1990 / 115 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

“Sister, when I’ve raised hell, you’ll know it.”

Meet Tom, a man who, much like Pinhead, invests a large amount of his time raising hell. His is a life of turmoil that only he can resolve. His turmoil consists of a motley crue of thugs, scum and even a disenchanted mistress to whom the above line is spoken. He eventually does raise hell, but it wasn’t anything that I found to be compelling, which is just one of this film’s many problems.

“Miller’s Crossing” follows in the rich tradition of mob films that have come before it, even going so far as to introduce itself in the same manner as “The Godfather” with a protectee making a proposal to their protector.

The protector, in this case, being Leo (Albert Finney) and the protectee a man by the name of Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito). Leo is at the head of the table, but the aforementioned Tom (Gabriel Byrne) is his right hand man. Leo does a lot of hollering and usually ends up making the decisions, but Tom is the man behind the scenes who does the thinking for Leo and helps guide him to the proper decisions. Caspar, on the other hand, is none too happy with the fact that Leo will not cater to his desire to have a lowlife named Bernie (John Turturro) put out of his misery. Caspar being the hot-headed Italian that he is chooses to burn the bridges between himself and Leo, so that he can go out on his own.

This part of the story is countered with the relationship between Tom and Leo and the woman they love, Verna (Marcia Gay Harden). Tom and Verna have been laying a little pipe on the side despite the fact that Leo and Verna had been seeing each other. This continues until Leo is about to make a decision without knowing all the facts. Tom discloses to Leo that he has been sleeping with Verna. This leads to Leo burning the bridges that bind him and Tom by beating the crap out of him and essentially saying that he never wants to see him again.

Tom has made a real mess of things and he knows it. He knows that there is only one way to set things straight again. This is what the second part of the film centers on. Bodies will pile up, lines will be drawn in the proverbial sand and ties will be severed as Tom attempts to rectify the situation that he is responsible for.

Like most Coen brothers movies this movie’s primary flaw is that it doesn’t seem to do anything. I oftentimes find myself asking the question, “What’s the point?” I have seen five of their movies now and, for the most part they are competent, but all lack a sense of direction.

My favorite film of theirs, “The Big Lebowski”, is as pointless and directionless as any of their other films, but the lack of purpose and direction serves the film, because that is what makes the central character of the film, “The Dude”, who he is. His life is without purpose and direction, thus the Coen mantra is well served in the case of “The Big Lebowski”. Here, however, it does not work. It has ingredients that we have seen done many times before and with much more clarity and efficiency. The love triangle, loss of trust between friends and the guy who is trying to make things right again are all intangibles present in this film that, if done properly, could have lended themselves to creating a thoughtful film of the same ilk as the other great mob films. Instead it languishes in it’s own self righteous world choosing to do things at a pace that can be described as tedious at best.

There are few moments that I can even describe as memorable from this film. The only one that really comes to mind is when Bernie is begging Tom to spare his life. It is a simple scene shot in a wooded area which gives it a sense of detachment from the rest of the film. Listening to Bernie’s shrieking and whimpering amidst the limbs of trees that have undoubtedly heard these pleadings before, the viewer is given the impression that we are about to witness a revelation. This is exactly what we are treated to, but unfortunately we get little more of this throughout the rest of the film.

The remainder of the film is comprised of some interesting cinematography that reminded me greatly of Sergio Leone’s mob epic “Once Upon a Time in America”. The dark brooding nature of the locales, the way the camera hangs on the nuances of a character’s mere facial movements for minutes at a time and the way the camera is put in places to give us clues about the future are all reminiscent of Leone’s work. There are also moments that made me think of Hitchcock’s work in “Psycho”, such as the scene involving the camera and the staircase. Unfortunately the Coens manage to take this fine cinematography and put it to little use.

The one thing that managed to keep me awake for the full extent of the film was the wonderful performances of it’s fine actors. I expected great acting when I decided to watch this film and great acting is exactly what I got. Albert Finney, Gabriel Byrne, Marcia Gay Harden and John Turturro all turn in performances that can only be described as top-shelf. It was interesting to watch Finney sink his teeth into the role of a mob boss. He does an admirable job of conveying the authority of the position, as well as a vulnerable side that is grounded in the emotions that exist between Tom, Verna and himself. Byrne turns in his usual fine performance as the physical and emotional center of the film, Tom. Recent Academy Award winner Harden manages to lend a level of dignity to Verna, a woman who is known to sleep with just about anyone who will give her the time of day. Lastly, a staple factor in Coen films, John Turturro portraying a weasel of a character as usual. He can pretty much play this sort of character in his sleep nowadays thanks to his work in this film. These fine performances are oftentimes undermined by a script that is so in love with itself that it won’t give it’s actors room to breathe. The dialogue rambles on, criss-crossing itself at every opportunity leaving the viewer to make sense out of the mish-mash of nonsense that has just been perpetrated upon them.

There was very little about this film that held my interest. Even the few set pieces that are on display here leave one longing for more. Such as the ambush at Leo’s place. Just when I thought things might get interesting the film fired a blank and left me behind longing for much more than I had received. There were many times when I had to fight to stay awake thanks to the film’s laborious pacing. This is not a film that should be avoided at all costs, but should only be seen if your local video store is out of “Once Upon a Time in America”, “The Untouchables”, “Casino”, “Goodfellas” all three parts of “The Godfather” and your need for a mob film is so great that you cannot make it through another day without seeing one. Otherwise, I would recommend looking elsewhere for mob thrills and hell raising, because “Miller’s Crossing” is a film that delivers on neither premise.

1990 / 183 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

You know those movies that everybody says are really good, but you still don’t feel compelled to see them? The ones that they say you will kick yourself for not having seen sooner once you finally do get around to watching it for the first time?

I think you do. I think we’ve all had that experience at one time or another. For me the most recent of these experiences would have to be “Dances With Wolves”.

“Dances With Wolves” is a film the likes of which have not been seen before. It begins with a discussion of whether or not to save a man’s leg and ends with a man and the woman he loves going on a journey to find a life of happiness and prosperity together. It is a beautifully told story that I will definitely be wanting to revisit again someday.

The journey of Lieutenant John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) begins with an ill-fated attempt at bringing about his own demise that leads to him being elevated to hero status amongst his colleagues in the ranks of the Union army. Through this heightened status he is given the choice of where he would like to be stationed next. He chooses the farthest reaches of the frontier, because he has always wanted to see how the frontier of reality compares with the frontier of his dreams. When he arrives, he finds his new post vacant of any activity. Those who were there before him have been long since gone. Being the dutiful soldier that he is, Dunbar begins maintaining the post with the hope that one day more men will be sent to help in the cause. He keeps a journal in which he records the happenings of each day. More often than not the journal is composed of little more than his orders to himself in maintaining the post, but one day a wolf stops by and looks over Dunbar’s activities with genuine curiosity. After the wolf stops by the next couple of days, Dunbar decides to name him Two Socks, because of his front legs having the appearance of a pair of socks. A friendship is born between the two and Dunbar’s horse. Their interaction continues throughout the coming days and it seems Dunbar may never make contact with another human again.

One day an Indian comes across his post and everything changes. At first their is tension between the Indians and this lone white man, but, over time, a bond is formed. Communication is difficult until a young white woman, who has been living with the indians since she was very young, finds her English-speaking tongue again. Once this breakthrough is made, relations prosper between Dunbar and the Indians. They befriend him and he becomes a part of the tribe. He is given the name Dances With Wolves by the tribe and a romance begins to form between him and the English-speaking woman Stands With A Fist. It is a love story that is beautifully conceived and delivered. Life is good until inevitable confrontations with another tribe and the forces of the white men rear their ugly heads.

Kevin Costner (”Tin Cup”) took the dual role of actor and director for this film and he flourishes in both roles. He is stranded in the frontier much the same as Tom Hanks is stranded on that island in “Cast Away”. His character has a much more genuine and likable feel to him than that of Hanks. I really wanted this man to succeed in restoring his post and fulfilling his life, whereas I just wanted to see Hanks get off that island and get on with his miserable life. Zemeckis should have taken notes from Costner on how to accomplish this affect with the startling ease that Costner manages to bring it to realization. Costner delivers many tender moments that will wrench your heart in ways that I never felt him capable of.

Mary McDonnell (”Mumford”) also delivers in beautiful fashion in the role of Stands With A Fist. She is given a very difficult role and she pulls it off without any hitches. The scenes where she is struggling to find the right words to say in English are wonderful to watch, as she sells the performance well enough to make you think that she truly does not know the words that she seeks. Why this woman is not in more films is something that I cannot explain.

Graham Greene (”The Green Mile”) gives his usual steady, sure-handed performance as Kicking Bird, the man who wants to give Dunbar a chance. His character feels that Dunbar could be a man who could create treaties between the Indians and white men. He often becomes frustrated by the lack of progress in the communication between he and Dunbar due to the language barrier. Throughout he remains committed to his newfound friend, doing whatever he can to make the friendship grow. It is through the chemistry between Greene and Costner that this relationship is allowed to blossom.

There are many heartfelt, beautiful memories that I have from this film. The lush cinematography that brings frontier life to wondrous reality. The scenes when the Indians are trying to decipher Dunbar’s words and vice versa. The scenes between Costner and McDonnell when you can see the love they have for one another in every fiber of their being. I could go on and on, but I shall save the rest of the discovery for you to undertake on your own.

Every time I think of this film I will be drawn back to the feelings of joy, wonder and warmth that it gave me. It is both gorgeous to look at and unceasingly enchanting to experience.

Stories like this are rare and the masterful telling of them is rarer yet. You owe it to yourself to be consumed by this movie in much the same way that I was. You will thank yourself for it.

I know I do.

2003 / 138 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Neo is back and he’s kicking ass…. but I’m no longer sure why. Having seen the newest installment in the “Matrix” franchise (every successful motion picture now spawns a franchise, whether it needs one or not- I submit to you “Legally Blonde 2″: the continuing saga of a young woman clad in pink) I have a hell of a lot of questions. The biggest one weighing on my mind being: Huh?

Everyone remembers what happened in the first film, so I won’t go into exhaustive detail on it. And if you’ve never seen the first film or were confused by it then, shit, don’t even bother with this one, pal. This ain’t gonna be your cup of tea. Just wander into “Daddy Day Care” and enjoy yourself. I understood the first film and I think I have a handle on this one, but I’m still not entirely sure. I guess that the sentinels are tunneling down to Zion (which looks like it’s composed entirely of Bob Marley groupies) to extinguish the last vestiges of free humans. Neo is now a Christ-like figure wielding authority and respect, yet he’s still waiting to hear from the Oracle to tell him what he’s supposed to be doing next.

So the Oracle shows up and then (Ahem, SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER, can’t say I’m not warning you, if you keep reading then its your own damn fault) she says that Neo has to meet up with this other guy (or program, no, I think he’s a guy…maybe) named Morovignian who is holding captive a guy named the Keymaker who has the keys to open all the doors in the matrix (even in the Mainframe) and so he can go through this certain door and make a choice that will possibly save the human race. At least, this was my interpretation of the events of this film. Yours might be different. If so, email me and I’ll give them a gander. If they make more sense than what I thought, I’ll gladly buy you a beer (a Heineken, the only beer endorsed by “The Matrix”). And then he gets through this door and meets some guy calling himself the Architect, and that was what really baked my noodle.

Frankly, I’m not sure I understood the plot all that well and, frankly, I’m not sure that was all that important. If all these other critics can enjoy “Mulholland Drive” despite the fact that it makes as much logical sense as a poorly edited French porno then I can enjoy “The Matrix Reloaded” despite the fact that the plot is derivative and highly inconsequential. I’m not sure what all the speeches and plotifying was meant to amount to in “Matrix Reloaded”, but I had a fantastic time watching it anyway. The visual effects are a lot of fun, though few of them are all that mind-blowing. Many of the digital actors look like just that: digital actors. You can still tell the difference. Sorry, Gaeta (John Gaeta, self-loving digital effects maestro behind these films) but you only occasionally knocked my socks off with this one. There are parts where Neo looks no better than the player’s avatar in a PS2 role-playing game. Yet I still noticed that I had to release a good gasp of breath after most every fight scene. I know the movie isn’t all that great, deep down I know. The plot is nothing more than a shaky contrivance, no less silly than the plot of the average Bond movie and there to serve much the same purpose: to get from one action sequence to the next. Nothing more. This is the ultimate disappointment in a film that is the sequel to “The Matrix”. “The Matrix” could have been nothing more than seem neat special effects, but it wasn’t. “The Matrix” had a point and, for the most part, it made sense. It was simple, direct and to the point. It was relatively easy to follow and it provided the framework for some excellent action, but never at the expense of its philosophy or its story. The story is the shaky aspect of this one. I like my action films to have well-defined goals, so that you can understand what the hero is trying to do and know how to root for him to do it. This one, I sort of understand Neo’s goals, but I think they’re shaky, at best.

But the action sequences kick ass. The fight with a hundred Agent Smiths is my personal favorite (just seeing Agent Smith and Neo interact again at the beginning of this scene brought more of a smile to my face than anything else the movie had to offer) but the freeway sequence is astounding, as well. It’s not as astounding as “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or the first “Matrix” or most of “The Transporter”, but it’s a lot of fun nonetheless. And I did get a kick out of seeing Neo fly. It was more visceral fun to watch him fly in this movie than it has been to watch Superman fly in any Superman movie thus far.

However, there are endless contrivances and questions in this film. And has it got problems? Shit! Firstly, I love Agent Smith. No one is happier than I am to have Hugo Weaving back, to have a hundred of him running around, no less. But…why? All I need is a compelling reason. There isn’t one. The movie doesn’t really bother. It has him make a speech, but it’s all a magic show. The Wachowski Brothers do something really unique here, something I’ve never seen in another movie. Other movies haven’t got a point, but they don’t even try to address the fact. “The Matrix Reloaded” doesn’t have a hell of a point, but at occasional intervals, certain characters in this film will make big, long speeches full of two-dollar words and you nod and pretend that you heard them actually say something. But when you really analyze these explanations, you come to a startling realization: you don’t really know anything more than you did when they started. You just think you do, because so many big words have been thrown at you and it sounded like an explanation. Yes, it certainly sounded as though something were being explained and at great length. But, really, it wasn’t. And don’t tell me that I don’t get it. I think I got it, I just didn’t see that it was necessary. Go ahead. Email me your opinion of what the plot was. I’m sure it’s the same one I arrived at. I just didn’t think it was that great. I mean, come on here! He’s supposed to go to the Mainframe to fulfill this prophecy and then…he sees an old guy who tells him a big speech and reveals that the Matrix is old and has been through many versions (much like Windows) and that each time there was the fundamental glitch of The One. They never figured out how to correct this glitch, so they build a mythos around it and used certain programs (The Oracle, for example) to make it work for them and cause a loop to lead them to the freed humans so that they could destroy them and then restart the matrix (glitch and all) and begin all over again. See. I get it. I just think it’s kinda lame.

But I still like this movie! Even I don’t understand why! I was entertained. I sincerely was. I was on the edge of my seat, I was having fun, I was happy. I know its problems. (Another glitch in the matrix of this film: after Zion realizes it has only a couple days left before being attacked by machines and annihilated what do they do? They throw a rave, complete with what looks like the band STOMP. I mean, if Zion itself can’t take this threat seriously, how are we as an audience supposed to? Oh, and the grit of the first film has been replaced with the sort of glossy, digital epic flair that we have gotten from the newest installments in the “Star Wars” franchise. Kill me, but I sorta miss the grit.) I like The Marovignian character. I like watching Hugo Weaving act. I like the fight atop the semi. I like how Neo flies around. I like the fights, even though most of them are highly pointless. I like it all. I was amused and entertained and I even liked the dialogue and the attempts to have a story, because at least it was making an effort of some kind at a plot. But I just want to know that it’s not the greatest. It’s not as good as the first film. It’s fun, but it’s not mentally stimulating, except in the way that certain riddles are. You work to figure it out, but once you have…you aren’t sure why you bothered.

Still a good time, though, for what that’s worth. I like “The Matrix” more every time I watch it. I suspect that, with this movie, it will be the opposite effect.

1995 / 131 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

The summer movie season is upon us, and that means that most critics are going to trot out their so-called great summer movies and compare the new ones by that yardstick. And, really, that’s a tad unfair. When I think of great summer movies, I rarely think of “great” movies. The only movies I equate with summer that are undeniably great are “Jaws”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “Caddyshack” (I also equate “Fletch”, “Dragnet” and “Stripes” with summertime, but that’s because there was at least one summer in which I watched each of these movies more times than any rational human being might do) but the only reason I equate these classic films with summer (and if you don’t think “Caddyshack” is a classic then you can just get the hell off my lawn) is because they have a certain sensibility that lends itself to drinking cold beer or iced tea or cold Coke and sitting inside on a sweltering, sunny day when you really should be outside but, if you’re anything like me, you just don’t care: you’d rather be inside watching a good movie. (Besides, I don’t have that many hobbies that necessitate me going outside: taking a walk, golfing and sitting outside are about the only ones that spring to mind, and sitting outside isn’t really a hobby. One of the reasons I took up smoking last summer was that it gave me an excuse to go outside.)

If I were going to program a Cineplex for the Ultimate in Summer Viewing, then there would be barely ANY classic films in this venue. There might be a screen showing “Jaws” or “Raiders”, but that would be about it. Otherwise, the theaters would all be showing films in which things exploded prettily and the sound would all be in DTS (and it would be cranked).

It may come as a surprise, but my ultimate summer film would be “Die Hard With a Vengeance”. Now I know you’re all beginning to think I’m crazy, and you may be right (I may be crazy). But I’m a guy who just enjoys the simple pleasures in life, like explosions and watching Bruce Willis annihilate people with a machine gun. Hey, I’m a simple guy. Now, in my own circle of friends, this third installment of the “Die Hard” saga is notable simply for being the film in which Jeremy Irons gets to wrap his particular, gravelly derivation of an European accent around the immortal line “They bought it; hook, line UND sinker” (I’m serious, he actually says “UND” instead of “and” and it fucking rocks, my friend). But there are other reasons that this cinematic marvel deserves to be seen as a cinematic high water mark.

“Die Hard With a Vengeance” is, I daresay, the PERFECT SUMMER MOVIE for a multitude of reasons, and I am now going to make my case for it, if you don’t mind. First of all, let me describe the first scene of the movie. Perhaps that will give you some hint as to why I feel “Die Hard With a Vengeance” is the epitome of all summer cinema. The first scene in the film features shots of New York City in summertime and you can practically feel sweat break out on your neck, even if your home is properly air conditioned (and even if the theater is kept at roughly the same temperature as an Eskimo’s ice box). Then, as if to accentuate this mood, the soundtrack flairs with the song “Hot Time (Summer in the City)” by the Lovin’ Spoonful. If you have the proper sort of surround system, this song nearly shakes your walls. When the Spoonful sing “Hot time, summer in the city/ back of my neck getting dirty and gritty” you will nod your head in understanding. The color temperature of this scene and the song undulating upon the soundtrack are enough to make you feel dirty and gritty. This film actually seems to be causing humidity. Seriously. The entire film seems to be drenched in sweat, more than the average rock concert. And then, just as you’re digging the Spoonful song and the feeling of humidity that seems to float off the very screen in front of you, suddenly a building just explodes. The explosion is simply beautiful and, if you are playing this film at the volume it deserves, the blast rocks your living room and puts a big, goofy smile on your face. (At least, this sort of thing always puts a big, goofy smile on mine.) By the time this explosion has dulled to a low rumble, you should understand exactly what I mean. Already, you’ve got a great summer film: a song about summer, a feeling of humidity in the city filling your living room, and beautiful, window-rattling explosion. You’re already feeling summer all around you, and Bruce Willis hasn’t even stepped into a single frame.

In the next scene we see the chaos of the New York City police department after this explosion and it’s worth noting that, when this movie was first released, this premise actually needed a little bit of disbelief to be suspended. Personally, I’m nostalgic for the mid-Nineties, a time when an explosion in New York City didn’t carry so many unpleasant connotations; back when an explosion in a metropolitan area was just an explosion, an element of fiction. But back to the thrust of this thing: the station is in chaos and suddenly, a very Irish man with red hair says: “Where the hell is McClane?” (I’m just paraphrasing; I don’t know if that’s precisely what he says.)

Secretary: I don’t know.

Irish Cop: Well, you better find whatever rock he’s under…and kick it over.

Now isn’t that a great line? Probably not something an actual person would say, but it’s cool and it lets you know exactly the state of Willis’s character. When he gets introduced, he’s got a hand on his forehead and someone tosses him some aspirin for his hangover. This is the perfect Bruce Willis moment, and just thinking about it makes me sort of sad, because Bruce hasn’t done this sort of thing in entirely too long, and it’s exactly the sort of thing that Bruce excels at. What makes Bruce so great is that he has these facial expressions and he can find this tone of voice that just perfectly encapsulate burnout and stress and heavy drinking, without even seeming to try. Bruce is at his best in this movie, and I don’t mean acting-wise. (His best actual performance is probably in either “The Sixth Sense” or “Unbreakable” or his moments in “Pulp Fiction”…maybe even the first “Die Hard”. I don’t know. All those performances are great, and I seriously don’t know which one to choose. I’ve also always been partial to his delightful work in “The Fifth Element”.) No one is ever going to win an Oscar for the sort of thing that Bruce does in this movie, but few Oscar performances are as memorable as his hungover, pissed off act in this film. And then Samuel L. Jackson shows up and he’s doing exactly what he is best at in this film: being Sam Jackson. He’s got the flaring nostrils, the indignant expression, the one-man Black Panther rhetoric, and the patented Samuel L. Jackson angry voice all on his side. He’s also smart enough to know that he only needs to take this act to a certain level, to the place where we get the point, and then he eases off and keeps his character (Zeus) likable. He and Bruce hate each other at first and then develop the sort of begrudging respect that I personally love to see in a movie, as long its not overdone, and it doesn’t get a chance to be overdone here. There are too many explosions and chases and gunfights and fistfights to allow this relationship to dominate too many scenes.

And here is another reason this film rocks: the film has more chases and explosions than the other two films combined. Sure, it’s not quite as good as those other two. If I led you to believe this was my favorite “Die Hard” then I apologize. It’s probably my least favorite. But in terms of summertime perfection, it beats the other two hands down. It has a great summer vibe going for it, a sense of atmosphere and a fit within the parameters of summer movie going that simply no other film I can think of can beat. And it doesn’t need to waste any time on supernatural elements or extraneous plotting. “Die Hard With a Vengeance” has just enough twists and turns and sneaky sub-plots to keep things interesting without getting too complicated for its own damn good. It actually has a perfect balance, giving us just enough plot and character to give us a stake in things, but not so much that everything has to come to a dead halt. It’s a textbook example of how these films should be done and how they so often are not. Sure, sometimes the banter between Bruce and Sam gets a bit much, but its well-written banter (for the most part) and it’s memorable even if it’s not particularly ingenious. John McTiernan isn’t reinventing the wheel here. He’s just adding a few nice spokes to it. The film overall is lean and economical and the whole thing seems to drip with sweat and adrenaline. This movie, more than most, seems to possess a set of glands. It’s dripping with adrenaline and perspiration and blood and testosterone. It’s got lots of running around and lots of shootouts and lots of great chases. It’s even got a wall of water and a really huge chemical bomb (and even a lot of maple syrup).

And it’s got Jeremy Irons who delivers a great, warped performance as Alan Rickman’s brother. Sure, he doesn’t look a hell of a lot like Rickman and his accent is completely different (he’s a lot more cool and confident where Rickman was slimy and smarmy and generally prickish) but it doesn’t matter a damn. Irons is in full command of the screen here. He’s not one of the all-time great villains, but he’s got style to spare and he’s a European bastard, which is my favorite of all the token villains. I miss Euro trash villains. Whatever happened to them? There are few things I enjoy watching more than an Englishman with a thick accent taunting Bruce Willis and seeming to get a kick out of it. Irons is just cinematic gold here. He’s not going to erase anyone’s memories of Alan Rickman in the first film, but he’s a lot more charismatic than William Sadler in the second, and he’s got his own memorable thing going on. And that’s all the film needs. He’s a good enough villain in a good enough movie and that’s all we really ask for. (All I ask for, at any rate.)

Like I said, there are fights and car chases and boats and subway explosions and guys running and driving through central Park and it’s all wonderful eye candy. In Surround the movie will kick your ass and your eyeballs will delight at every frame, so fast and fun is the whole affair. By the time the film arrives at its inexplicable Canadian finale, you will find yourself smiling and magnificently entertained. You won’t think about this movie’s few flaws for hours, if you bother to consider them at all. It’s not going to replace “Citizen Kane” or “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, but on a hot, humid afternoon, I can think of no better film that perfectly captures that magical mindset and atmosphere of early or mid summer. It’s the sort of film that’s best enjoyed with a cool beverage and a fan blowing on you, and it always manages to make me happy. There are better overall films out there (the other two “Die Hards” spring to mind) but there are none more appropriate to a sticky, summer afternoon. I seriously think they should breeze this movie into theaters for two weeks around Memorial Day every year. I would seriously go every time. In the summers since I have been going to movies, I have never been to anything that was more perfect for this time of year.

Many movies have tried to be the ultimate summer film, but “Die Hard With a Vengeance” is about the only one to succeed.

1996 / 106 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

God Bless Tim Burton. I don’t know how he did it, but he did it. Using one of the most star-studded casts in history and a huge studio budget, using cutting edge special effects and magnificent production design, and utilizing a staggering amount of imagination and old-fashioned guts, Tim took a stale concept and turned it on its ear. He took a lame horse and won the race with it. He made a brilliant film out of a comic card series from the 1950’s.

And no one got it.

No one understood what he was trying to do. Hell, I’ve seen the movie several times and I never realized the genius of it (yes, genius) until tonight. My eyes were fully opened and I appreciated the film for what it is. Now I am quite shocked that it took me so long to see it for what it really is. This is the biggest “Fuck You” to standard-issue summer blockbusters ever filmed.

First of all, watch this movie. Did you do that? Now, read on. If you don’t want the movie ruined, watch it and then come back.

Okay. That should have done it. If you haven’t left by now, it’s your own damn fault. Don’t come bitching to me.

Now, try and predict who will live and who will die. I put it to you that it is impossible. The big stars, the ones that always emerge unscathed from a flick like this, bite the big one. Many of them quite early on. That leaves you sitting there, scratching your head. NOW who will save the world? One or two of them hang on for quite some time, and so you sit there smugly. Ah, they’re going to kick the Martians’ ass, you think. And then even they end up on the proverbial scrap heap. The extras and supporting characters, the ones that would be the casualties in a pussied-out movie like “Independence Day”, are the ones that save the day. That is the most obvious clue that we aren’t dealing with your typical, piece of shit, alien invasion picture. That’s right, “Independence Day”, I’m still talking about YOU.

Secondly, there is the main theme of the film. Which is? Humanity needs a good kick in the ass. No, really. That’s it. Take a good look at it. Watch it again, if you don’t believe me. Pride is the downfall of every character that dies. The ones without pride, the losers (so to speak), the ones that humanity has counted out, they are the ones that come through in the pinch. Pride, greed, vanity, hubris and smugness are all rewarded with a good zap to the ass.

All the bad parts of human nature are laid to waste. It’s utterly beautiful. Humanity needs a good kick in the pants, my friend. That is the moral of this movie. And it is a great one. As shown in this film, maybe an invasion by a hostile planet isn’t the worst thing that could happen. Look at the people who get weeded out.

So does that make this a mean-spirited film? Well, not precisely. It’s a dark film, to be sure. But it’s also somewhat sweet. Look at the relationship between Richie and his grandmother (Lukas Haas and Sylvia Sidney, both of them wonderful here). It’s a delicate, beautiful relationship that is refreshing to see. Most movies of this ilk would show Richie and his damn girlfriend. In this film, Richie is rewarded with a girlfriend only after he has saved the world. I also loved Natalie Portman in an early screen role as the president’s daughter. She is a warm, caring girl who is viewed as a bit of an oddball. She is also the smartest one in the White House. A great character, played just right by a great young actress. There are many warm, sympathetic characters here. Annette Bening, Jim Brown, Pam Grier and even Tom Jones represent the best of humanity. And each of them is spot-on in their roles. A film cannot be entirely mean-spirited when it has so many warm, utterly human characters on display. This is a movie that believes that, at its best, humanity can be a great bunch of people.

But it doesn’t turn a blind eye to the worst in people, either. It’s a very balanced portrait of humanity. And if it is a bit more stacked toward the worse aspects of humanity, well, that may be more accurate.

The Martians, on the other hand, ARE mean-spirited. Imagine an entire race of five year olds who see us as a planet full of flies waiting for their wings to be ripped off. The way I see it, they’ve been receiving our radio and television transmissions for years and they are just plain sick of it. They want a little fun and, like a group of drunken frat kids, they only know one way to get it. This isn’t the race of beings you saw in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, these are folks who kick back, drinking martinis and doing medical experiments on human hostages when they’re not sitting around in their underwear watching “The Dukes of Hazzard”. I loved the Martians. They are just pure mischievous evil (sorta like Gremlins with huge heads). I also loved the design of the aliens in this film. After seeing hundreds of aliens fitting the big head, anorexic body, huge eye “X-Files” mold, it’s just refreshing to see something different. Totally different.

The film has a huge cast, and each of them seems to be having more fun than they have in years. Each of them seems to have found the freedom to let loose and give some of their finest performances here. Look at Jack Nicholson as the president. He’s doing something utterly unique, for Jack. I don’t know how else to explain it. You can tell that he’s been wanting to stretch out for years and this has finally afforded him the opportunity. He’s perfectly modulated here. So are Rod Steiger (giving a wonderful “Patton” parody, for anyone who cares to watch), Glenn Close (a first lady more concerned about her china than the eminent alien invasion), Pierce Brosnan (an expert who is never without a pipe or some “rational” explanation), Danny DeVito, Micheal J. Fox (vanity personified) and Sarah Jessica Parker (the very embodiment of MTV intelligence…or lack thereof). I applaud each of them for understanding what Tim is trying to do here and just running with it. The film would not have worked without them. The sheer volume of cast reminds me of a Seventies disaster film, only with infinite more wit. And I’m sure it was meant to. Among its many targets, this film is a perfect lampoon of a Seventies disaster film, complete with bad toupees and lots of things falling down.

Burton and his screenwriter, Jonathan Gems, cause the film to glide effortlessly on an overdose of imagination and wit. They poke fun at nearly every terrestrial foible and flaw.

Consumerism, lust, envy, greed, television, the pomposity of politicians, gambling, you name it, it’s all here. And it’s all razor sharp. The production design is also quite memorable. The whole film looks like the future as imagined from 1955. Round televisions, cumbersome radio antennas, even the cars and trailers in the trailer park. Right down to the last detail. It’s a nice touch.

It’s funnier than “Men in Black”, wittier than “Evolution” and a hell of a lot more fun than “Independence Day”. Not only that, but it rewards multiple viewings by actually having some points and providing an enriching viewing experience. It also has more laughs than all the films I just mentioned rolled into one. And, though everyone will think I’m on crack, I have to say it: “Mars Attacks!” is brilliant.

2003 / 135 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

It’s been far too long. It’s been too long since a movie got me squirming in my seat like a little kid. It’s been far too long since I saw a movie that provoked such outbursts of applause and such cause for giddiness, since I saw a movie capable of generating such unrestrained emotion from me. Thank God, then, that “X2″ is that kind of movie.

It sounds like a cliché, but “X2″ really is the sort of movie that starts out with a bang and doesn’t let up at all. It’s fast-paced to the nth degree, the sort of movie that isn’t a movie so much as a roller coaster. It’s not the most densely plotted affair, and most of the performances aren’t Academy Award worthy, but I was surprised at the depth of the characters and the emotional density of the film all the same. I was amazed that a summer popcorn movie could broach such ideas as racism and acceptance and the angst of trying to figure out who one really is, and yet still go directly for the throat at every opportunity and mine such an emotional battlefield of daring, dark subject matter and brim with such fascinating subtext. Such is the strength of the “X-Men” idea. The first film had very little action, in retrospect, but I didn’t even mind. It had depth. It was a popcorn movie with a soul, with something more on its shiny little mind. “X2″ takes that and ramps it up a bit. There is still the existentialism. There is still the exploration of what it means to be human and, possibly, what it would mean to be more. However, there is also a hell of a lot of ass kicking.

The plot of the film is that a decidedly evil military colonel with some major axes to grind against mutants (the always excellent Brian Cox) is attempting genocide of sorts on the entire mutant race. He uses an attack by a mutant on the White House to serve his own, sinister agendas and even figures out a way to dredge information from the prison-bound Magneto (the awesome force of nature that is Ian McKellan). He launches an attack on Dr. Xavier’s (Patrick Stewart, essaying nobility in his handful of scenes) school for mutants in a sequence that is probably one of the finest action scenes ANY superhero film has ever delivered. But this attack is not simply to capture some mutants, as it would seem. He has a dark agenda, and an ugly purpose. So dark and ugly, in fact, that even mutant who fought one another in the original film are joining forces to stop this insidious threat.

That’s all you need to know about the plot and that is all I am going to tell you. You deserve to experience this film with as little information as possible. You deserve to thrill at all the beautiful surprises this film has in store. There are moments of subtle majesty here. There are lovely little moments scattered throughout this picture. And there is real darkness and danger on display here as well. The stakes are extremely high, and the film actually manages to give a sense of those stakes. I also loved how deftly the film manages to juggle its myriad of characters and how it allows them all to occupy a particular niche and click into place in the grand scheme of its own affairs. In fact, this trait is nothing short of brilliant, if you’ve seen one of the last two “Batman” atrocities. The last couple “Batman” flicks illustrated how difficult it was and how dangerous it was to stock a superhero film with too many characters and how it gave them short shrift, how it didn’t allow any one character enough screen time to make an impact. Each of the characters in “X2″ makes a definite impact. Each of the characters is given a place to fit in, and a set of traits and challenges that are both emotionally and physically demanding. Each of these characters is given enough time to be fully fleshed out, and to make you care. And, in a film like this, isn’t that enough? It’s sort of like “Gosford Park” in that manner. “Gosford Park” had tons of characters but miraculously made each one a distinct individual. “X2″ has a large range of characters (and introduces some excellent new ones like Nightcrawler and Pyro) and fleshes each of them out enough so that we get the sense of an actual pulse beating within them. It’s sheer genius, actually, the more that I think about it. And each actor makes their character come to sparkling life. My favorite characters in the piece were Magneto (whose lovely defiance of any sort of classification simply thrills me to no end) and Wolverine (whose search for answers fascinated me and whose ability to kick ass and actually not hesitate to KILL people made me practically hop up and down in my seat). But I was pleasantly surprised that Mystique was given more screen time. Rebecca Romijn Stamos is actually quite good and even projects an air of poignancy to this enigmatic character. Alan Cummings does a good job as “Nightcrawler” and has some rather amusing things to do here. Xavier and Cyclops (Patrick Stewart and Jason Marsden) are given some nice little moments, but mostly relegated to the background which, I think, is fine. There are more interesting mutants on hand and those are the ones given more screen time. That’s as it should be. But both characters get to hit certain grace notes and leave a lasting impression nonetheless.

You know what, just go see this movie. There is so much greatness on display here that I makes me rue my premature ejaculation over “Spider-Man” last year. “Spider-Man” was a great romantic picture, but a little disappointing as an action film. “X2″ is a rousing action film stocked with actual characters. And, shit, I even compared it to “Gosford Park”. If that isn’t enough to pique your interest, then nothing is.

1989 / 114 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I guess De Palma must have been upset. He must have been irate at his lack of critical credibility and thought to himself “Hey, I know, I’ll make a war movie!” Ugh! What a mistake!

De Palma can be a dependable director, but not here, folks. It’s hard to imagine a film more wrong-headed than “Casualties of War”. Notice that I say “dependable” rather than “Brilliant”. I love “The Untouchables” and think it is one of the finest films of the last twenty years. It is riveting, well-acted, suspenseful and dynamic. It is a marvelous piece of work, with some amazing action set pieces. Ditto with “Carrie”, a film that has more intelligence and genuine terror lurking in it than all the teenage screamer flicks made afterward combined.

But he just doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing here.

Which is too bad, because the central story of “Casualties of War” could have been a terrifying and harrowing film. In the hands of Oliver Stone, for instance, the story of four G.I.’s abducting and raping a peasant girl in the midst of the Vietnam war would have been mighty unsettling and very dark, intense stuff. There are moments of that intensity lurking here, but not nearly as many as a competent movie could wring from the material.

For one thing, the casting is all wrong. Ving Rhames, John C. Reilly, Michael J. Fox, Sean Penn and Dale Dye are all in this film, and each and every one of them has done solid work in other films. But none of them are very compelling here. In fact, I would go so far as to say that everyone but Dale Dye and John Leguizamo does a horrible job here. No, wait, that isn’t quite fair. Fox tries, but he’s just totally wrong for the film. He seems way too happy at the beginning of the film, and though he does an admirable attempt, he still can’t convince us that he is this character. It isn’t entirely his fault. The direction can’t have helped. Neither can the fact that we keep thinking of Alex P. Keaton or Marty McFly.

The atrocious, overly melodramatic dialogue doesn’t help matters either. It’s just ghastly. Most of the lines just plain suck. You want Don Horton and John C. Reilly to just shut up and die in the course of this film. And Sean Penn’s attempt at a Bronx accent is just horrible. Awful! Penn, Horton and Reilly are just massively awful.

So is the production design of the film. A war film’s atmosphere should convince us that we are there. It should effortlessly put us on the front lines. This movie looks like it was filmed on a leftover or discarded set from a Rambo film. It’s that bad. You get the sense that the jungle ceases to exist a mere two feet on either side of our view. The music is awful too. It’s sappy and overbearing and utterly inappropriate. The dialogue clunks in most scenes.

The only performer who truly distinguishes themselves is Thung Thu Le as the poor girl who is abducted and raped. She doesn’t speak English in the film, which means that the screenwriter can’t interfere with her performance. She invents this poor girl simply with her eyes and mannerisms and it all seems very authentic and disturbing.

Too bad there’s so much of the other crap. This movie is just a mess. An intriguing and potentially disturbing film that was lost somewhere in the translation. I blame the shitty script and direction. So should you.

2003 / 106 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

If you had told me three years ago that Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson were going to wind up in a movie together, I wouldn’t have believed a word you were saying and I probably would have tried to have you committed. But here it is, 2003, and these two unlikely guys are actually sharing the screen. I still have a little trouble believing it. Then again, I had trouble believing that Sandler was in a P.T. Anderson film last year too, but I thought he was Oscar-worthy in it. In fact, I would say that he did a better job than Nicholson himself did in his much ballyhooed lead role in “About Schmidt”, and yes, I will stand by that statement.

So what was the dynamic force that brought these two titans together in one film? What irrepressible thing united these two for a common purpose? Well, I’m guessing it was money because there isn’t much going on in “Anger Management” on the screenwriting or directing fronts.

It starts out nicely enough. Sandler is accused of assault on an airplane simply for touching the arm of a flight attendant who isn’t getting him headphones and is then sentenced to an anger management course ran by apparent psycho Jack Nicholson. Sandler seems meek and pretty passive, which makes the joke work even better, and Nicholson has returned to full Nicholson mode. By this I mean that he wields every arch of the eyebrow, even crease of his mouth and every tic and verbal explosion like a deadly weapon. Jack has learned long ago what he can do well and how exactly to do it and he aces this role. He could do it in his sleep, I suppose, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still pretty hilarious. I was astonished to find how much I liked watching Jack do his usual Jack schtick. “About Schmidt” was a nice reminder that Jack had range (and that he could turn off these fierce mannerisms and develop a character other than his own) but “Anger Management” is a welcome reminder that Jack’s auto-pilot mode is one of the best in the business and that he uses it so often for a reason: Jack being Jack is more entertaining than most actors pulling off an amazing character.

“Anger Management” needs Jack to be Jack, because the character he plays is very, very thin. Sandler’s addition to the film cannot be discounted either. If he hadn’t played a man with a slow-burning fuse so well, then there would be no anchor here, because the screenplay and the direction don’t do anything to provide one. We know that Sandler is going to snap eventually. We know it because he does it in every film we’ve ever seen him in. But that only adds to the enjoyment of this film. Every little indignity visited upon Adam’s character, every little nudge, every little thing that would cause even the most even-tempered of men to snap into a homicidal range is that much funnier because we know the eventual havoc that these events are building towards and, frankly, we cannot wait to see it unleashed.

The problem is that when Sandler finally unleashes the rage it’s not enough. I mean, in “Happy Gilmore” this guy beat Bob Barker to a pulp for far less. And yes, that is because Sandler has been through the anger management, sure, why not, let’s say that for the sake of argument. But comedy needs to build toward a higher purpose. Also, it needs to have more going for it than just a few funny moments. There are some hilarious bits of film here: Adam’s attack on a monk, John Turturro’s constantly bubbling rage, Luis Guzman’s proud gut protruding from a belly-exposing shirt, Nicholson and Sandler holding up morning traffic to sing “I Feel Pretty”. But there is a lot of down time here as well. And the ending is nothing less than hokey and contrived. The celebrity cameos are all very fun, but they also have a feeling of desperation. The filmmakers seemed to know that their script wasn’t as sharp as it could have been, so they tried to dazzle us with a constant stream of celebrity cameos and with two stars that act the hell out of this movie simply to keep us from noticing how strangely flimsy the whole enterprise is. At the end of this movie, I had a smile on my face…but there was something hollow to the whole affair. You have the sense that this movie could have been better, that it could have been more. Oddly enough, I preferred Sandler’s “Mr. Deeds” to this movie. “Mr. Deeds” was almost a parody of an Adam Sandler movie; such was its “anything goes” attitude and the sweet spirit that imbued it. “Anger Management” has an ending that seems to rely on a sweet spirit, but the movie itself hasn’t quite delivered it. The stars do a great job, many of the jokes are very funny, and the material has some spark. But somehow, it just isn’t quite enough. It just isn’t as great as it could have been, considering that the two talents headlining this movie are both on great hot streaks as of late.

But despite these criticisms, I still emerged from the theater with a smile on my face and I cannot deny that I was entertained and never bored.

1994 / 86 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Okay, now, I know that for many people this is a classic. I know many people actually consider this to be one of the funniest movies they have ever seen. Now, I know that sense of humor is one of the most subjective parts of the human experience. What is funny to one person might be a shrug and a scratch of the head to another.

Now that I have that out of the way, let me just say this: this is perhaps the most overrated film I have ever seen and, for most intensive purposes, an immense, steaming pile of elephant vomit masquerading (sort of) as a motion picture.

Why, you might ask? Well, mainly because of Jim Carrey. I love him in many other movies. In fact, I like his work in about every movie but this one. My problem with him here? There is absolutely no subtlety to his work here. He comes off, not as an obnoxious person, but as the most obnoxious person that ever lived. Perhaps this is the point of his performance. Perhaps this is why he is supposed to be funny. Personally, however, I got a little tired of him within ten minutes. He acts like Jerry Lewis on crack cocaine and amphetamines with a ketamin chaser. He flails about with no point. He riffs with no apparent goal, purpose or theme in mind. He does impersonations that have no ground or basis in any of the action transpiring on the screen. He takes lines that might have been funny and renders them limp and hopeless with his overbearing and out of place style of delivery.

That being said, there were moments of the film that I actually did enjoy. The movie got funnier for me as it went along. That is why I am not giving it an “F”. I especially enjoyed the part where Ace has himself sent to a mental institution for the purposes of the case (whatever the case may be, it seems to involve the kidnapping of a dolphin…..or something). It is here that his asinine behavior finally makes some kind of sense.

But the moments of humor were, for me, like bits of gold panned out of a vast stream. And I didn’t feel like putting myself through the effort of finding them.

2003 / 136 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Oh, what can I tell you about the movie “Dreamcatcher”. Yes, it is a bit of a mess. But it’s a mess with so many intriguing things in it that I cannot help but recommend it…slightly. I want to like it and I sort of do. But I can’t overlook certain glaring flaws in the film.

The plot of “Dreamcatcher” is all over the place, really. It’s a story about four telepathic friends reunited for a deer hunting trip and wrestling with their own personal problems. Yet it’s also the story of how those friends bonded as kids (and received their supernatural gifts) by intervening when some bigger kids were picking on a mentally disabled boy named Duddits. Oh, but it’s also the story of an alien invasion, and the story of aliens taking over people’s bodies and coming out through the rectum (rectum, hell, killed ‘em!) and it’s also the story of a deranged military general (Morgan Freeman, chewing the scenery with breathtaking aplomb) and the man underneath him and how they plan to stop the aliens and how the aliens plan to take over and…it’s all over the map, basically. And, I guess, the book it’s based on (in retrospect) was all over the map as well. The book and the movie both play like a Stephen King’s Greatest Hits Album. You’ve got the reunited friends of “It!”, the kids on a mission plot of “Stand By Me”, the alien invasion of “The Tommyknockers” and little nips and tucks here and there from most of his other books. But the book seemed to flow a lot better than the movie does. Maybe it’s because King’s prose is easier to visualize, and smoother to visualize, than the odd special effects and bizarre, dramatic left turns of the film. The book had six hundred pages devoted to this stuff. The movie has two hours, and seems to have bitten off more than it can chew.

But that doesn’t entirely exempt the film from its failures. The biggest problem this film has is that it is corny. Very, very corny. It’s a film that tries to take itself seriously in the face of truly idiotic bits of film. Take, for instance, the scene where one of the friends (Thomas Jane) talks into a gun like it’s a telephone. Or the way that, when taken over by an alien force, another of them inexplicably speaks in a British accent. Are these aliens from Liverpool? Also, I have a hard time believing that an alien resembling nothing so much as an immense slug with a shitload of teeth would be very successful in taking over the world. Or that creatures who gestate inside the human body and exit through the anus really have the right way of going about such a scheme. See what I mean? All over the map. There are also more farts here than in the average teenage comedy. But I didn’t actually mind that so much. The filmmakers actually found the underlying terror in a gas attack and knowing that such an awful smell can come from the human body, and that it might not be entirely human in origin.

The film’s saving grace (aside from the performers, who all seem to invest their characters with such gusto that it’s hard to fault them even when the lines coming out of their mouths are just, well, retarded) is that it manages to be gripping from the first frame to the last. Even when its kinda stupid, it still manages to suck you in (as a good Stephen King book does). That is a triumph, in and of itself. Yet one thinks that with such a great cast (Jason Lee, Thomas Jane, Tom Sizemore, Morgan Freeman and a very effective Donnie Wahlberg) and such great filmmakers (Lawrence Kasdan and William Goldman) behind it, a movie might be able to avoid being so damn…stupid. I’m sure they could have improved the dialogue here and there. I’m sure they could have given us aliens that looked a bit creepier. I’m sure they might have tried to give the film an actual feel like the end of the world hangs in the balance. But somehow they didn’t. And, though there are many scenes that had me on the edge of my seat and many lines that I will probably quote for a long time, and though the performances were all very good, there were too many moments that I was embarrassed for the filmmakers. There were too many moments where I winced at something a character said or did. And there were too many unintentional laughs for me to ignore.

“Dreamcatcher” is the sort of mess that you almost have to see to believe. I can guarantee that you won’t be bored. I can guarantee that much. But I can’t promise much of anything else.