2004 / 170 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Martin Scorsese’s latest film is about Howard Hughes. But, like his best work, it is also about Obsession. Scorsese’s best films seem to be about men driven by their passions and, quite often, torn down by them. (If you doubt me, see “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy”.) And this one is no different. It may have more Hollywood glamour than Scorsese’s other films, and it may be more epic in both length and scope, but it’s still about a man driven to both success and insanity by the insatiable obsessions that drive him. It’s not the best film of the year and that, in and of itself, is something of a disappointment considering the year in film thus far (there have been a lot of good films, and even a couple of great ones, but there haven’t really been any that completely bowled me over and kept me returning again and again to the Cineplex.). But, despite its faults, it will definitely end up in my Top Five Films of 2004. That is, of course, if I ever actually get off my ass and write one.

The film is about the life of Howard Hughes beginning in the late 1920’s and spanning until the late 1940’s. Unlike a lot of biopics, this film doesn’t have a half an hour of our protagonist as a child. There is one scene of him as a child, and it’s a strange scene, but then it’s 1929 and Hughes is in his mid-twenties and directing a movie called “Hell’s Angels”. “Hell’s Angels” suffers one setback after another, due mainly to Howard’s unflinching perfectionism. When he sees the footage he has shot of the plane fights, he decides he wants the planes filmed against clouds to make the shots more exciting. When he finishes the movie, at last, he decides to reshoot it in sound. All told, the filming of “Hell’s Angels” lasts three years. This sets the stage nicely for the rest of Howard’s life. Howard is driven by a desire for perfection, by a desire to make his mark on the world, and a desire to have all the best things in life at his command. Unfortunately, his perfectionism extends to the microscopic level. Howard is nearly paralyzed at times by his obsessive compulsive tendencies, particularly his phobia toward germs. As the years go on, his ideas and innovations get grander and grander while his phobia becomes more and more debilitating. The film does an excellent job of showing both sides of the obsession that motivates Howard Hughes. It has a lot of fun showing us the daring, inventive adventures of Mr. Hughes, and then it fascinates us with the dark secrets that keep Hughes virtually separated from the rest of the world.

Scorsese has done more than almost anyone in his generation to advance the artistry of making motion pictures, and “The Aviator” is no different. The film is nearly three hours in length, but it sure as hell doesn’t feel like it. This film is never anything less than exhilarating. The scenes breeze past effortlessly, with only a couple of them going on a little longer than they probably should. The film focuses a bit too much (in my opinion) on Hughes’s love life but, then again, when the subject of your film is wooing Katherine Hepburn, Jean Harlow and Ava Gardner, I suppose any filmmaker can be forgiven for indulging those moments a bit too much. I was actually surprised at how dark so much of the film is. From the trailers and previews of the film, I expected it to concern Hughes’s daring adventures and virtually ignore the darker aspects. But the film is directed by Martin Scorsese, so I guess I should have known better. There is a plane crash in this film that is one of the most exciting and harrowing I’ve ever witnessed and the scenes dealing with Hughes’s infamous disorder were unnerving and sometimes quite disturbing. The film is never anything less than engrossing. Every scene is presented with a nostalgic gloss and in vibrant colors. The colors in this film simply pop off the screen. From the standpoint of production design and technical finesse, this movie is clearly a winner. The editing is masterful for the most part and all of the performances are top notch.

The best performance of the film, however, belongs to Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes. DiCaprio is mesmerizing here and even his critics will finally have to consent that this is a fearless and fascinating portrait of a mysterious and fascinating man. It’s easily the best male performance of the year. DiCaprio invests the role with enough charm so that we can see how he managed to seduce most of Hollywood’s major starlets, but he also imbues the role with enough subtle tics and odd little moments that we can see the man Hughes would become. The other most impressive turn of the film is Cate Blanchett’s magical work as Katherine Hepburn. She’s amazing here, channeling Kate almost flawlessly, and she’s immense fun to watch. John C. Reilly is his usual dependable self here, as is Alec Baldwin. And I really liked the work of Matt Ross as Hughes’s lead designer, Glenn Odekirk. He gives a very likable and interesting performance. Alan Alda, however, is a revelation as a senator out to destroy Hughes’s ambitions at nearly every turn. I never knew old Alan had this kind of performance in him. Willem Dafoe, Jude Law, Brent Spiner, Ian Holm and Gwen Stefani are fine though underused in what basically amount to cameo appearances. They’re fine, but I would have liked to have seen more of each of their characters.

I’ve heard a lot of complaints that the film doesn’t delve enough into the “whys” of Hughes’s behavior and, personally, I don’t see it. By the end of the film, I thought I understood Howard pretty well. Perhaps, considering the mystery that surrounds so much of the billionaire’s life, as well as possible. I would have liked to see more of his life presented (like any of the “Lord of the Rings” films, this is one of those rare three hour movies that leaves you wanting another hour or so). I’d liked to have seen more of his background, to have gotten a better understanding of the events that led to where we find him at the beginning of the film. And I’d also have liked to see more of the events that transpired after the end credits of the movie rolled. I like the tone on which the film comes to an end, even if I do think the actual ending is a bit abrupt. I would have liked a little more information on what happened to Hughes in the remainder of his life. Hell, even a title card or an onscreen crawl giving us more information might have been enough.

But you’ve got to admit that it’s impressive when a movie clocking in at nearly three hours leaves you wanting more. I’m hoping that, when the film hits DVD, Scorsese presents every scrap of footage he shot for this thing. I’d watch every last minute of it, and probably want even more. I loved this movie so much that I hate even to admit its faults, but there are faults. It’s an engrossing and mesmerizing film with excellent performances and nearly flawless technical skill…it’s just not quite a perfect one.

2004 / 113 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Not every movie that spawns a sequel needs to tie it up in a trilogy. Take the “Godfather” films, for example. The first two “Godfather” films are great (I’m not saying they’re the greatest movies of all time, like everyone else seems to think, but they’re definitely damned good) and while the third one isn’t entirely terrible (though there are some moments) it really doesn’t add anything to the series either. There are really no themes in that film that weren’t already explored, and to better effect, in the first two films. Therefore, “Godfather 3”, while an okay film, is pretty much redundant. It’s unnecessary.

While the first two “Blade” movies weren’t of “Godfather” caliber (which, I think, goes without saying) they were both pretty entertaining. The first one was a great action movie, with excellent pacing, interesting characters, a cool villain, cool fight scenes and some nice techno music. The second one was, for my money, a bit overrated. But I liked the way they explored Blade’s character through his romance with that one vampire chick, and I liked the Blood Pack guys that were originally trying to kill Blade, and then teamed up with him to fight some even freakier vampires. It had a good story and some neat fights, even if the end did devolve into some ludicrous WWE grudge match complete with elbowing and lots of jumping around. It wasn’t a perfect movie, but it was interesting enough and I liked it.

“Blade: Trinity” isn’t necessarily a bad movie…but it’s a pretty bland one. And the reason for that is that the film, like “Godfather 3” is pretty much unnecessary. There’s really no need for a third film about Blade. Well, there could have been another cool movie in the adventures of this stoic half-vampire, but “Blade: Trinity” isn’t it. I remember reading once that the third Blade film was going to take place in the future, where vampires ruled the world and all the remaining humans were kept in concentration camps. Now THAT is a cool idea that would have made for a cool movie. Instead, however, they decided to dig up Dracula for the third movie. This is rather anticlimactic. I mean, let us say that they kill Dracula, okay? Let’s just suppose that happens. So what? Who cares? We’ve seen Dracula die a hundred times in about a hundred different movies. It’s been done. Done to death, in fact. So why take Dracula out of mothballs and have him fight Blade? The answer: because it was probably cheaper than the whole vampire apocalypse scenario.

Okay, so Blade is fighting Dracula. I admit that it might have worked, theoretically. But it doesn’t. The guy playing Dracula in this movie is easily the blandest actor to take on the role. He doesn’t look like one of the undead, let alone the king of the undead, he just looks like a bored underwear model. The man has absolutely no menace. He’s so dull; I’m not even going to bother to look up his name. Why? It’s a pointless task. He’s just boring. Parker Posey tries to liven things up as a vampire bitch, but she’s woefully miscast here. She obviously showed up simply for the paycheck. And then there’s Triple H as some kind of vampire bouncer (well, that’s how he came off to me) who just doesn’t work at all. So here’s the main problem: the villains are really lame. And when the villains are lame, we don’t really delight in the hero’s victory over them. It’s just that simple. Blade could take these people, no problem. There’s no suspense here.

The heroes of the film fare slightly better, but not entirely. Wesley Snipes seems stiffer than usual in the lead role. He seems to be bored by the whole enterprise and, really, the film gives him absolutely nothing new to do. He kills more vampires, he speaks like Clint Eastwood with a case of strep throat, and he scowls a lot. Nothing we haven’t seen before. In the film he meets up with a band of young, punkish vampire hunters who call themselves the Night Stalkers (I think). Of these new vampire hunters, the real gem is Ryan Reynolds as the lively Hannibal King. He’s perhaps a little too quirky (watching Shatner movies in Esperanto and making perhaps a few too many wisecracks), but one can scarcely quibble when Reynolds brings this much life and zest to the role. Ryan Reynolds is the only reason this film is watchable. Whenever he’s onscreen, cracking jokes and slaying vampires and generally having a good time, that good time translates over to the audience. He’s great here, sort of like a vampire-killing Fletch. He’s easily the best thing in the movie, and one wishes the film had eschewed Blade and all the lame vampires and had just been about Hannibal King, wisecracking ass-kicker. Jessica Biel is fairly bland as the daughter of Kris Kristofferson’s Whistler character (who, disappointingly, makes an early exit from the proceedings). She shoots a crossbow and has some really cheesy vampire-killing appliances, but she doesn’t have much more life than the dude playing Dracula. Though she is hot, she’s fairly dull. Patton Oswalt and Natasha Lyonne are wasted as other members of the Night Stalker crew and, on the whole; the entire crew isn’t given much to do.

Not that there’s much for anyone to do in this movie. There is a lot of noise and bombast in this film but, in the end, it all amounts to nothing. Reynolds is great, but he’s overwhelmed by too many moments that feel bland, too many moments that have a “seen it” feel to them. Snipes and most of the others seem to be sleepwalking through the film and the filmmakers themselves almost seem to be making the movie out of nothing more than contractual obligation. There are moments of excitement…but not enough of them. The editing is chaotic, the direction is pedestrian and the script is lifeless. A lot of the movie’s characters might be undead but the movie itself feels, well, dead. If this was the best they could do, they needn’t have bothered.

2004 / 173 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“And when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer.”- Hans Gruber, “Die Hard”

There is a potentially great film in the story of Alexander the Great. After all, he conquered most of the known world before his twenty-fifth birthday. That’s quite an achievement. (Needless to say at the age of twenty-five, I had accomplished far less. The only person I can think of with a similar achievement at a similar age was Steven Spielberg, who made “Jaws” at the age of twenty-five. It’s not quite conquering the world, but, well, it was “Jaws”.) So when I heard that Oliver Stone was bringing the legend of Alexander to the big screen, I was intrigued to say the least. This is Oliver Stone we’re talking about, after all, the director behind such great films as “Wall Street”, “JFK” and “Platoon” and the writer of “Scarface” and “Conan the Barbarian”.

But, alas, it was not that director that showed up to make “Alexander”. Instead it was the Oliver Stone that directed “U-Turn” and the more obnoxious moments of “Natural Born Killers”. “Alexander” is not a great film about a fascinating character. Instead, it is a boring, stilted, and messy film about a boring asshole. At the very beginning of the film, I could sense there was a problem. The first scene unfolded and came to an end and I still had no idea what I was supposed to be seeing. This is not good. Then the film jumped ahead forty years and Anthony Hopkins explained to the audience that they had, apparently, just witnessed (sort of) Alexander’s death. Now, right here, we have a problem. Movies that begin with the main character’s death and then cut back to show us how he got there are almost never good. In fact, I can only think of one movie where this actually worked: “Lawrence of Arabia”. Hell, even in that film showing the main character’s death right off the bat was pretty much unnecessary, but the movie worked anyway. So you know that you’re in trouble, because this movie sure as hell ain’t “Lawrence of Arabia”.

Then the film shows us Alexander as a child and you know once again that you are in trouble, because movies that begin with the main character as a child are invariably three hours long. As a child, Alexander does little of note (he tames a horse, there, that’s the most interesting scene from about forty minutes of this film) and then we cut to him as a 19 year old man (and it is here that Colin Farrell finally shows up). His father (Val Kilmer, one of the few actors who don’t embarrass themselves in this thing) and mother (Angelina Jolie, who never met a line she couldn’t drown in an overdone accent or wail at the top of her lungs) have differing opinions about how he should live his life and what his father is up to. His father knocks up another woman and Alexander begins to fear that this woman’s seed will end up on the throne of Macedonia (or Greece, whatever, the movie never really made this clear….shit, it could even be Persia) instead of him. There is a shouting contest at a social gathering and just when things begin to heat up and we think the movie is actually getting somewhere…the film jumps ahead forty years to Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins informs us that Alexander’s father was assassinated and that Alexander led his father’s army to conquer a bunch of countries before visiting an oracle in Egypt who tells him that he is the son of Zeus. Right there, I could tell this movie was a piece of shit. We spend the first hour of the film watching Alexander mope around, tame a horse and chat with his parents and then we are cheated out of seeing him conquer a bunch of countries and visit an oracle!!! This is bullshit!

Unfortunately, this is “Alexander” in a nutshell. The film treats us to scores of stupid, native dance numbers and enough overblown, stilted speeches to make you want to hack your ears off with a carving knife. But whenever anything legitimately interesting happens, it happens offscreen and Hopkins simply narrates it to us. Any time a potentially interesting scene could be shown, we are cheated out of seeing it. It’s almost as if Oliver Stone is just slapping the audience directly in the face at every step of the way. Eventually, we do get to see Alexander’s father get assassinated, but when the film shows it to us, it’s an hour and a half too late and, by this time, we no longer care. Sometimes messing with the flow of the narrative makes for an interesting film. I cite “Pulp Fiction” and “Memento” as perfect examples. But the movie must have a good reason for doing so. There is no point in telling “Alexander” out of order. Except, I suppose, to piss off every member of the audience. It’s sort of like having a drunk tell you a story at a bar and about three quarters of the way through he has to stop and backtrack and tell you something that he left out before he can proceed. That’s exactly what it felt like to watch “Alexander”. This didn’t have to be a movie, it could have just been an audio book about Alexander read by Anthony Hopkins and it would have had the same effect.

This is a terrible movie. The performances aren’t bad, but the dialogue is, so that when the actors invest a level of sincerity and devotion to these line readings, it’s basically all for naught. This movie is nothing but speeches, and the speeches are nothing but lame. They just go on and on and on and never arrive in the vicinity of a point. There are two battle scenes in this movie and both of them feel like tired retreads of scenes we’ve already watched. The first battle, in the desert, feels like a poor man’s version of the Battle of Sterling from “Braveheart”, complete with Alexander sitting on a horse in front of his men talking about freedom. And the second battle feels like a dull copy of the Battle of Minas Tirith from the final “Lord of the Rings” movie, complete with soldiers riding elephants. So if you’re itching to see the film because of its battle sequences, you can save yourself the trouble and just watch those two scenes from those two films instead. Trust me, you’ll be better off.

Another of the film’s myriad problems is that at no time did anything feel authentic. It’s nothing but hollow, Hollywood pageantry. I was never convinced I was being transported back to another era. Great movies can effortlessly give you that feeling. I always felt like I was watching a bunch of actors in front of a gaudy set. There is a love story in “Alexander” between Alex and one of his generals (played with an excess of eyeliner by Jared Leto). These two do have chemistry and it’s an interesting idea to show us a homosexual relationship within the confines of such an epic (it’s more interesting than the warmed-over battle scenes, anyway) but this relationship is torpedoed by cheesy declarations of love that would not seem out of place in a Harlequin romance novel. Finally, gay people have a movie with the sort of purple prose and self-serious facial expressions that mark really cheesy heterosexual love stories. I don’t think this is the sort of progress the gay people of the world are looking or asking for.

And yet another problem with the film is Alexander the Great himself. He’s the core of the film, the focal point, the axis on which this movie spins, and he’s just not interesting. He should be, for God’s sake. He’s possibly bisexual, he’s conquering the world and he’s fairly good looking. And yet the audience has no hook to hang their emotions on. There is a whole hour of so-called character development in which his character never gets developed. All we learn during this hour is that his parents hate each other, he likes wrestling with men (and losing) and he tames a horse. That’s it. But that’s not detail, that’s not emotion, that’s nothing we can ultimately care about. When the movie is named “Alexander” and Alexander is a bore, that’s a huge problem. He’s just a generic hero and we are given nothing to differentiate him from the thousands of epic heroes we’ve seen before (except that his lame story concerns a man instead of a woman).

Seriously, you can’t fathom how excruciatingly boring this film is. There is a lot of bluster and plenty of in-fighting among Alexander’s men but it all adds up to nothing. There is bizarre sexuality and elephant battles and even they cannot make this film provocative. Even the brief appearance of Rosario Dawson’s glorious breasts cannot keep this film from plunging the depths of mediocrity (though my eyes did stop glazing over for a couple of minutes when those sweet babies showed up). If you’re a fan of lavish sets, overblown acting, shouting, bad CGI shots of Babylon, and endless speechifying, then I cannot recommend “Alexander” too highly.

If, however, you are a fan of great filmmaking or interesting filmmaking or even coherent filmmaking, you might want to pass on this one.

2004 / 97 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

So, how incredible is “The Incredibles”? While I might not go so far as to call the film itself “incredible”, it’s definitely a great piece of work, an inspiring bit of fun, and a unique and wonderful film bustling with creativity and exploding with life. (Hmmm, come to think it, it does seem kinda incredible.)

The story of “The Incredibles” is the story of two superheroes: Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl. Once upon a time, they were magnificent crime-fighters, saving the world on a daily basis and getting the respect of an adoring public for doing so. Unfortunately, a litigious society soon plagued them with lawsuits (mostly from people they had saved who didn’t want to be saved) and all the superheroes were forced into retirement and tucked neatly away in the suburbs by the government’s Superhero Relocation Program…including Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl (who now have a family and call themselves Mr. and Mrs. Parr). Mr. Incredible is stuck in a dead-end job in a cubicle at an Insurance Agency, thinking wistfully back on the good old days and occasionally stopping crime late at night with his old friend Frozone (voiced by Samuel L. Jackson) while wearing ski masks to hide their identities. Then, one day, Mr. Incredible is lured out of retirement with the promise of a lot of money and potential to stop crime and save the day once again on a lush, tropical island. But all is not as it seems and soon, Elastigirl and the kids (who also have superpowers) must come to Dad’s aid and save the day.

Using this story as a template, writer/director Brad Bird explores not only decades of superhero stories but also the modern American family. They might have superpowers, but they argue over finance and how to raise the children, the father is putting on weight, the mother is frazzled by having to juggle so many responsibilities at once, the kids are constantly bickering with one another and worrying about things like school sports and how to impress a boy at school. In short, they’re just like us. The film does an excellent job of introducing them and it’s surprising just how fast I stopped seeing these characters as cartoons and felt them instead as real people with real problems. This is probably the most adult-oriented Pixar film to date. Sure, it’s great for kids (I’ll get to the nonstop orgy of action and the plethora of hardy laughs in a moment) but it’s got delicate relationships and dilemmas that only an adult can fully appreciate. A lot of craft and care went into all aspects of this film, even at the script level (which, of course, enhances everything else).

Lest you think the movie is a domestic comedy/drama, fret not. The family in question is, after all, made up of superheroes. The father has superhuman strength, the mother can stretch her body to superhuman lengths, the prepubescent son can run faster than the Flash, and the teenage daughter can disappear and create force fields (by the way, it’s a rather endearing moment that, at high school, a girl who can disappear at will feels, as do most teenage girls, invisible). On their own, each of these individuals and their gifts are impressive but once the family learns to work together and appreciate one another and their specific talents (there’s a wonderful moral for all of you) only then do they vanquish the obstacles standing in their path. And they do so in some terrific, eye-popping action sequences! This film puts every action movie I’ve seen this year to shame with its sheer ingenuity and the delight of its action sequences. The film is nearly nonstop in this aspect. And it weaves the dialogue and character development into the action effortlessly, without bringing the film to a screeching halt like “Spider-Man 2” so jarringly did. Not only is the film a caring study of some fascinating and delicately human characters, it’s a zesty thrill ride with truly inventive sequences that engage the senses. It’s got a great villain (who looks a little like a geekier version of the Heat Miser from that old “Year Without a Santa Claus” special) with a very original and clever sort of motivation (a motivation that both embraces and mocks every comic book geek you’ve ever met) and while his villainous plot isn’t the greatest I’ve ever seen, at least it’s character-driven (as is the rest of this marvelous film).

I must also commend the production design and musical score of the film. I was constantly reminded of the early, great James Bond films: the film has a glorious, snazzy, mid-60’s, world of tomorrow look and feel to it and the music is a perfect compliment to that, paying tribute to the Bond scores of John Barry and placing a wide smile on at least this viewer’s face. It’s so nice to hear something distinctive in an action movie, rather than hearing the usual Hans Zimmer orchestrations (which, according to an interview with Trey Parker and Matt Stone on the Ain’t It Cool News website, even Zimmer is getting mighty tired of). I congratulate Michael Giacchino (whose previous work includes the computer game “Medal of Honor” and the TV shows “ALIAS” and “Lost”) for composing the finest, most refreshing score I’ve heard in ages (though the score for “Sky Captain” was also quite excellent). All of these components help complete the world of the film and make it stand strong on its own two feet. Another great factor is the voice talent at work in the film. Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter hit all the right notes and none of the wrong ones as Mr. and Mrs. Incredible, making them utterly believable and identifiable as people we all know, and Spencer Fox and Sarah Vowell are great as the voices of the kids. Jason Lee and Samuel L. Jackson also contribute fine vocal work to the film, as does the director himself, Brad Bird, as the hilarious costume designer Edna Mode.

If the film has any sin, it’s that its pacing could use a little tightening up, particularly toward the end. It could have been a little more streamlined. And Samuel L. Jackson’s character, while a nice touch, really isn’t all that necessary. Unlike every other character in the film, the film could have lost him without missing a beat. He’s cool (literally) but he’s perhaps just one too many characters for the film to juggle. Other than that, I have no complaints. Not only is it the most fun I’ve had at the movies in a while, it also worked its sneaky way into my heart. Not as efficiently as Brad Bird’s last movie (the criminally underseen “Iron Giant”) but it’s still my favorite PIXAR film since the “Toy Story” movies. That right there is worth something. It’s one of the rare animated films I might actually see again at the theater.

Well, what do you know; maybe this is an incredible movie, after all.

2004 / 97 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

(Wow, this is the first review I’ve written for Jones and Dale’s site since my “X-Men” review in 2000! Guess I’m behind the times)

I am going to cast the minority report on “The Incredibles” - in my opinion it’s one of the 2 least-good Pixar movies so far. The other, also in my opinion, being “Monsters, Inc”. They both failed my biggest litmus test for a movie - do I want to see it again? In both cases the answer is and was a NO.

Maybe it was too hyped on websites as being “the most awesome Pixar movie yet” or maybe I had too much faith in Brad Bird who directed and wrote the screenplay of “The Iron Giant” (1999) which I feel to be one of the best animated movies ever. In any case I felt this new movie failed on several levels and I’ll try to explain my reasoning as best I can.

First and most importantly the emotional core of the movie felt misplaced or perhaps too diluted. I used to wonder why every animated film had ONE parent and ONE child, now after seeing The Incredibles I know why. Your typical animated movie’s “dad and child” configuration provides the basic CORE of a family without all the excess fat. Example: In “Finding Nemo” all the eggs get eaten so all of Marlin’s (Dad Fish) emotions and cares get centered on one child. It’s still the same as caring for 3 kids, but a stripped-down version of it - you could call it a “microcosm” of a family. While in “The Incredibles” there’s 3 kids and 2 parents. Granted this movie is about “family” but with nearly 3 times the amount of family members of the usual animated movie it requires you to spread your emotional attachment to them 3 times thinner. I think this works with things like “The Simpsons” (another Brad Bird joint) but you also get 12 years to “bond” to those characters, rather than 2 hours. Go through your memory and see how many animated movies with both parents and more than 1 child you can name (besides this one) Maybe “An American Tail”?

My second rant is about the plot. The beginning of the movie is cool and so is the end fight (despite the lack of emotional payoff) but the middle is boring and has very little narrative flow. I think it’s because the plot just becomes too damn convoluted, especially for a kid’s movie (and despite what anyone says, an animated movie is a “kids” movie in the eyes of most of America and I predict major “squirm factor” for the young ones with this flick) Here it is: Mr Incredible pisses off some kid, who then grows up and becomes rich by building inventions with the intent of becoming a superhero himself and killing all the real superheroes. This is my first beef. In the beginning this kid is like 10, then “15 years later…” he is a multi-millionaire with his own island, an army of killer robots and guards. At age 25??? Bill Gates probably still ate Ramen noodles at age 25! Even in a “fantasy” movie this is horseshit. Anyway, yeah, this kid hires superheroes to fight a “robot” where he’s really A) trying to kill off the heroes and B) testing the robots so he can build one no superhero can defeat. Once the robot “allegedly” beats Mr. Incredible (with most of the other superheroes already dead) he feels confident to launch it at a city where it will run amok until he shows up as “Syndrome” and pretends to beat the robot by using a remote control. Then he’ll sell all his inventions to the world so everyone can be a superhero.

That was a long-ass paragraph. Now, here’s the plot of the biggest hit Pixar movie thus far: Find Nemo. See the difference? I sure do, and I bet when “The Incredibles” comes in at well under “Finding Nemo’s” take the difference will be pretty obvious to Pixar as well. They’re trying to make a more adult film but let’s face it - there movies did well enough (and probably better) when they were aimed at both kids and adults.

The villain (whom I didn’t really like a all, since he was basically there as “Geek Bait” to thrill the Kevin Smith crowd) has this annoying power. He can point his finger at a superhero and “trap” them in a force field at will. This was lame because no matter how much butt the hero family was kicking the guy could come in and stop them instantly. This is basically a plot device to allow said villain to explain the plot without getting punched in the face before he finishes.

One final thing: the music. While it had a neat “60’s vibe” at times I didn’t feel that lent anything to the movie itself. It mostly felt under whelming. I was expecting something more “heroic” from the composer who did the music to the videogames Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. It is my belief that if one specific piece of music (or theme) doesn’t stick out in a movie (especially a hero movie) than the film has failed in that department.

Pixar is about to go on the “Disney slide” Remember in the early 90’s, when every Disney film made more $ than the last and it seemed nothing could stop them? It apexed with “The Lion King” but then went downhill. There’s similarities here with Pixar… Disney started making their films centered around people rather than critters and used more mature themes. Filmed like “Pocahontas”, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” (which I think it awesome, but I digress) each making less and less than the one before. CG movies, with their kid and marketing-friendly “objects” (such as toys, bugs and monsters) took over and now Disney 2D is, sadly, all but dead.

But I could be wrong. The preview for Pixar’s next film “Cars” looks aimed directly at the 3 year old Thomas the Tank Engine crowd and nobody else. Maybe they haven’t forgotten kids quite yet.

I know I’m not keeping on track very well but here’s another “key” (I believe) to animation: An animated movie should NEED to be animated. Living toys - yes, animated. Bugs - animated. Monsters - animated. Fish - yes, animated. People? We have a technology to do that, it’s called a MOVIE CAMERA. Even CGI movies with some people in the past have been about a 50/50 split with critters (”Ice Age”, “Shrek”) but when it’s all people it just loses some of the need.

In conclusion, Pixar has made their first movie aimed at geeks and movie critics moreso than their usual mainstream audience. Will it work out for them? Or should they stick to bugs? Only time will tell. As for me, I’m going to go watch the “The Iron Giant” again.

2004 / 107 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

The fact that there has been this much serious discussion about the political message and possible political ramifications of an action movie starring marionettes should go to show anyone how surreal and insane the atmosphere of our country has gotten. Yes, it does concern the War on Terror and yes, it does poke fun at the celebrities who take a stand against the War on Terror. But it also makes equal fun of sex scenes, dumb action movies and the clichés within, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, and pretty much everything it can make fun of within its running length. It may have some political overtones, but I think the main message Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of “South Park”, as probably everyone knows by now) are trying to deliver with this film is that the climate of this country has gotten so ludicrous over the last four years that making a movie about it involving obvious puppets only seems slightly strange, and everyone needs to look at their outrageous behavior and see how far out of hand they’ve gotten. That was my interpretation of it, anyway.

The plot involves a super team of terrorist fighters that jet around the world stopping terrorists and thwarting their nefarious plans, usually while causing more destruction than the terrorists themselves could ever hope to achieve. After stopping a group of terrorists in Paris (and destroying the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and that Freedom Arch thing) they recruit a new member to their ranks: Gary Johnston, an actor from the Broadway Show “Lease”. As the best actor in America, apparently, Gary’s acting skills are being sought by Team America. Soon, Gary finds himself infiltrating a terrorist cell in a bar in Egypt and, shortly thereafter, questioning everything that he stands for. In the midst of such philosophical concerns, and a tryst of kinky marionette sex with another member of the group, the Team must also confront the threat of Kim Jong Il (presented as a mixture of an early, shark-loving Bond villain and South Park’s own Eric Cartman), who is not only supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction but is also unveiling a scheme of his own that could threaten the way of life for everyone in the world.

“Team America” strikes a tough, uber-patriotic pose on terror that reminds one of 1980’s action movies like “Rambo” and its ilk. It also put me in the mind of action-packed, America-loving 80’s cartoons like “G.I. Joe”. And, of course, its reliance on clichéd dialogue and situations and shoehorned romantic aspects definitely spoofs any film bankrolled by Jerry Bruckheimer. It even has a hilarious Maverick/Iceman sort of rivalry between two members of the Team America team. I’d say it makes more fun of action movies and their inherent clichés than it does world politics, but don’t get me wrong, there is plenty of satiric bite to go around. Gays, overbearing liberal celebrities, Arab stereotypes, Broadway shows, 60’s marionette series, and almost everything else attacked before the end credits roll, and the jokes all work brilliantly. I like “South Park”, but my main complaint is that sometimes the show tries so hard to be offensive that it forgets to be funny. There is no such problem here. Is this movie offensive? To quote the “Team America” ass-kicking theme song: “Fuck Yeah!” The film is gleefully offensive, to be sure, but it’s also the funniest film I’ve seen in ages. There were moments that I was laughing with tears in my eyes and my stomach was hurting from the exertion of it. The film works on a satirical level (with the satire ranging in subtlety, but most of the time remaining exceptionally broad) but it also works on a gut-busting, belly-laugh level. And the decision to cast this film with marionettes was an ingenious move. There’s just something inherently funny about the lame way these puppets move, despite the hours of hard work and dedication put into their movements. It puts an extra level of humor into watching a person stumble drunkenly out of a bar when you can see the strings controlling their drunken progress. And the fact that this film contains one of the kinkiest sex scenes in the history of film and the participants don’t even have genitals is also hilarious. Besides that, I’m sure there is a hidden layer of parody about modern politics in having all the film’s actors dangling from strings.

At any rate, “Team America” is a refreshing piece of cinema. I’m probably more Democrat than I am Republican and even I was happy to see the liberal media get skewered for once. And the fact that the film skewers the War on Terror, those who support it, those who make irritating country songs about it, and the filmmaking of Jerry Bruckheimer made it all that much sweeter. “Team America” goes after many targets, but it never misses its aim and it never goes soft on anyone. It’s a nearly ingenious, multi-layered and, yes, often quite juvenile film. But it’s also a nice reminder that we, as a country, really need to lighten the hell up.

2004 / 106 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I’m not going to be one of those blithering idiots that tell you “Sky Captain” is perfect, and the reason I’m not going to do that is not because I believe there is no such thing as perfection. There isn’t such a thing as perfection, but that’s irrelevant. There are things that are close, even movies that are close (“The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, a certain movie about the busting of ghosts that doesn’t have a 2 in the title) but there isn’t anything that truly is perfect. There. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but it’s a fact of life. Anyone who tells you that “Sky Captain” is perfect, well; they are first and foremost an immense geek. They are probably no older than thirty years old and they will probably cite the old wartime motion picture serials that were “Sky Captain’s” inspiration when they make this rabid argument. If they do use this tactic just ask them to name the serials that they have actually seen. They will suddenly become quite silent. That is because they likely have actually seen any of the serials in question. I like to consider myself a rather well rounded individual, cinematically. I’m the sort of guy who often wonders if I have enough anime or silent cinema or foreign films in my DVD collection…and there is no logical reason why I should really give a shit. Is someone really going to come into my house and grade me on the diversity of my film collection? It seems highly unlikely. And if they do, I should get at least a passing grade. I own less than half a dozen silent films, this is true, but I at least have a few. ANYWAY, the point I’m trying to make is that I watch a lot of movies (A LOT of movies) and I own a lot of movies (again A LOT of movies) and I have only seen one batch of serials in my life. Those were some Dick Tracy serials from the Thirties. They were a lot of fun, and they went out of their way to cram as much action into the narrative as possible, and they were filled with machine guns and nefarious, possibly Nazi villainy and strange ventures into cowboy territory. But they were by no means perfect. The acting was fairly hollow, the action had more enthusiasm than it did finesse, and the bad guys were pretty much one-note.

So what these geeks are inevitably comparing this film to is their own personal idea of what the old fashioned serials were like. And, as with any old genre, we have a tendency to make them a little better than they actually were. We look at everything from the past through a bleary, Vaseline-smeared lens of perception. Everything looks a little nicer in hindsight. But we only think these serials were so magical because the guys who grew up on such serials went on to make the Indiana Jones and Star Wars movies using the magic they absorbed at Saturday matinees as children. We have a tendency to think every serial was like “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “The Empire Strikes Back” (and I’m sure that some were high quality, even if by accident) but the Dick Tracy serials weren’t quite up to that sort of comparison. They were fun to watch, but mostly as a sort of historical piece. (Sadly, the original “Star Wars” films are more interesting as historical notes than actual entertainment as well…but that’s a rant for another time and, truth be told, I still get a lot of enjoyment out of them.) These geeks are using “Raiders” and “Star Wars” as a yardstick for talking about “Sky Captain”. I saw a blurb by no less than Roger Ebert mentioning all three of these films in the same paragraph. Again, this is a bad move. If you go into this movie expecting it to be as good as “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “Star Wars” then you’re bound to be disappointed.

If, however, you go into this film looking for the sort of “Gee Whiz”, action-packed entertainment that kept audiences riveted in the Thirties then you might find yourself watching the film with a certain amount of glee. I know that I did. I enjoyed “Sky Captain” thoroughly, despite a few minor problems, and I’ll tell you why: here is a movie that throws everything it can think of onto the screen for our amusement. It’s a delirious film that flies by the seat of its pants and practically bends over backwards to entertain. It’s got giant robots, nefarious plots, feats of derring do, flying fortresses, underwater escapes, dynamites with long burning fuses and lots and lots of narrow escapes. It has all the things that are sadly missing from so many hollow, modern action spectacles. It has a sense of awe that most films are so utterly lacking. Look at the original “Jurassic Park”, for example. It’s not that great of a movie. It’s fun, sure, but it’s a “B” film at best. The reason it was worth watching, however, and worth noting even so many years later was the fact that it had a true sense of wonder and awe. It respected its own special effects enough to treat them as something that was special. “Sky Captain” has the same sense of wide-eyed wonder. It’s a very uncynical movie. It aspires to be magical and, for the majority of its running time, it succeeds. Too few movies these days even try to do that.

Another thing about “Sky Captain”: it’s very well written. I’m not saying it plumbs the depths of human emotion and delivers a searing message about humanity and the times in which we live. Much the opposite is true, in fact. It makes us completely forget about our lives and our troubles for two hours as we bask in the glory of an era that never really existed and thrill to feats that have never actually been performed. It’s audaciously far-fetched, but it takes itself seriously enough that we, as an audience, do the same. This film understands tone and atmosphere and it gets those little things right. Yet it always seems to have a certain wink in its eye. The characters are well written and fun to watch, the plot is absurd but tongue-in-cheek enough that we accept every flight of fancy it throws to us, and the film is paced so quickly that you never have time to notice the ludicrous nature of it all. This is all very refreshing. It’s one of those rare movies where the screenwriters seem to be in the next room making the story up one step ahead of the audience, and I don’t mean that in a detrimental way. The Indiana Jones films operate in much the same way. “Sky Captain” feels spontaneous, and yet it adds up as it goes along. (It may not ALL add up, but neither did the old serials…judging from the one I’ve seen).

And the most amazing thing about “Sky Captain” is the visuals. This is a movie you could enjoy on a pure eye candy level and still emerge from the theater satisfied. It’s a movie you can bask in. I don’t know much about the technical efforts involved in bringing this movie to the screen and, really, that doesn’t matter much to me. I know it’s a process in which everything but the actors was done in a computer and the actors were reacting to nothing against the backdrop of a green screen but, really, I don’t know why that’s so damned impressive. It seems to me that Lucas’s “Star Wars” prequels have been done in much the same manner. (That’s how they look, at least.) Sometimes the film looks like this was the case, but most of the time you won’t even think about the manner with which the film was constructed, you’ll just ooh and aah at the beautiful scenery and cinematography and smile at the little nods the filmmakers have included to old filmmaking conventions. There are perhaps too many quick cuts in the film and a few too many close-ups (you went through all the trouble of constructing this world, why not let us see a little more of it) but the film still made me giddy for most of its length. It has the burnished, shimmering glow of a particularly wonderful dream. The action sequences are a bit too disjointed as well but, again, they kept me close to the edge of my seat, so they must have been doing something right.

And now I come to the performances of the film, all of which, I must say, are absolutely perfect. Jude Law is perfect as the charming rogue Joe “Sky Captain” Sullivan. He’s a great aviator with some woman problems, a peptic ulcer, and a perpetual wink in his eye. He’s a great character with just enough flaws and foibles to make him interesting and keep him from becoming larger than life, but just enough steely heroism and charm to skirt the edge of being a legend. Giovanni Ribisi is also quite good as Joe’s gum chewing inventor and resident mechanical genius. He brings a lovely flair to his role. But the real treat here is Gwyneth Paltrow’s dead on portrayal of Polly Perkins, a plucky reporter of the Lois Lane variety whose sheer tenacity and moxie make her the most fun person onscreen. She’s brilliant here. Absolutely brilliant. I’d forgotten how much I actually missed Gwyneth, who brings such class to films that you’d never expect to have any, like this or particularly “Shallow Hal” (for which I still insist she should have gotten an Oscar nomination). She’s in top form here, playing this sort of character better than most of the actresses who originated this sort of role. And she and Law have remarkable onscreen chemistry. It’s dazzling to behold.

Then again, most of the film is dazzling to behold. The action sequences could have been a bit more coherent and some of the stuff in the film is pushing suspension of disbelief to its absolute breaking point. But Kerry Conran’s design of this world and attention to character and dialogue (the dialogue is breezy, smart and immensely quotable) make it more than memorable. It may not quite deserve comparisons to the early work of Lucas and Spielberg, but it has some of the same sense of invention, some of the same moxie and verve and awe. And that is truly a feat worthy of respect. “Sky Captain” is a film that made me giddy and kept me so giddy that I didn’t even notice its flaws until after the fact. It dares to remind us that film was invented not to enlighten or broaden our minds, but simply to entertain and provide us with an escape hatch from the world around us. And I, for one, welcomed the escape.

By Dale Nauertz

I do this every year, but most years there are one or two movies that I am actually, truly excited about. Last year there were “Kill Bill” and the final “Lord of the Rings” movie. The year before there was “Gangs of New York” and the second “Lord of the Rings” movie. This year, well, it’s hard work trying to figure out which movie coming out this fall/winter is the one I want to see most, because none of them have me really chomping at the bit. There are a few movies that I want to see, and some that am fairly interested in, but none of them that I’m taking time off work for (a’la “Lord of the Rings”) or highly excited about (like “Kill Bill” and “Gangs of New York”). Sure, Scorsese has another film coming out, but the Scorsese mania that was in full bloom in 2001 (when “Gangs” was originally supposed to come out) has dissipated. Maybe I need to watch “Goodfellas” again. Otherwise “The Aviator” would be higher on my list (that might also have something to do with not having seen a trailer for it and knowing that Kate “Movie Poison” Beckinsale is part of the cast). And there are no movies featuring hobbits and only movie featuring elves this year (“Polar Express”, in which I have just heard that Steven Tyler is following in his daughter’s pointy shoes by doing the voice of one of Santa’s elves) so I’ve got nothing to anticipate on that front. Who knows? This might be the year that I am forced to actually go out and get a life. But I doubt it.

So, without further ado, here we go.

1. “The Life Aquatic”

I love Wes Anderson. He’s one of those rare directors that do something fresh and exhilarating every time. He’s also a filmmaker whose movies are so distinctive that you know, as the credits are still showing, that you are watching one of his movies, and that no one else would have had the desire to make it. Since there are so few truly unique talents out there, that is the reason I have such a desire to see this movie. Not only that, but it’s the story of a Jacques Cousteau-like oceanographic explorer (played by Bill Murray with facial hair) searching for a rare shark that killed one of his buddies. The cast also includes Willem Dafoe, Cate Blanchett and, because no Wes Anderson movie would be complete without involving him somewhere, Owen Wilson. The idea of Bill Murray and Owen Wilson hunting a shark is a highly entertaining concept, especially when you factor in Anderson’s own quirky brand of charm. Will Murray finally win the Oscar he was denied last year? Will Wes Anderson finally get some Academy recognition? Frankly, I don’t care. I just want to see Bill Murray play Quint by way of Cousteau. That alone will assure that I buy a ticket.

2. “Team America: World Police”

I don’t personally think that “South Park” is all that ingenious of a show. Sure, there are some episodes that are filled with wit and actually make me cackle with glee (including the recent “Passion of the Jew” episodes with Cartman leading some kind of Christianity brigade while dressed like Hitler) but overall I find the show to be rather hit and miss. But the mere notion of a movie making fun of the pursuit of terrorists and the current political climate by the makers of “South Park” and featuring a cast made entirely of marionettes (!) is just too wonderful to pass up. This could, conceivably, be the most gleefully offensive movie since “Bad Santa”, and it’s also made with puppets. Oh, I am so there.

3. “I Heart Huckabees”

I’m not even sure what this movie is about. I know that it’s a comedy by David O. Russell whose “Three Kings” was a great movie and whose “Flirting With Disaster”, while mildly overrated, still had a scene where Alan Alda is making LSD in his basement. This promises to be a distinctive, weird comedy featuring Jude Law possibly going insane and possibly break dancing in the woods. The cast also includes Jason Schwartzman (who can hopefully make another movie where he’s as good as he was in “Rushmore”), Mark Wahlberg (who I can usually do without, but the last time he was really good was in “Three Kings”, so maybe Russell knows how to make the guy earn his check), Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman (the last two playing “existential detectives” or something). I don’t expect this movie to do very well at the box office, but I just want to see a comedy that isn’t afraid to have some fun and embrace some strange ideas and mine them for all they are worth. I don’t know why this movie appeals so strongly to me, I just get a good vibe from it.

4. “The Aviator”

Even though I’m not rabid to see this, it does have one of my favorite actors (Leonardo DiCaprio) in it and is directed by one of my favorite directors (Martin Scorsese). It’s the life story of Howard Hughes, which is just an interesting concept all by itself, and it has some great supporting actors in it: Cate Blanchett, Jude Law, Gwen Stefani (oh lovely, lovely Gwen, she’s never acted but I really like looking at her) and, well, let’s hope she’s better than in “Van Helsing”, Kate Beckinsale. It probably won’t be Scorsese’s best work but hell, even the worst Scorsese film is worth watching a couple of times (no, wait a sec, that would be “New York, New York” which I haven’t managed to stomach all the way through, so maybe I’m wrong on that). It probably won’t be perfect, but it’s got a better pedigree than most of the movies coming down the pike in the next few months.

5. “Ocean’s Twelve”

It’s the sequel to “Ocean’s Eleven”, for those of you who are slow on the uptake. The original cast is all back, with the addition of Catherine Zeta Jones as the ex of Brad Pitt. Apparently, Pitt and Jones have all the chemistry of a dying panda and a ravenous hyena, but if the movie is half as entertaining as the first one it will be a good time. That’s all I really want out of it. I just want to see Clooney acting suave, Pitt being cool, and everyone else doing the same thing they did the first time. I don’t want anybody to reinvent the wheel here; I just want to have fun.

6. “Alexander”

In the wake of “Braveheart” and “Gladiator” it seems that we’ve had roughly three thousand and two hundred epics in which hordes of people yell and run at each other with swords. And I’m frankly tired of it. Granted, “Troy” was far better than I expected, but it’s still a genre that has been drained of most of its life. But if any man can bring it back from the dead, that man is Oliver Stone, who never met a movie genre he played straight. Without knowing it, I’ve become something of an Oliver Stone fan. He’s made some spectacular movies and, like Kubrick, he’s a guy whose movies need more than one viewing to truly sink in. Plus, I think Colin Farrell is a hell of an actor, I still like seeing Angelina Jolie for some reason, and I think Anthony Hopkins is running around in this somewhere. I’ll check it out.

7. “Spanglish”

James L. Brooks is a great director of movies that make you laugh and make you think as well. I love “Broadcast News” more than any of his other flicks, but “As Good as It Gets” and “Terms of Endearment” aren’t bad at all. Not only that, but I have grown into something of an Adam Sandler fan over the past few years and Brooks actually thinks enough of the man to cast him in this story. What is the story? I don’t know. From what I’ve read it involves Sandler playing a chef whose life starts to go haywire or something. Who knows? But it’s got a great director and an actor who is likeable at worst and great at best (check out “Punch-drunk Love” if you somehow doubt me) and it features Tea Leoni, who has been ripe for stardom for quite some time, she just needs the right movie to push her to the forefront. If everything works, this could be that movie. It sounds fun, anyway.

8. “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow”

Okay, let me break this down for you. Giant robots are attacking the world, the time is the 1930’s, and a heroic, crack flying ace known as Sky Captain has to save the world with his feats of derring do. If it’s half as much fun as it sounds, if it pays half the respect to old serials as it needs to, this could be a great movie. If it looks like it was shot against a green screen (and it WAS shot against a green screen) and the plot is overly busy or not busy enough or doesn’t find the right balance of innocence and zesty action theatrics, then it could be another “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”. It’s got Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, (who only seems to have disappeared, she’s actually done two movies in the past couple years) Angelina Jolie, (with a fucking eye patch! Kurt Russell would be proud) and Giovanni Ribisi (a damn fine actor) in it. I’m hoping for the best, but I fear the worst. If it’s all style and no meat, then no one will hate this movie more than me. If it’s done just right, I will probably be this movie’s biggest fan. It looks like a sequel to “The Rocketeer” and I, for one, find that exciting. If Ain’t It Cool News hadn’t promoted this thing so nauseatingly, it would probably be higher on my list.

9. “Shaun of the Dead”

A British comedy about zombies! Yes, that’s right. Zombies. If Nick Hornby wrote a Sam Raimi zombie flick, well, judging from the great trailer, it would look a lot like this. The word of mouth on this film from overseas is great, so it should be right up my alley. No one loves zombie comedies more than me. Well, okay, someone probably does. But I like em a lot.

10. “Finding Neverland”

Johnny Depp stars in this. That’s enough to get my ass in a seat. But wait, there’s more. He plays J. M. Barrie, the guy who wrote Peter Pan. Apparently, the film is about the circumstances that led him to write Peter Pan and it’s got Kate Winslet in it. So, what the hell, I’ll go. Depp is an abstract artist of the acting variety. He’s never done a performance that bored me.

There, those are the ten I most want to see. But here are a few that I’m intrigued by, all the same.

“Closer”

It’s got Julia Roberts in it. Not so good. But it’s got Clive Owen in it. A little better. The trailer shows Natalie Portman doing a striptease. Hmmm, better still…

“Blade: Trinity”

Did the world really need another “Blade” movie? Going out on a limb here…No. But some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill.

“National Treasure”

Nicolas Cage finds a treasure map on the back of the Constitution. No. Seriously. Bruckheimer produced it. So it’s probably going to suck. But that concept is just great. I must see it, even if it sucks.

“A Sound of Thunder”

Edward Burns and Ben Kingsley in a movie where some guys travel back in time to hunt dinosaurs. Sounds cool to me.

“Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason”

Renee Zellweger as darling Bridget again. Colin Firth and Hugh Grant are back. All this has to do is be as good as the first one and I’ll be happy. I love British comedies, more than I have any right to.

“The Forgotten”

Julianne Moore wakes up one morning and her entire life has changed, but she’s the only one that seems to notice. It’s got a great, creepy trailer. Might be worth a look.

“Surviving Christmas”

A dark comedy about Christmas and gangsters that features James Gandolfini. But before you get your hopes up too high, it’s got Affleck in it. Still, last time he did this sort of thing we got “Reindeer Games”. So there’s still some hope.

“Sideways”

Alexander Payne is back in action after “Election” and “About Schmidt” in the story of an alcoholic writer and his friend going to a vineyard or something. If Payne made it, I’ll see it.

“Meet the Fockers”

The unnecessary sequel to “Meet the Parents”. It features Dustin Hoffman watching DeNiro shower and DeNiro getting a back rub from Barbra Streisand. So it might be worth a look.

And then there is the one movie that I won’t see, and if I do, I will have to be dragged to the theater, kicking and screaming and probably in restraints “A Shark’s Tale”. Have you seen a trailer for this thing? It looks positively awful. Maybe the reason “The Aviator” isn’t higher on my anticipation list is because Scorsese plays a mobster shark that, in the trailer, licks a fin and puts it to his ass and makes a hissing sound. Ugh. Will Smith, who I loved in the under appreciated “I, Robot” (it’s seriously the best action flick of the summer) returns to Shitville as a tiny fish who pretends to kill a shark and then dances on a table while singing MC Hammer’s “U Can’t Touch This”. I’m not huge on the trailers for Pixar’s “The Incredibles” either, but it’s GOT to be better than this.

And, despite the presence of Tom Hanks in multiple roles and the directing talents of Robert Zemeckis (one of my favorite directors ever) “The Polar Express” just don’t look all that hot. Maybe if I was five I’d be primed to see it. But I’m not five. I haven’t been five in a loooong time. So I think I’ll pass, thank you, despite the fact that Steven Tyler (lead singer of Aerosmith) is playing one of Santa’s elves. Having Tom Hanks and the lead singer of Aerosmith in the same movie is one of the signs of the Apocalypse, isn’t it?

So there you have it. As far as I’m concerned, this is everything that looks worthy of a shit in the upcoming months. Maybe there will be a few pleasant surprises smuggled in there somewhere. I’m hoping so. And I do want to see most of these. But none of them look worthy of smuggling in pudding over.

2004 / 120 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Those of you who still don’t believe Tom Cruise is one of the finest actors working today, get your ass to “Collateral”. That should be the last bit of evidence you really need. To see Tom unleash those demons he has hinted at in all his finest performances thus far (see also “Minority Report”, “Vanilla Sky” and “Magnolia”) in this strutting, mesmerizing and utterly disquieting performance is to witness a star not only raging bitterly against his former pretty boy persona but shattering it with a fucking sledge hammer. I personally believed he summoned the anger provided by a thousand tabloid articles and used all the angst and frustration of his constant marginalization by pigheaded critics and his grievances against a popular culture more interested in who he is sleeping with than who he is portraying to fuel this amazing performance. Tom has grown into a powerful, majestic force here, finally unleashing the full bore hurricane I always knew he had in him, and it is an astounding thing to witness.

The plot of the film is simplicity itself. A cab driver picks up two passengers one night. The first is a beautiful Federal prosecutor (Jada Pinkett Smith, great in this small dose) working on an important court case. The second is a dangerous, wolf-like hit man (gray like a wolf, in fact, from his steely gray hair and stubble to the cut of his sleek, gray suit) in town to kill five people in one evening. The hit man hires the cab driver and promises him money at first. Once the first body hits the roof of his cab, however, the hit man (named Vincent) must use more intense means of persuasion.

Jamie Foxx is better than you might ever suspect as the cab driver and titular character. (After all, once the screws start getting tightened, we soon realize that the Max the Cabbie really is nothing more than collateral, and even the most optimistic audience member will probably start thinking that Max ain’t coming out of this night alive.) He gives the role a certain world-weariness that enhances every scene. Foxx plays Max as a man who still pays lip service to his dreams even though we know from the set of his eyes that he never really believes they will come true. And his interplay with Cruise is an excellent example of give and take. Both actors give enough to make the other better and take enough to make their own performances better. It truly is a double act. If either performer were off his game, the other performance would have nothing on which to hang. Both Foxx and Cruise give the performance of their life here, and either one could be placed among the best performances in a decade.

And the look of the film adds immeasurably to these proceedings. The film has a gritty, handheld look that works marvelously on its behalf. I’m sure those involved with “The Bourne Supremacy” are properly envious of it. This film really does make you feel like you’re a fly on the wall at these events, and it does so without making you sick. The camera work is great, showing the full advantage of using digital video. And the lighting is natural and convincing. It’s also quite tightly edited and authoritatively directed and is sometimes quite lovely to look at. Somehow the film manages to be both gritty and beautiful, often at the same time.

But the real marvel of the film, as you might have guessed from my opening paragraph, is Tom Cruise. At first we think we’re just going to get the average Tom character, except that he kills people for a living rather than flying a jet or driving a racecar. But then we realize that Tom hasn’t HAD an average character for over a decade. Tom’s been constantly pushing himself in new directions and always rising to whatever challenge he’s given. At this point only a moron would accuse Tom of simply going through the motions (a moron or someone who has inexplicably missed “Magnolia”, “Jerry Maguire” and “Vanilla Sky”) and he certainly doesn’t do that here. He wins the audience, and Jamie, over with his charm and his innate likeability, and then he turns on us like a date rapist. He puts the audience through the same gauntlet he drives Max through. You’re never on sure footing with Vincent. Just when you think you’ve got him (and the movie itself) figured out, he and the movie will turn on you and leave you gasping for air.

Yes, my friends, this is a very intense movie. Michael Mann directs with a sure and steady hand, knowing just how to pace every scene and just which direction to push the film. The script by Stuart Beattie is a sterling example of avoiding clichés and keeping the viewer guessing. By the end of this film, I was truly on the edge of my seat. Hell, I was wound so tightly that I had cramps in my legs coming out of the theater just from being poised so tensely for so long. So now that I start bitching a little, you probably should just ignore it. But, for the sense of absolute criticism, I must nitpick a little. The end of the film does stray back to the norm a bit too closely, with a cat and mouse chase that is harrowing but is also a bit too normal for this film. The rest of the film is utterly unique and completely arresting. I, personally, have never seen a film like this before. The plot goes in new and exciting directions, using a great deal of misdirection to make you think you’re going to get the usual sort of scene and then side winding into all new territory. (There’s a terrific scene in a jazz club that should illustrate my point abundantly.) When the film does serve up a slightly tidy coincidence near the end, we’re so involved that we forgive it, but it still doesn’t fit quite right to me. Believe me, I’ve tried to justify this as more than mere coincidence and, sorry, but I just can’t quite do it. Still, the coincidence involves a character we’ve come to care about, and it does amp us up emotionally, so I’m torn. I love that I cared, but I wish they would’ve given us just a little more reason to believe it’s more than mere coincidence.

That and the chase scene (while dazzling, it’s still a chase scene and a rather traditional way to end a very untraditional movie) keep me from putting it at “A+” caliber, but it’s so damn close. So very, very close. It’s a mere hair away from “A+” status, and you better believe that’s good enough to warrant you going…daytime, nighttime, whenever. This movie demands to be seen. It’s so involving, so enthralling, so mesmerizing and caustically funny and intense. It’s so damn brilliant that I get breathless just thinking about it. And that has to do with every performer onscreen…but first and foremost that has to do with Tom giving a performance so alive and electric and utterly unpredictable and yet understandable, for inhabiting this soulless creature with just enough humanity to let us know he is alive and human but a few notches away from the rest of us. It has to do with Tom letting his dark side shine and breathe and take center stage. It has to do with a performance so great even the Academy shouldn’t be able to ignore it. Even the most critical of Tom’s detractors will have to admit that he has grown up, he’s matured and he’s brilliant and, in this movie at least, he’s not the sort of guy you’d want to meet in a dark alley.

2004 / 88 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Many critics have lauded this film for being a smart social satire disguised as a dumb, stoner comedy. Well, I’m not sure if it’s that, exactly, but there is more bubbling under the surface of this film than the title and the circumstances of its plot might suggest. I’m not sure if it IS all that socially relevant, but it has some enormous laughs and it left me with such a wave of goodwill that I’m actually quite anxious to see it again.

There really isn’t much of a plot on display here, but here’s what passes for one, at any rate: two buddies named Harold and Kumar (played by John Cho and Kal Penn) get stoned one night in an effort to forget about the responsibilities and annoyances of their respective weeks. Harold is rather straight-laced, a man who does not shirk his duties and yet does little to provide himself with a good time. Kumar is an underachiever with enough brains to go quite far, provided he didn’t spend most of his time in pursuit of pot and sex. They’re a perfect yin and yang, more Riggs and Murtagh than Cheech and Chong, really. Anyway, they get stoned and suddenly develop a hunger for White Castle hamburgers to do a very suggestive ad on television (I usually succumb to Taco Bell commercials in much the same manner). Shortly afterward, our two stoner heroes hit the road in pursuit of their nearest White Castle and, along the way, run into many complications.

As you can see, the script isn’t going to win anyone an Oscar, and I’m not arguing that it should. But the movie is blessed with an obvious love and care toward its main characters, a surrealistic streak (the dream sequence that looks like its set within a videogame, a run-in with a character named “Freakshow”, and an interlude with an escaped cheetah are ample proof of this much) and a great deal of gleeful irreverence. This movie features two stoned individuals driving a car for most of its running length and makes absolutely no apologies for it. I respect that. The movie allows its main characters to learn a couple life lessons along the way, but it doesn’t sacrifice any laughs to do so. I also respected the hell out of that. Unlike a lot of so-called comedies, this one doesn’t turn off the laughs in the last half hour to shoehorn in some cheesy moral (that puts it ahead of most Jim Carrey comedies right there). And it has a hell of a lot of laughs in it, most of which stem from situations that would be unmentionable in a family-oriented context. Wild raccoons, extreme sports, emergency room snafus, racial stereotypes, Neil Patrick Harris and female diarrhea are just some of the situations that are grist for the comedic mill in this picture. It’s irreverent, it’s hilarious, and if some of the jokes fall flat, they are more than redeemed by the ones that had me nearly doubled over with laughter (including a bit involving a very large bag of pot).

All in all, “Harold and Kumar” isn’t trying to reinvent the comedy, but it is trying to put the humor back into it, and I loved it for doing so. It cares about its characters, it includes a lot of laughs and it had me smiling and nodding knowingly for the majority of its running length. And, oddly enough, it IS refreshing that the two main characters aren’t just a couple of average white guys. These are characters we haven’t seen put on this sort of quest before, played by two guys with impeccable comic skill. It may not be great art, but it IS great entertainment. And, after sitting through movies like the “Scary Movie” trilogy and some of Ben Stiller’s most recent efforts, that’s definitely enough.