilarating marvel of action filmmaking and easily one of the greatest fight sequences ever committed to film. And, in the original three-hour version, this astounding fight would occur at the HALFWAY POINT! The mind simply boggles at this thought. This means that Tarantino likely has some even better things in store before this movie hits its conclusion. The very notion of that has me drooling.

I have already managed to congratulate Tarantino on writing and directing this bold vision, now I shall congratulate the others responsible. Kudos must be given to Robert Richardson and David Wasco, the cinematographer and production designer, for making the whole thing look so absolutely gorgeous and for staging the whole production in a breathtaking manner. Their contributions to this film cannot be overlooked. Wasco’s design of the House of Blue Leaves alone is something worthy of an Oscar. I must also laud Lawrence Bender for doing whatever a producer does to get this film off the ground. But the actresses in the film do the real feat. Uma Thurman is simply better than I ever imagined she could be as The Bride. Tarantino has labored to make her come off as The Woman With No Name, even going so far as to bleep out her name whenever it is given in the movie. And she is actually good enough to earn comparison with Clint in her role. She is the toughest woman I have ever seen in a motion picture. Period. End of sentence. She is a true badass in every sense of the phrase. She is a whirling maelstrom of rage and revenge and she plays it with just the right balance of anger and enthusiasm and just a hint of fun whenever a hint of fun might be appropriate. It’s an awesome, fiercesome performance that demands to be remembered come award time. I’m serious. I pity the poor suckers that don’t give her an Academy Award. I mean, I’d hate to be the one to deny her and then see her show up on MY doorstep. Not only that, but there is some real acting going on here amidst the bloodshed. There is an actual performance here, a great performance. Probably the best female performance since Frances McDormand charmed my socks off in “Fargo”. Her part demands her to be tough, vengeful, filled with rage, vulnerable, funny, clever and maternal in equal shares and she nails each bit of this effortlessly. I’ve never seen a character in ANY revenge movie that deserves revenge more than The Bride, and Uma makes you root for her even when she’s doing something that would normally be considered on the brutal side. It’s the only character I’ve seen that feels entirely justified when slicing someone’s arm off in cold blood.

The other actors and actresses also do a tremendous job. Lucy Liu gives a great performance as O-Ren Ishii. This shocked me to the core because I did not believe Lucy Liu capable of giving a great performance. Sure, she’s been decent in films like “Charlie’s Angels”, but a great performance? I never knew. But she gives one here. She is so good you almost feel sorry for her, knowing that The Bride will eventually come to put some hurt on her ass. She’s vicious and yet sympathetic and effortlessly cool all at once. She achieves the same wonderful alchemy that Uma does in her role, only to a lesser extent. I also enjoyed Julie Dreyfus in her limited screen time as the wonderfully named Sofie Fatale and I loved the actress who played, and this is another name I simply adore, Go-go Yubari. Just typing that name brings a smile to my face. She doesn’t get to do much, but she makes the most of it. Of that I can assure you. I even liked Vivica A. Fox in the film. She plays a woman who seems to have been transplanted wholesale from a 70’s blaxploitation flick and she is good enough to earn the mantel that has been passed to her from people like Pam Grier. She’s a tough, knife-wielding bitch with a real soft spot for her daughter, and I liked that. As I type these descriptions, I am realizing how great Tarantino’s writing and direction is. You see, none of these supporting characters have a lot in the way of character development (okay, O-Ren has an amazing back story done entirely in anime, but she’s the exception that proves the rule) but you know within two minutes of them showing up onscreen what type of person they are and what their deal is. This also goes for Daryl Hannah, who makes a welcome return to the big screen as the one-eyed vixen named Elle Driver. Her one scene is just absolutely fantastic and she’s more of a cast iron bitch than I ever could have envisioned her being.

The men don’t fare very well in this movie. If they aren’t merely boorish sex-crazed bastards, then they’re absolutely evil psychopaths. The single exception to this lot is Sonny Chiba as the Japanese sword master Hattoro Hanzo. I’ve never seen any of his movies, but after seeing his charming turn here, I think I need to. He exudes charm and intelligence and sheer charisma without even seeming to try. He is warm and wonderful in this film and I look forward to seeing more use made of him in the next few years. He’s great here. As the shitheels of the piece, I enjoyed the contributions of guys like Michael Bowen and Gordon Liu, as well as the brief appearance of Michael Madsen (I’m sure more screen time will be occupied by him in the next installment). David Carradine doesn’t even get to have his face shown this time, but his very voice is more of a presence than a lot of movie villains. His laidback drawl is the audio equivalent of greasy silk. I cannot wait to find out what makes this guy tick.

In fact, the motivations and reasons behind the main action of the piece (the betrayal and thrashing of The Bride) have not yet been made clear, but I am sure that we will find out what they are in Volume Two. Why am I sure of this, when I am still not entirely convinced that the last two installments of “The Matrix” are going to make any sense? Because I have faith in Tarantino that I do not have for the Wachowskis. I have faith in him because, with “Kill Bill”, he has earned my faith. This movie is a revelation, a piece of filmmaking that works on a multitude of levels all at once. Any movie featuring a man wearing the Kato mask Bruce Lee wore as a sidekick in the “Green Hornet” series fighting a woman dressed in the outfit Bruce wore in his last film (”Game of Death”) has to be making some kind of symbolic statement, if only on the career of Bruce Lee. I wasn’t sure about “Kill Bill” going in, but I have absolutely no doubts about it coming out. I mean, Shit, look at how much space I’ve devoted to it here. It’s as good as anything Tarantino has ever done. Maybe not better than things like “Pulp Fiction” or “Jackie Brown”, but it’s at least equal to them. “Kill Bill” is clearly a labor of love made by someone with a burning desire to see it onscreen. It’s also a booster shot for your appreciation for Tarantino.

Share on Facebook

2003 / 108 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I know what you’re all wondering: is there any pie screwing in the latest Woody Allen film? Well, I have seen this film and I can attest that, no, not a single pie (apple or otherwise) has been defiled or mistreated in any way, despite the presence of Jason Biggs.

If you’ve seen a poster or an ad for “Anything Else”, you might not even know that it IS a Woody Allen film. The posters and ads emphasize the likenesses of Jason Biggs and Christina Ricci, with barely a mention toward The Woodster. Apparently, a Woody Allen film isn’t the box office draw that it used to be. Not enough car chases and explosions, I guess, for your average modern moviegoer. Maybe if he were to work his dense philosophical observations and hilarious one-liners into some kind of framework that involves a Colombian drug deal or a troop of vampires or maybe some undead pirates, maybe then he’d have found the formula for turning his straw into box office gold. But thank God he hasn’t, I say. Thank God Woody has stuck by his guns and maintained his artistic integrity. If you’ve seen one Woody Allen movie, you usually know what you’re in for. But, thank goodness, you usually know that it’s going to be something of quality.

“Anything Else” is the first film in a long time that I can actually identify with. Yes, “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” is a grand, exhilarating bit of cinema. But I, for one, have never faced members of a Mexican drug cartel after having my eyes gouged out. I have, however, been in a relationship with a woman that was driving me completely insane, and yet I never quite felt like ending it. And I can recognize the notes that this film hits and, occasionally, nod my head and smile as I acknowledge the film hitting on some very fundamental truths. This latest Woody Allen film is basically about the ups and downs of loving a woman who drives you crazy, and not crazy in that “head over heels in love” sort of way. Instead, I’m talking about crazy in the “wondering where you could hide the body” sort of way. Except that Jason Biggs is actually in love with the woman in this movie. I could never quite get in love with the woman who was driving me insane. She was just driving me TOO crazy. But I’ve been in love before (so I think) with people who drove me crazy for other reasons, and I have been in situations where it would have been much easier if I weren’t in love with someone, if I could just turn around and walk away from them and not have to worry about the fact that they were making me insane. So I can relate to the movie on that level, as well. In fact, I think that most people probably can.

And this is the reason that I love this movie. I can relate to it. Sure, it’s specifically a Woody Allen film: there are the usual jokes about Jews and therapy and nazis, that much is just going to be a given. But it’s about relationships and exploring why they are wonderful in small doses and maddening as a whole. Not that this is virgin territory, by any means, but it is a nice little niche and Woody Allen makes it work better than just about anyone else in modern cinema. There are many who aspire to make these sorts of movies, and with occasional success (I’m thinking mainly of Kevin Smith) but when it comes right down to it, Woody is the king and no substitutes should be accepted. He attacks the subject with a level of wit and sophistication and a respect for the intelligence of the viewer that guys like Kevin Smith probably never even think about. This movie is a return of form for Woody. His past couple films have been just a little too gimmicky for my taste. “Curse of the Jade Scorpion” had a great premise but never really made it fly and “Hollywood Ending” just seemed a bit too dumb. But here we have Woody exploring the inner workings of a complex relationship and, tangentially, the fact that a person must get a better handle on themselves before they can make anything work with another person. Again, this is a rather simple and even routine sort of subject, but there is nothing simple or routine about Woody’s observations, which give the viewer food for thought long after the film has drawn to a close.

Plus, the film is mostly hilarious. It’s got a bittersweet tone to it as well and it does not go for the easy cop-out ending (Woody Allen films never have, as far as I recall). Woody is the only man making romantic comedies that don’t necessarily end with a wedding, or a man trying to catch a plane to confess his love to his significant other (and can we retire that cliché, for God’s sake, it’s getting extremely old). It’s one of the many reasons that I respect Woody as a filmmaker and as one of the nation’s finest humorists. I also respect him because he picks excellent casts and guides them all to amazing performances. Those who think of Jason Biggs merely as a pie-humper will find him a revelation here. His performance is very believable. I didn’t think of “American Pie” once the entire time I was watching the film. I also loved the work of Christina Ricci as the woman driving Biggs mad. She was nearly perfect in this role, inhabiting it with all the maddening grace and charm that women so often possess. But it is Woody himself that should get an Academy Award nomination here. He’s actually playing someone other than Woody Allen: he’s a borderline psychotic wannabe comedy writer and grade-school teacher who befriends Biggs and constantly enlightens him with his own eccentric views on life. It’s a great performance that should remind people that Woody is a great actor as well as an excellent writer and director. The man is a triple threat. And he’s got some of the funniest dialogue I’ve heard in years.

I know I’m probably screaming into the void on this one, but give “Anything Else” a chance. There are no vampires or werewolves or drug deals gone sour; just a simple exploration of the nature of human relationships (and, hell, human life in all its various facets) that is laugh-out-loud funny. Take a break from the glossy effects movies and let this film wash over you. Your brain might just thank you for it.

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

Well, friends and neighbors, it’s that time o’ the year again. It’s, um, fall? Yup, Fall. That’s what it is. And there’s a whole slate of flicks coming out in the last couple months here that are jockeying for your entertainment dollar. And some of these films don’t even look to suck. So, as I have done for the past couple of years, I’d like to shine the harsh light of day onto these flicks and let you know which movies I am most anxiously awaiting and, in short, look like they might actually be worth a damn. But, this year, there aren’t as many films that have me champing at the bit. There aren’t quite as many films this fall/winter that have me jumping up and down and clapping my hands like a little girl in anticipation. But oh well. There’s still a few of them lurking out there.

I think.

1. “Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”

“Fellowship of the Ring” was awesome! Seriously, just plain amazing. I loved every second of it and still watch it repeatedly. It’s probably already one of my favorite films of all time and, in retrospect, is the greatest movie of 2001. (”Moulin Rouge” is good and all but…) “The Two Towers” is a solid, even excellent film, but not quite as good as “Fellowship” and they changed a couple characters from the book and stuff like that which might not seem like much, but still occasionally pisses me off. Still, it’s a great movie and one of last year’s best. So, at the very least, “Return of the King” should shape up to be a great movie and provide some very breathtaking spectacle. At the best, it could leave “Fellowship” in the dust and make me ruin a perfectly good pair of pants come December 17th. So, you know, hooray!

2. “Kill Bill: Volume One”

Quentin Tarantino, I think I speak for an entire nation of film geeks when I say: “Where the hell have you been?” I loved “Pulp Fiction” and “Jackie Brown” (oh, right, and “Reservoir Dogs” which I’m not so huge on, but it’s still damn good) so I’ve been wanting more films from the Q Man. The only down side is that this is a balls to the wall kung fu flick, the plot of which sounds like “Charlie’s Angels” if Charlie screwed over one of the Angels and earned her hellish wrath. I claim that as a down side because I’d sorta like to see another movie with criminals and smart, witty dialogue and an occasional bloodbath. But it’ll be nice to see Quentin bring his witty touch to the whole kung fu genre and, hopefully, he will be able to inject it with the sense of flair and coolness that it’s sort of been losing lately thanks to the fact that there seems to be kung fu in every third film being made nowadays and they just keep getting more outlandish. (Thanks, “Matrix”!) But it’s been six years, so it’ll be nice to see the words “A Quentin Tarantino Film” splashed all over the big screen.

3. “Love Actually”

I like British people. Particularly, I like British comedians. They’re usually sharper and more sophisticated than American comedians and there’s just this indefinable something about them. I’m not sure what it is. Maybe it’s the fact that thirty years of Bond films have conditioned me to see them as dapper and debonair and seeing them as anything less is just somehow hilarious. This movie is just stocked with such people: Hugh Grant, Rowan Atkinson, Alan Rickman, Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, Liam Neeson, the gorgeous Keira Knightley and even a couple of Americans- Laura Linney and Denise Richards. Plus, the whole concoction is a romantic comedy brewed up by a master of the form: Richard Curtis who, since writing the “Black Adder” and “Mr. Bean” television series has gone on to pen the scripts for “Four Weddings and a Funeral” and “Notting Hill” as well as co-writing “Bridget Jones’s Diary”. And this one is a sprawling romantic comedy of epic proportions about sixteen separate people all falling in love or something like that. The trailer was funny and the movie looks highly intriguing, which is more than I can say about most of the movies set to release in the coming months…

4. “Intolerable Cruelty”

The Coen Brothers are back, and they have once again made an alliance with George Clooney. The trailer looks fun, despite the fact that Catherine Zeta Jones is in this…which can go either way. Billy Bob Thornton seems to be providing laughs simply by showing up, which is admirable, and the whole thing looks like a breezy good time. The reason it’s not higher on this list is because the screenplay appears to be written by two other guys and the Coens seem content merely to direct. This causes me concern, but if the Coens have devoted themselves to filming someone else’s work, then that work must be worth something. Looks amusing.

5. “Mystic River”

There is one main reason to see this movie: CLINT! CLINT! The hand of God is on the tiller of this film. He’s not in it, but he’s controlling every aspect of it, and that makes it worth at least a look. The buzz is pretty good on this one as well, and it’s got a great cast that includes Kevin Bacon, Sean Penn and Laurence Fishburne, who looks relieved not to be in another damn “Matrix” movie for once. But, if you’re wavering about seeing it, I have something else to say: CLINT! CLINT! CLINT!

6. “Runaway Jury”

I usually have no interest in seeing courtroom movies, or movies based on John Grisham books, but the trailer for this movie is a breathless marvel and if the movie is the same way, well, then it should be an intense experience. Cusack is in it, and so is “Mummy” beauty Rachel Weisz, as well as veteran folk like Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman. The cast is cool, the concept (scrambling to decide which side of a trial controls the jury of a billion-dollar trial) is cool and the whole thing just oozes a breathless, top-notch thriller sort of attitude. So count me in.

7. “Big Fish”

I like Tim Burton and have never disliked anything he’s done. He directs this and it stars Ewan McGregor, who is, in my belief, one of the finest young actors in Hollywood today. Plus, Danny Devito is running around, and that’s usually a good thing. Add all that up, and you’ve got my ass firmly planted in a seat. The whole plot of a man investigating the tall tales of his dying father, also sounds promising.

8. “The Singing Detective”

Robert Downey Jr. and Mel Gibson are among the players of this strange musical based on a British miniseries about a delusional detective. Songs, dance, delusions, a recovering drug addict (Downey) and Mel. Even if it doesn’t work at all, it should be fun to watch.

9. “The Matrix Revolutions”

I guess I have some desire to see this movie. I should have more, though, and that’s what bothers me. The original “Matrix” is, in my opinion, one of the best science fiction films of all time. The second is alright, I guess, and fun to watch, but not a whole lot more than that. I hope that “Matrix Revolutions” is more like the original, but since I am a realist, I believe it will be more like the latter. And if it isn’t at least a hell of a lot better than “Reloaded” and explains what the fuck was going ON in “Reloaded”, then I am officially disappointed. I’m sure I will be going on opening day anyway, but I will be sitting in the theater with my arms folded over my chest, waiting for the film to have made the trip worth my while.

10. “Timeline”

Unfortunately, Paul Walker is in this. But the trailer I have seen makes it look like a good time. It’s based on a Micheal Crichton novel, and those are usually entertaining. Plus the plot involves both time travel and medieval times, which are two things that I enjoy. So I’m going to go and hopefully have a lot of fun. That’s really all I expect.

Other than that, there really isn’t much I care to see. I’d like to see Tom kick some ass in “The Last Samurai” and I am looking forward to seeing Jack Nicholson play himself once again in “Something’s Gotta Give” and I can’t really say no to a movie entitled “Bad Santa” but these ten are the ones that I am most hankering for and, frankly, I could probably do without seeing a couple of them. So there you have it. It doesn’t look like that great of a year, and it hasn’t been so far. Unless “Return of the King” completely floors me, “Pirates of the Caribbean” will probably emerge as my favorite film of 2003. And that would be just a little weird.

Share on Facebook

2003 / 97 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Remember the movie “Heat”? Yeah, you do, don’t lie. Why did you watch that movie? Was it to see an intelligently layered heist film? A meditation on criminals and the men who catch them and how there isn’t really that much of a difference between the two? Not likely. It was to see DeNiro face off against Pacino and see, once and for all, which was the better actor. Right? I mean, come on. If the movie had been just as good and starred Soupy Sales and Dan Aykroyd, would anyone have cared? No way in hell. Well, aside from the fact that “Heat” was a well layered and remarkably crafted film and “Freddy Vs. Jason” is a giant piece of crap for the most part, the reasons for seeing both films are basically the same. Except that in this case, we aren’t going in order to find out if Freddy or Jason is a better actor. We’re going to see, once and hopefully for all, which one is the bigger bad ass.

Okay, I’ll be honest: I’ve only seen a single “Nightmare on Elm Street” film (the third one, or maybe the second one, I don’t know, all I remember is he used one of the kids like a puppet and there was a naked nurse fantasy in it) and I’ve only seen one of the million “Friday the 13th” movies (the laughable “Jason X”, which probably doesn’t even qualify as a true Jason movie). But I am passably familiar with both Freddy and Jason. Freddy is America’s favorite child molesting burn victim and apparently attacks people in their dreams. Jason is a hockey mask-wearing psychopath who had some problems at a summer camp some years back. Or so I think. So for no reason I can quite place my finger on, I ended up in attendance at the film “Freddy Vs. Jason”. And, even with my lack of crappy movie viewing, I was able to follow it fairly well. As well as anyone else could, anyway.

The plot, such as it is, involves Freddy recruiting Jason to kill a bunch of people on Elm Street, making it look like he did it, so he can once again use this as a way to infiltrate the dreams of hapless (and horny, I guess) teenagers and kill them in new and interesting ways. It didn’t make a lot of sense to me, but I suppose it was the only way that the producers could shoehorn these two horror icons into the same package deal, so I shall let it slide. From there, it’s basically the same old, same old. Jason kills. Freddy kills. Teenagers make out, get killed, then try to figure out what is happening to them and why. That’s basically it. Well, eventually, Freddy gets perturbed because Jason is murdering all of his intended fodder and decides that it is time to teach Jason a lesson.

The teenage actors in this film are all fairly worthless. There is a character that appears to be a poor man’s Jay from the Kevin Smith movies and another character that seems rather like an amateur-hour Jack Black. Oh, and the lead woman has a really glorious rack. We never actually get to see it, but its presence is in every scene, barely contained by some of the tightest sweaters that the fashion industry has ever produced. In much the same way that Angelina Jolie’s ample sweater cows were the stars of the first “Tomb Raider”, this woman’s breasts are the true stars of this bit of cinema. I look forward to seeing them play a prominent role in other motion pictures, perhaps even liberating themselves from the confines of these sweaters to truly make themselves known. A star is born in this gorgeous woman’s chest, and it’s truly a remarkable thing to see, particularly in a very nice slow motion scene toward the end of the film. These mammary steal the picture, I don’t mind saying, as well as a couple of other noteworthy nude scenes tossed into the mix of this film.

The nude scenes aren’t the only things to recommend this film, but they are by far the most fun to watch. The big showdown between Freddy and Jason takes a long time to come, but when it does finally occur, it really isn’t worth the wait. Much has been made of it, but you know that neither of these characters is truly going to triumph. Come on. Neither of them ended up dying or going to hell when the other movie titles promised that they would, why would either of them end up definitively dying this time. The showdown has some nice moments, but it’s mostly without suspense, because neither movie franchise wants to call it quits just yet, not when they can squeeze a few more bucks out of their teenage audience. The usual amounts of gore and sex are served up, but in the end, we really haven’t been treated to anything new. It’s the same old, same old, except that instead of sitting through two lackluster horror outings, we get a single movie that does the work of both. The film was amusing, for the most part, and it does prove which of these movie characters is truly the definitive badass (neither is dispatched eternally, but one does get the upper hand over the other) and I suppose that is enough. My main complaint is that the film wastes too much time on teenage characters that aren’t even one-dimensional. Who cares about the teenagers in this film? We came here to see Freddy and Jason, after all, not these whiny losers. None of the actors really do a good job of differentiating these characters from one another either. So they’re basically a waste and we root for their eminent demise.

Which is not to say that the film isn’t amusing, overall, and that it isn’t rather fun to watch. There are some truly hilarious moments (most of them unintentional) and there is some nice gore. And it did make me appreciate Jason at long last. Going into the film, I was rooting for Freddy. But though Freddy is the flashier of the two foes, and has the better wisecracks, it is Jason that you truly begin to root for. His personality is not as blatant, but its better, more subtle, and sneakier. He doesn’t seem to have any personality, but somehow, emoting through his hockey mask with a mountain of angst and a machete to grind, we respect the man.

I wouldn’t dare ruin what little suspense this film might have by telling you who comes out on top. But I know which of these goofballs I like better, I’ve definitely figured that out. And, really, in such a monumentally stupid motion picture, isn’t that good enough?

Share on Facebook

2003 / 145 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Kevin Costner was once a box office titan. How else can you explain the fact that he was able to play Robin Hood despite a distinct lack of English accent? “Dances With Wolves” not only won him an Oscar, but it was the sort of box office event that, literally, EVERYONE attended back in 1990. Not only that, but it was a damn good film that deserved every ounce of praise that was heaped upon its broad shoulders. It was a beautifully made movie of epic vistas and a cast of thousands that also had a point and a true human heart beating at its center. It was a thinking person’s blockbuster, an epic, a thrilling shot of adrenaline at times, and a meditation on the plight that befell the Native Americans (which is probably not what they want to be called, but it’s a blanket statement from a Caucasian man who doesn’t have time to name every tribe in this paragraph). It was a rarity that happened along at the right time in the right place. And it was a Western that made a lot of money. That, in and of itself, is an amazing thing.

In the decade since then, however, his fortunes have taken a decided turn for the worse. He’s starred in one flop after another. Some of them deserved better than they got. In fact, most of them deserved better than they got (”Tin Cup” is a great movie, as is “A Perfect World”, and “3000 Miles to Graceland” is not a great film, but it’s a helluva lot of fun) and just didn’t hit the right notes with the public. Some of them probably weren’t that great (”Message in a Bottle” didn’t look so fantastic, and neither did “Dragonfly” or “For the Love of the Game”). But there have been a lot of formerly loved actors who’ve starred in a lot of dreck and are still afforded a great deal of slack (Harrison Ford and Sean Connery sprint to mind) whereas Costner could probably come up with the cure for cancer and he’d still be inexplicably hated. But if you can overlook your unreasonable hatred for Kevin Costner, you’ll find “Open Range” is more than worth the effort. And if you, like me, have stuck by Costner and even enjoyed films like “Waterworld” then “Open Range” is your rightful reward.

“Open Range” is the best Western film since “Unforgiven” and I’m not kidding. It’s a gorgeously shot, beautifully constructed film that reminds you how damn good of an actor Costner can be and that he is also a hell of a director when he chooses to put that hat on. He knows how to choose the right people for every spot both in front of and behind the camera and knows how to tell a gripping yarn in a gripping manner. “Open Range” is the story of a group of free-range ranchers driving their cattle across country. This group consists of Costner and his boss (aptly named “Boss”) played as effortlessly as usual by the chameleon-like Robert Duvall and several others. One day, however, they run afoul of a crooked rancher (Michael Gambon) who kills one of their men and mortally wounds another. Costner and Duvall are not about to take this lying down. Thus, a small-scale war begins between the rancher and the free rangers; culminating in a gun battle that is as exciting as anything you’re likely to see this year.

“Open Range” is an old fashioned sort of Western (well, the whole notion of a Western is pretty old fashioned in this day and age, but…), the sort they used to make before guys like Sergio Leone and Sam Peckinpah took the whole genre through a new door back in the late sixties. It’s a film filled with epic vistas and moral decisions and even a hint of low key romance. It’s a movie that reminds you what guys like John Huston used to do with the Western film back in the Fifties, back when they constructed solid, durable Westerns filled with down-home values and action in equal measures. “Open Range” doesn’t push the envelope with innovative camera angles or bold, twisty storytelling. It simply takes its time, develops its characters and situations as naturally as possible, and makes us actually give a damn about everything onscreen. I can’t think of a single moment of this picture that wasn’t absolutely engrossing, and I’m really trying. It’s refreshing to see a film that’s this magnificently old-fashioned (in the best possible sense). It’s really nice to see a movie that’s about real people in days of old, that explores themes of personal freedom and redemption and nobility. It’s nice to see a movie that’s about people, in short, rather than flashy special effects. And it’s nice to see an epic film that doesn’t involve battle sequences of thousands. Yes, I enjoy epics of that sort. But it’s nice to see an epic film that is more personal, more intimate, as well. Speaking of intimate, I also loved the romance between Kevin Costner’s ambiguous cowboy with a haunted past and Annette Bening’s spinster nurse character. So often in films like this, we get a mature man who sparks with a woman who either seems invented by mere screenwriter contrivance or who seems to have been chosen because she looked hot and would appeal to a young male demographic. This romance feels like a true connection between two lonely souls who truly understand one another. These two fit together very nicely and it’s a wonderful thing to watch. I also loved the camaraderie between Costner and Robert Duvall. You really get the sense that these two characters have an easy relationship, a real back and forth with one another, and a sense of deep respect for each other. You understand why these two guys have teamed up. Duvall is the sort of honest, hard-working man that Costner’s character has always aspired to be, and Duvall seems to understand the mistakes and dangers and haunting nature of Costner’s mostly implied, violent past and is willing to help him change his life for the better. When Costner must return to his violent ways in the final act, yes, you do root for him to kill those who seem to deserve it, but you also wince at the fact that this is a step backward for his character, that this is the sort of thing that he has been trying, probably for decades, to put behind him and that, once again, violence has found him and cannot be denied.

If the acting or the look or the tone of this film were off by so much as a millimeter, it wouldn’t work. The whole thing would probably feel stilted or even corny. But the truth of the matter is that nothing in this film is off by even the smallest margin. Everything clicks, everything about this movie is running smoothly. It’s a beautiful, meditative, fascinating film filled with small touches that I’ve never seen before in a film. For example, everyone has seen a gunfight in a movie like this. But have you ever wondered about the aftermath? Who takes care of things once all this is finished? Who cleans up the bodies and makes sure life returns to normal? And, when the town gets flooded, you see the results that gallons of cascading water might have had on those rustic, dirt streets. It’s little things like that which give “Open Range” its remarkable, slice of life feel. And it’s little moments of those sorts that stuck with me from this movie and keep returning to my mind, making me anxious to own the DVD of this film so I can bask in it whenever I choose. Love him or hate him, Costner is great in this movie, both in front of and behind the camera, and “Open Range” is worthy of your attention. Please, give this engrossing film its proper shot. You won’t be disappointed.

Share on Facebook