2005 / 126 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Syriana” is about oil, international politics, terrorism, law, and greed. It tackles big subjects without flinching from the unsettling aspects of each subject. It is well acted and extremely ambitious.

It is also, without a doubt, one of the most boring films in recent memory. If you compare watching a movie to reading a book then movies like the recent “King Kong” are like reading a great Stephen King or John Irving novel: big, messy, full of emotion, ultimately riveting page turners. “Syriana” is like reading through a spreadsheet of facts. Its interesting, at first, but after while your eyes start to glaze over.

“Syriana” has multiple stories to tell. One is the story of a government operative and his operations in Beirut (George Clooney, with a beard). One is the story of two Middle Eastern boys who eventually become suicide bombers. One is the story of a businessman (Matt Damon) who becomes the financial advisor for a Middle Eastern prince (Alexander Siddig). One is the story of a lawyer (Jeffrey Wright) who represents an oil company and is called upon by a government official to expose shady dealings within that company. These stories are all about global politics in relation to the Middle East and they all expose different facets of that larger theme…at least, in theory.

The actors all do a commendable job. Siddig and Damon, in particular, are excellent. Thanks to their fine work, their story is the most compelling of the entire film. Chris Cooper and Tim Blake Nelson are also quite good, adding much needed flair to tales they are in. I also admire the ambition of the film and its scope. It wants to explore all the problems and moral quagmires involved in the Middle East and its dealings. The film is at its best in several speeches and monologues peppered throughout the film that cut right to the heart of the matter and deliver excellent summations and analysis of events and situations we see in the news every day. Some of this dialogue was stimulating and enlightening.

It’s a pity we couldn’t have had more of that because, for the majority of its running length, this film is about as much fun as a night of watching C-SPAN. I wanted to like this film. Really, I did. It’s got potentially fascinating subject matter, and it is subject matter that is overdue for the hard-hitting treatment that a film like “Traffic” could offer into this matter. It’s by the writer of “Traffic” and produced by Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney, so comparisons to that earlier film are perhaps inevitable. However, such comparisons are bound to illustrate what is wrong with this film. Like “Traffic”, this movie does not compromise what it has to say in order to provide flashy, crowd-pleasing entertainment. Nor do I ask it to do so. That’s not the problem. The problem with “Syriana” is that it is murky. To be fascinating and interesting, we must truly understand what is going on and the motivations behind it. It’s not surprising that the story of oil company malfeasance is a bit confusing. After all, we are dealing with legal factors here, and legalese is a language all its own. But, in the story of the two teens who become suicide bombers, we never get a good grasp on why they make such a choice. Sure, the oil company they work for fires them, but I wish the movie had given us more emotional investment in this pair and more information at how they arrived at this choice. They are so blandly sketched and so poorly developed that, though we know from the beginning how their plot will turn out, we don’t understand much about them or their situation. We’re given a thimble of time to spend with them, and that time isn’t even all that interesting. It tells us of their desperation, but it never makes us feel it.

That’s the main problem here. The film has no flair, no spark. If this movie were directed by a guy like Martin Scorsese or Steven Soderbergh, I have no doubt that it would have suspense and momentum, two qualities it desperately requires but is lacking. Most scenes in this movie consist of two people talking about things we get little information about. Most of the time we, as an audience, must struggle to determine what, precisely, they are talking about. And even then, the movie has no creative thrust to make this as fascinating as it should be. It doesn’t flesh out its characters very well (the only plot that is shaded with the detail and nuance it requires is that of Damon and the Arabian prince, that material is quite well done) and it doesn’t provide a grasp on the material that is required if we are really to understand and care about it. And, yet, it seems like a lot of this material is being stretched out simply to beef up the length. Late in the film, it finally develops a rhythm, a propulsive pulse. But it’s too late. The separate threads of the film never gel as they should either. Characters appear with little purpose and disappear again without having added anything to the narrative. Moments of the movie are powerful, but the film is so dry and blandly rendered that these nuggets of power ultimately wilt like flowers stranded in the desert that dominates the film.

I admire what director and screenwriter Stephen Gaghan was attempting to do here. I just can’t help thinking what a better filmmaker would have done with this material, how powerful this material might have been in the hands of a director like Scorsese or Soderbergh or, particularly, P.T. Anderson: guys with the storytelling and technical prowess to tell a story with this weight without compromise while adding the momentum and flair necessary to keep us riveted. The editing should have been much tighter. The music could have added a bit more flavor (or, really, any at all). The cinematographer might have done something a bit more interesting with the camera. Any number of things would have enhanced this experience.

It’s not a terrible movie and, as I said, I appreciate its ambition. I just wish there was a little more to appreciate about “Syriana”.

2005 / 187 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed Ben Heckendorn

The 2005 remake of “King Kong” is a really good hour and a half long ape-meets-girl movie. Unfortunately since it’s 3 hours long the other 90 minutes is a very mundane (and in my opinion boring) wanna-be “Jurassic Park” flick. Giant CGI creature movies have become so commonplace it’s hard to find them special anymore. “Jurassic Park”, while not that great, was at least original in its day. But that was a zillion “attack of the rendered creature” movies ago. Simply put, there are only so many ways you can run away from a dinosaur.

Luckily the good parts of “King Kong” are indeed quite good. I didn’t mind the slow beginning of the film, the “Depression Montage” in the opening set up the time period quite well. Then Jack Black (playing a film director who seems to be a hybrid of Orson Welles and Ed Wood) having to basically “escape” New York before his latest film project can be shut down is interesting. But then it takes nearly an hour (I’m guessing) for them to even reach S! K! U! L! L! island (why I typed it like that will make sense once you’ve seen the film). Which is OK I guess, but reeks of padding. James Cameron can have a boat sail around for an hour with nothing happening and make it interesting. Here that’s not the case, because the film isn’t about the boat.

Reaching Skull Island and the subsequent scenes make up the bulk of the movie (I’m sure of this as the last segment in New York couldn’t have been much longer than 30 minutes) Of course the natives capture the girl and offer her to Kong, and the ship’s crew then sets out to rescue her. This is where the film really drags. The obligatory scenes with Kong and Naomi Watts “bonding” are really good, but then it always cuts away to “Jack Black’s Bumbling Dinosaur Island Adventures” It’s quite monotonous, an unrelenting barrage of “monster attacks”, the worst of which being a totally unbelievable Brontosaurus stampede through a canyon. Unbelievable because you’ve got 10 or so giant dinosaurs stomping down a canyon that can’t be but 30 feet wide, with all the crew members running below them as well, plus some Raptors thrown in (why not?), then at the end of the chase all the big dinosaurs crash and pile up like cars in a highway wreck and yet most of the crew survives. A really ridiculous bit is when the screenwriter character (Adrien Brody) leaps up and kicks a Raptor in the head as he’s running. Scenes like this do nothing for the film but make it longer.

I will give this movie points for one thing though – during this chase (or maybe it was the chase afterwards, or the chase after that, I don’t know) someone does plug several Raptors with their Tommy gun. FINALLY somebody shoots a dinosaur! Regardless of any refreshing dino-blasting these scenes go on forever. We cut back to Naomi Watts and Kong every so often and they’ve got lots of good stuff (like the sunset scene where she falls asleep in his hand) but then it’s back to the “Jungle Adventures” and yet more monsters, close calls and “saved at the last minute by other crew members” resolutions to impossible odds. It’s almost like Peter Jackson said to his art department “Draw every killer jungle creature you can think of and we’ll put them ALL in this movie!”

Finally Adrien Brody saves Naomi Watts, and of course Kong chases them back to shore. Here the movie becomes good again, with Kong’s sad capture, his pain and the human’s treatment of him. The movie continues to be good as we return to New York to show off Kong as “the 8th wonder of the world”, even if we all know how it ends. One of the scenes in particular is really touching as Kong, having recaptured the now-willing Naomi Watts, goes through Central Park with her and slides around on a frozen lake. Kong is having fun and loving life, after spending so much of his time fighting for survival. THIS is the story we need to see, not endless dinosaur attacks on nameless crew members.

Probably the reason the ending scenes are so good is because they’re very similar to the end scenes of “The Iron Giant”, a far superior (and shorter) film that’s obscure enough that not many people will notice. Granted there’s only so many ways a film like this can end, but regardless it all seems fairly predictable. But in a good way.

“King Kong” is worth seeing for the story of “an ape and his girl” but to me it dragged in a lot of places. Ironically this film was originally going to be shorter, but the studio (or Jackson, or somebody) wanted “an epic” so they increased the special FX budget in post production to allow about 30-40 more minutes of movie to be completed and added. That’s too bad because I think it was at least 40 minutes too long, and I bet most audiences (not critics) will feel the same way. “Lord of the Rings” didn’t seem long at 3 hours because for each movie they had WAY more story than they could possibly fit in 3 hours, so the story they did fit in moved quickly and efficiently. Here it’s the opposite, a 90 minute story stretched to 3 hours. It shows.

POSTSCRIPT:

It seems every movie these days has to have a twist, and I don’t see why “King Kong” had to be different. Yes, I am suggesting it – why can’t Kong win? He’s set up to be a sympathetic character so it’s sad when he dies, but it would have been even cooler to see him kick some ass. Why couldn’t he escape New York and run up to Canada, or the bayou, or Mexico? Really nobody could even stop Kong until he climbed up the Empire State Building (no spoiler there) and made himself a target.

We’ve already seen Kong die twice, once in 1933 and then again (cheesily) in 1976. How awesome would it be, instead of wasting all that time with the dinosaurs in this film, to instead make the second half about Kong escaping attack across America with Naomi Watts in tow? Then they could finally make it to the safety of some dense forest, or South American jungle. Free again, and King again. The final scene, they arrive, Naomi Watts looks up at Kong, music swells, cut to CLOSE UP of Kong, he looks at her, then CUT TO WIDE, music stops - and KONG does his triumphant yell, beats his chest, CUT TO BLACK, TITLE: “KING KONG” (and a final music beat).

THAT’S the kind of ending that gets applause and cheers.

2005 / 187 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Here’s the scene: a giant gorilla and a beautiful woman are gliding over the surface of a frozen pond surrounded by Christmas trees in the middle of Central Park. As I watch it, tears are streaming down my face. It’s a small moment, a simple moment, a tiny thing really. And yet it’s a scene of such stunning beauty I can’t think of anything in the history of cinema that’s quite like it.

I cried during this new “Kong”. Right there, you should know that this is a different film from the usual, big-budget, effects filled extravaganza that gets tossed into theaters. There is a soul behind the spectacle of “Kong”, more soul than any big film since “Titanic”, in fact. This is glorious, old-fashioned filmmaking. It’s a remake that’s on the same level as the original, despite the fact that it’s really a completely different sort of film.

Okay, it’s not COMPLETELY different. Both films tell the story of a ship full of adventurers who journey to an undiscovered island, a “lost world”, if you will, to make a movie the likes of which no one has ever seen. In both films, the film crew stumbles upon a world beyond their wildest dreams. In both films, a gorgeous young woman who is the star of this film is sacrificed to an enormous ape. And, in both films, his love for this woman is the big ape’s undoing.

The original was a glorious adventure story with amazing special effects (the effects in the original Kong are still great by any standard, mostly because there’s a handworn craftsmanship to them lacking in most other effects films from any period) and a unique story. This new film, for all its adventure and chases and narrow escapes is, at its heart, a romance between a woman and a giant ape. And as silly as that sounds, it’s one of the most heartbreaking romances of all time. The real discovery for me about this movie was how seriously I took this potentially silly world.

The film pounds with emotion from the very beginning. It sets up the world of Depression-era New York quickly and flawlessly. The film gives you an amazing feel for the time period, and for the poverty and desperation of everyone in this world. When the director of the film within this film and leader of the quest to Skull Island, Carl Denham (Jack Black), dangles money in front of these people, they can’t help but to take it. Even if they suspect the check they’re getting isn’t worth the paper on which it’s printed, they can’t pass up a chance at cash. It’s Desperation (with a capital “D”) that drives the opening hour of this film. Denham has to prove himself with this film he is making, otherwise not only is his career finished, but he even faces jail time. Jack Black is excellent as Denham, who bluffs his way through every situation and uses every ounce of charisma he has access to in his desperate grab for success. Denham has worn out his welcome in the film community as we first meet him, grabbing his film cans before they can get turned into stock footage and jumping on a ship one step ahead of the authorities. This all makes him a fascinating character, even if he is a bit of a shitheel. Thus, the first hour becomes a fascinating exploration of a huckster making a final grab at the success which has long eluded him.

Along for the ride is Adrien Brody as the screenwriter of Denham’s film. He’s a celebrated New York playwright who’s been practically kidnapped by Denham and hauled along on this journey. It’s his involvement that helps win the participation of Naomi Watts’ Ann Darrow, a starving actress who sticks by her principles despite her poverty. Hers is the best character in the story, even before she is handed over to the mighty Kong. Watts displays genuine pluck here (there’s really no better word for it) and she’s got the skill not only to make us believe that she’s really reacting to the giant ape (when we all know she’s probably standing in front of a green screen the majority of the time) but that she’s even coming to love the big galoot. This is, sincerely, the best female performance I expect to see this year. If she’s not nominated for Best Actress, then the Academy isn’t even trying.

Once the movie gets us on Skull Island, it becomes a second kind of movie: in short, it becomes the best damned “Jurassic Park” movie ever made. Spielberg probably wishes he could still stage action sequences this exciting (the closest he’s recently come was “Minority Report”). There may be some lapses in logic here, but the sheer momentum and inventiveness of scenes like the dinosaur stampede and the fight between Kong and the T-Rexes kept me from even considering them until long after I’d left the theater. This is the most excitement I’ve had at the cinema this year. I sometimes had to remind myself to breathe.

But the reason the film is so stunning is the last hour, when the film and Denham return to New York with Kong in tow. We all know how this is going to play out. We all know what’s going to happen here. And yet it all feels fresh and unexpected. I attribute that to the passion of Jackson’s filmmaking and the greatness of Watts’ performance. They give the film a heart lacking in most modern blockbusters (though this has been a damn good year for fantasy film, in my opinion: aside from this movie, the two best movies I’ve seen thus far were “Revenge of the Sith” and “Serenity”, they worked with more intriguing ideas and had more pathos in them than any of the so-called “respectable” movies I’ve seen this year). I wasn’t surprised to find myself on the edge of my seat for a lot of the film. After all, this is the guy who gave us the amazing “Lord of the Rings” films. I was, however, surprised to find myself gasping at the aching beauty of it all and openly weeping for the beautiful tragedy of the film’s finale. And it wasn’t just the tragic final third that brought tears to my eyes. I can’t ever remember crying simply because a movie was so damn beautiful or because a scene made me so utterly happy. I did at “Kong”.

It’s not quite perfect. The natives are a bit too much like the orcs in Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” flicks for my taste. The use of slow motion in this film is sometimes obnoxious. Some of the dialogue is best described as clunky. And where the original film had a love triangle, this one is all about the love of Kong for Ann Darrow which, this time, actually gets reciprocated (there’s no sex scene, don’t get nervous). Brody is good enough, but he can’t compete with Kong, who lives and breathes like no digital creation ever has. I don’t blame Watts’ Darrow for choosing Kong over the real man in her life. Andy Serkis’s behind the scenes work is, no doubt, a vital ingredient to making that work. After all, the only other special effect creation that felt so utterly alive in recent memory was his portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol. The effects teams have outdone themselves here. But I have no doubt that the script by Jackson, Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh provided the framework for this fine work. Effects films are only as good as their script, and this one is excellent.

So, no, it isn’t perfect. But I’m still giving it four fists, because it’s close enough. “King Kong” is every reason we go to the movies in the first place: to laugh, to cry, and to experience grand, creative thrills and excitement. Only the finest films provide these elements so splendidly that they are raised to the level of art. “Kong” is on that rarefied level, beating with a heart as large as that of its title character, but without sacrificing any element of quality in order to do so. With this and the “Lord of the Rings” films, Jackson has officially become this generation’s leading myth-maker, taking the place Spielberg and Lucas once occupied. Lucas has, for the most part, lost his touch and Spielberg has forgotten how to stage a great ending. And it’s been quite some time since either man brought as much sheer passion and love to any of their projects as Jackson infuses into his.

Until James Cameron decides to grace us with another narrative film, there’s simply no one out there making these big movies with the skill and grace of Peter Jackson.

By Dale Nauertz

Well, my online friends and neighbors, ‘tis that time of year yet again: the stores are crowded, the shelves of said stores are getting bare, the forecast calls for snow, Christmas carols are now stealthily slipping their way into radio programming and you’re wondering how the hell you’re going to pay for presents, knowing that the old “You don’t have to get me anything” line is never going to work. Yes, it’s the retail season…er, I mean the Christmas season. This can be an overwhelming time of year, and because I don’t want you to get too frustrated with everything, I think you should just sit down and watch a few movies. But because it’s a busy time of year, I realize that you can’t just sit on your ass watching movies all day long (though that sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?) so I’ve winnowed it down to a manageable level. How about one movie per day, huh? It’s not too hard. You can do it. So your Uncle Dale has compiled a list of twelve movies (and some TV specials to throw in there) to make your Christmas a little bit more magical. See? I’m always looking out for you. Accept these suggestions in lieu of actual presents.

Day 12: “Love Actually”

See, we’re counting down from twelve to number one. Number Twelve is twelve days before Christmas, let us say, and Number One would be Christmas Day itself. “Love Actually” will be a good one to kick things off. It’s an epic, British romantic comedy, so it’s really a good choice for any time of the year. But the film does have a decided Christmas theme to it. It takes place on and around Christmas and concerns itself with people falling in love, conveniently and inconveniently. It’s got just enough sentiment to warm your heart without making you gag on a bunch of sugar. Plus, it’s got great performances by an excellent cast and it’s pretty darn cool, so cool you won’t even mind that it’s a chick flick. Yet, if you like chick flicks, this is a good one to wallow in.

Day 11: “Lethal Weapon”

Yes, that’s right: “Lethal Weapon”. Sure, it isn’t a movie about the wonder of Christmas or a movie that will inspire you to change your life. But it’s a great action movie with great camaraderie between Mel Gibson (who has never been better) and Danny Glover (who’s his usual, dependable self). They’re fighting drug dealers and blowing shit up, and Mel is taking insane chances because he’s suicidal and just doesn’t give a shit (which is an inspired premise, if you ask me). And all this takes place around Christmas. There’s caroling, explosions, Christmas lights, gunfights, a man attempting suicide while watching the Bugs Bunny Christmas special and even a drug deal that takes place in a Christmas tree lot. If that doesn’t put you in the holiday spirit, I don’t know what will. Besides, you can’t handle a moral lesson every day, even in this season. Sometimes, you just need to see things explode, with some tinsel here and there.

Day 10: “Scrooged”

This movie will help you deal with all that Christmas programming that gets crammed down your throat every time you turn on your television. You see, aside from being the best version of the whole Scrooge story that I’ve ever seen (Bill Murray is perfect as a modern day Scrooge with a lump of coal where his heart should be) it’s also a scathing indictment of network television. It’s a wicked, little Christmas flick that’ll have you laughing uproariously, and it will also sneak its way into your heart with a rather touching human message.

Day 9: “ELF”

Finally out on video and DVD, “ELF” is a goofy little yarn with Will Farrell as a human orphan raised by elves who leaves Santa’s workshop to connect with his father, played by a great, gruff James Caan. The movie has a warm heart and a lot of laughs and, even though it’s not the funniest Will Farrell movie (that would, for me, be “Anchorman”) and though it’s not the best Christmas comedy, it’s a charming, sweet, funny little movie that’ll have a smile affixed to your face for an hour and thirty minutes. Plus, it’s got Ed Asner as Santa Claus. That’s right: THE Ed Asner! (And, incidentally, why isn’t Zooey Deschanel, the love interest of this film, a bigger star? She’s so sweet and beautiful and she’s got a remarkable singing voice. There, I’ve gotten that out of my system.)

Day 8: “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”

Jones, Ben and I have a tradition we like to call “Shitty Movie Night” where you rent the crappiest piece of crap you can find and you mock the thing relentlessly (with or without alcohol involved). Well, go rent the Jim Carrey version of “The Grinch”, get some egg nog, spike the hell out of it, and play your own version of “Mystery Science Theater” in the privacy of your own living room. (For this one, I cannot recommend alcohol too highly; it’s just too bad to deal with sober.) How can you not mock the ugly set design, the flat jokes, and the crass commercialism that permeates every frame of enormous lump of coal? For this one, however, you’re going to need some close friends. Suffering alone isn’t very fun. The more people you can torment with one of these shitty films, the better it is for you. Trust me. It’s one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen (perhaps even THE worst) and a perfect candidate for a holiday edition of “Shitty Movie Night”. (But it’s absolutely terrible; don’t say I didn’t warn you.)

P.S.- If “The Grinch” is rented out, or you wanna double your misery with two crappy flicks, go with “Jingle All the Way”. It’s not quite as terrible (few things are) but it’s still pretty shitty, and it’s got a Christmas theme.

Day 7: “Die Hard 2”

If you want a Christmas-themed action movie, you can’t do much better than this one (well, you can do a little better, but we’ll get to that in a few days). You’ve got snow, explosions, Dennis Franz, and more terrorists than you can shake a stick at. The heartwarming moments of this yuletide classic include a snowmobile chase, a plane full of Christmas travelers crashing to their death, and a man getting stabbed in the eye with an ice sickle. It’s the perfect film to watch in order to vent your frustrations after a day of dealing with morons in the mall.

Day 6: “Bad Santa”

Finally, a movie where Santa drinks, pisses himself, is rude to children, has a surly elf, robs department stores, bangs groupies and is just generally pissed off. Billy Bob Thornton is great here as a true piece of shit in a Santa outfit. It’s a bizarre, surreal and utterly vulgar yuletide comedy, with a sneaky sort of moral and a strange bit of compassion snuck into it. Again, a perfect antidote to searching high and low for Christmas presents at every store within a ten mile radius. Plus, it’s absolutely hilarious (if you can handle its sheer, gleeful offensiveness).

Day 5: “Gremlins”

This, my friends, is a true holiday classic, as well as a cautionary tale about not buying a pet for a Christmas present. Sure, Gizmo the Mogwai looks sweet and harmless enough: he looks pretty darned cute with that little Santa hat, he drives a little car, he speaks better English than the average New York cabbie, and he can play a mean keyboard. But if you get him wet, you’ll have to feed a lot more like him, and don’t even think about feeding them after midnight. A little old lady goes rocketing out a window, there’s a bar scene with more rowdy drunks than you find on State Street during Halloween weekend, and Santa gets savagely attacked by a horde of little, green monsters. I’ve always loved this movie, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Christmas is the perfect excuse to revisit this delightful slab of utter carnage.

Day 4: “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation”

Remember when Chevy Chase was actually funny? Well, this was about the last time. Chevy is great as the well-meaning but accident prone Clark W. Griswald. Clark is determined to give his family the greatest Christmas they’ve ever had and, if you know Clark from the other “Vacation” films, you know just what a recipe for disaster that is. Clark takes Christmas decorating to absurd levels, hits on a girl at the mall, goes sledding (with disastrous results) and the whole holiday ends with a visit from the SWAT team and a barbecued cat. Odd relatives abound, financial woes are prevalent, and egg nog is spiked. It’s sure to remind you of your own holidays than most of the yuletide flicks you’re likely to see. (It does me, anyway.)

Day 3: “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”, “Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown”, “A Garfield Christmas”, “Frosty the Snowman” and the original, accept-no-bloated substitutes “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”

Rent or, better yet, go out and own all of these yuletide classics. Pop up some popcorn, turn down the lights, and pretend that you’re six years old all over again. I’ve seen most of these in recent years and, trust me; they’re still great. They’re a passport back to your childhood, heck, they’re the reasons that you care about this holiday in the first place, am I right? I remember when CBS (the only station we had at our house until I was in fourth grade) would show all of these on one night, about a week before Christmas. Well, thanks to DVD, you can relive that night all by yourself or with as many friends as you want, and you can control the order! Burl Ives as a claymation snowman, Boris Karloff narrating a story about Who’s, Garfield receiving a present from Odie, the gut-wrenching fate of “Frosty the Snowman”, and the lesson we all learned from Charlie Brown’s selection of a Christmas tree. All of these memories can be relived, all these years later and, really, aren’t these the essence of what Christmas is all about? They are to me.

Day 2: Christmas Eve: “Die Hard” followed by “It’s a Wonderful Life”

It’s Christmas Eve, you can treat yourself to two movies! “Die Hard” is the greatest Christmas action film ever made (a small genre of film, but an important one nonetheless). Watching this film on Christmas Eve is a surreal experience, at least it’s always been one for me. It’s like watching a news report on a terrorist situation unfolding in California. Get your last, pre-Christmas dosage of explosions and shootouts, and get a surprising amount of character development in the bargain. After all, John McClane learns what’s really important in life while he’s fighting for it against some nasty, Eurotrash terrorists.

And after you’ve watched Bruce destroy the entire first floor of a building and kill the last of the bad guys, watch Jimmy Stewart slog his way through a pretty crummy life to learn that even a crummy life is worth living in the excellent “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Sure, this movie has become something of a cliché over the years, but it deserves to be watched inevitably every Christmas Eve. It’s a film that makes you appreciate life and the act of living it, a film that will make you realize that, even though Christmas has become grossly commercialized and gets a little less special every year, there is a nugget of something inside the act of celebrating Christmas, a bit of magic left in this season yet, despite every major retailer’s best efforts to destroy that magic. Watching this film is the best thing about Christmas, if you ask me. So watch it, savor it, and wear any tears you manage to cry proudly.

Christmas Day: “A Christmas Story”

I remember a time before this movie was played eighty-seven times on TBS, a time when the film was still special and hilarious, before it had been quoted more times than “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, before every major network ran it into the ground. It’s a cult classic, really, (kind of like the yuletide equivalent of “Office Space”) about childhood, and about that one toy you want for Christmas (the one toy that, if you’re anything like me, you never actually got). It’s about Christmas a time of intense want, and then it deepens into something more. It’s probably not the best movie on this list, heck, I KNOW it isn’t. But it’s the perfect movie to watch on Christmas morning, mainly because the best scenes of this film take place ON Christmas morning. Most movies, hell, most of our culture treats Christmas Day itself as an afterthought. The Day After Thanksgiving is more of an event in our culture than Christmas Day is. By Christmas morning, Christmas is pretty much over. Well, not in this movie. That’s why you should get up, open your presents and watch “A Christmas Story” before you eat Christmas Dinner and start planning where you’re going to go to return all the presents you didn’t want.

There you have it, a bunch of films (and a few TV shows) to remind you what this holiday is all about…and to keep you entertained after a long day of shopping or ringing bells for the Salvation Army or cooking or whatever it is you choose to do in preparation for Christmas. On behalf of myself and everyone affiliated with this website, I urge you to enjoy yourself, be safe, and watch a few movies. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy Kwanzaa, and, to all of you who work retail, hang in there, January will be here before you know it!

2005 / 157 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Another year, another Harry Potter movie. Harry Potter is back and he’s facing his most fearsome opponent ever: Puberty. He’s starting to look meaningfully toward members of the opposite sex (enter Cho Chang, an Asian girl with a strange Scottish burr in her voice…who wouldn’t find that appealing?), he’s having a spat with his best friend, he’s dealing with the adverse effects of his own popularity…oh, and he’s in a contest that requires him to fight a dragon. And I thought MY puberty was tough.

You might wonder if this whole world is getting a little stale by now, what with us getting a new cinematic installment in Harry’s adventures every time we get a new calendar, but that’s the way it has to be. The kids in the lead roles of these films are simply superb, and they get a little more comfortable with their roles and a bit better with their performances in each film. In order to keep this same crop of kids (and, really, they should: in my mind’s eye these kids simply ARE these characters) they’ve got to churn a new movie out each year so that the actors grow at the same rate as the characters. And since each new movie is helmed by a new director, that gives us a fresh perspective and a fresh set of sensibilities for each movie. Each new Potter film explores different facets of this fantasy realm, meaning each movie in this “franchise” (like Ben I detest the use of that word in relation to movies, it makes them sound like fast food joints) follows the beat of its own creative drum. Chris Columbus chose to film every word of the books, hoping to lose nothing in translation. Alfonso Cuaron (the man behind the third flick) gave the enterprise a breezy energy, a magical feel, and kept the dark undercurrents of the story firmly in place.

I feel that the latest director, Mike Newell, does a decent job…but considering all the elements of this film and the way they must play out, I rather wish Cuaron had returned for this installment. The Dementors in “Prisoner of Azkaban” were creepier than anything in this movie (though I must admit the hedge maze in this film comes pretty close). “Goblet of Fire” was my favorite book of the series because it was action packed and, by far, the darkest story in the series up to this point. Newell does a great job with things like school dances, but he doesn’t have a grasp on the suspense necessary to make the more foreboding aspects of this tale work. Technically, the effects and the camera work are great. Truly great. It’s just that the events in this film should have more suspense behind them, more oomph. For that, I blame the rushed pacing. The movie breezes along so fast that the droll flavor of the Potter universe is sacrificed along the way. The movie doesn’t have time to dwell on the little nuances that give these stories such a special feel. It’s too busy getting Potter from one set piece to another. It’s quickly paced (it’s the shortest two and a half hour movie I’ve ever seen) but it’s somehow less fun than the others. There are a few, wonderful, small moments in the film (one of which is a wordless moment in a classroom involving Alan Rickman taking a scene by force) but not quite enough of them. There’s a reason that the original novel was seven hundred pages long: not because it has so many big things to cover, but because J.K. Rowling took care to include so many wondrous little touches to enhance this story. Without the little touches, it’s still a good flick…but it’s nowhere near as enchanting, pulse-pounding and sometimes nerve-wracking as the book. Rowling knows that the details are what sell the fantastic world she has created. Newell is so busy trying to cram all the major plot points in that he neglects all the little things that make this imaginative universe soar. So instead of the dark, daring story I loved in the novel…we get a sort of “Reader’s Digest Abridged” version of that story, with all the major points but little of the flavor that made it so delightful.

The effects and performances are great, particularly the work of Brendan Gleeson as “Mad-Eye” Moody; the new teacher at Hogwarts. Ralph Fiennes is also in the film, and he does well with what he can, but he’s hampered by the fact that the final portion of the film lacks the dark gravity that it should have. Miranda Richardson is pretty good as well, though the abridged version of the tale abandons the pay-off of her particular character. Still, the “Harry Potter” films seem to be fulfilling their obvious requirement to employ every single actor in Great Britain. (Michael Caine and Peter O’ Toole are the only people left for the Potter films to cast. But, in all fairness, Caine has been in every other movie made lately. He’s a machine, but even HE can’t be in literally everything. And as for O’Toole, I believe the filmmakers’ failure to cast him was sheer oversight. Perhaps they didn’t realize he was still alive.)

If the film had been another half hour longer (hell, another fifteen minutes might have done it) and had been blessed with a bit more weight and intensity, I would have liked it infinitely more. “Goblet of Fire” is my favorite of the Potter books, but it’s easily my least favorite of the movies. It’s not a bad movie, far from it, it’s just…well, the movie needs to slow down, breathe a little, take time for little details and to foster a bit more suspense. If Mike Newell had done that, he might really have had something here.

2005 / 93 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

This movie simply confirms something that has been on my mind for more than a year: replace “Communism” with “Terrorism” and we’re basically living in the 50’s. There will always be some senator or government official using people’s inherent fear of some alien and “evil” concept to make a name for themselves. Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter. Someone is always going to find a way to use fear and a bad situation to their own advantage.

In the ‘50’s, the main man doing this was Senator Joseph McCarthy, yet another lunatic from Wisconsin (man, we in America’s Dairyland have certainly produced our share of nutjobs). McCarthy claimed that there were Communists everywhere and that they had infiltrated the most important facets of American life: Hollywood, politics, the military, etc. Before he was exposed as an alcoholic, attention-grabbing loon, he inspired a witch-hunt atmosphere and ruined a couple of careers. One of the main men standing against McCarthy (and the hero of this film) was journalist Edward R. Murrow. Murrow risked his own reputation and engendered controversy by exposing McCarthy for the greedy, selfish jerk that he was. The how’s and why’s and what’s of this are explored in this film, George Clooney’s sophomore effort behind the camera.

I applaud Clooney in making this film, a film that is surprisingly timely and yet timeless all at once. As I said, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I believe our country will always be no more than a couple steps from making the same mistakes we nearly made in the era in which this film is set, and it’s always relevant to have a reminder of how things went, and how much worse they could have been if not for people willing to risk everything to tell the truth. Clooney makes bold points and powerful statements in this film, and he does so largely by sticking to the facts of the case and letting them speak for themselves. Murrow’s words are largely his own (so I’ve heard) and McCarthy is not being played by an actor, this is archive footage of the man himself. It’s a choice that works quite well.

The film rarely leaves the studio, showing us the claustrophobic, stressful, smoke-shrouded atmosphere of the CBS newsroom in all its fascinating glory. The subject matter is potent and the approach of the filmmakers is commendably straightforward. The actors are great as well. David Straithairn is perfect as Murrow. It’s definitely one of the best performances of the year, showing us that the man was brave but also illustrating that he was often pretty nervous about what he was doing. The man wasn’t, after all, Superman, just a journalist unwilling to compromise. (The awards speech which bookends this film hammers that point home quite eloquently.) The rest of the actors do a great job as well (from dependable players like Patricia Clarkson and Jeff Daniels to less dependable people like the leather-faced Frank Langella) but Straithairn is, rightfully, the standout here. Perhaps this is the performance that will make people finally remember him…but I’ve said that before about his fine work in things like “The Firm”, “The River Wild” and “Dolores Claiborne”. Maybe Straithairn will only ever be remembered by movie freaks like Jones and myself. Oh well. We still love you, Dave! The other real standout of the film is Ray Wise, as a beleaguered news anchor affected by this whole scandal. He’s another of those actors you’ve seen in tons of movies yet you’ve never really known his name. He’s good enough here that I’ll remember his name from now on.

Unfortunately, though it’s got an abundance of strengths, the movie isn’t without a couple flaws. For one thing, the film might be a bit too claustrophobic for its own good. The rest of the world seems not to exist here, which might be a mistake. Maybe it isn’t. I did find the movie a tad dry, however. It never seemed to breathe the way it should, and there is always a distance between this film and us in the audience. I felt the movie had a few too many jokes about the fact that everyone is smoking (it’s not THAT funny, guys). I also felt that the sporadic musical interludes throughout the film were a mistake. You see, every so often, the film grinds to a halt and allows us into the CBS recording studio in the same building. The woman singing in these segments is very good, but the movie still comes screeching to a stop whenever one of them dominates the screen. Another thing which distracted from the film was the sub-plot about Robert Downey Jr.’s character and his secret marriage to a co-worker (played by Patricia Clarkson, another great actor most people don’t know). This material wasn’t bad, not really, but it didn’t add anything to the movie.

My problems are largely nitpicks, sure. But a movie that’s only an hour and a half long and still feels overlong has got a couple of problems. I think everyone can agree on that. Still, the acting is great and the subject matter is compelling. The tale is relevant and I admire the straightforward manner in which it is told. Clooney has restrained himself from any showy theatrics and simply told a good story in a bare bones fashion. Still, I miss the technical finesse, quirky charm and bustling energy of his first film: “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”. There, I’m probably the only critic (ha, critics get paid) who prefers Clooney’s first turn behind the camera (most critics I’ve read are badmouthing that one in order to better heap praise on this one).

If a couple of things had been fine-tuned, this could be a great movie. As is, it’s simply a pretty good one.

By Ben Heckendorn

Yo yo Ben H here! A little known fact is that when I’m making building videogame crap or drinking MGD I am a soothsayer! That is, I can predict the future! Amazing, I know. So anyway, since this is a movie site I figured to use my powers to predict “The Top and Bottom Holiday Films of 2005!”

Being an uber-capitalist I don’t mean the best or worst. Nope, just which ones make the big bucks and which STEALTHFULLY flop away into the bargain bin. Why do this, you ask? Why not! When all’s said and done we can look back on this and laugh. Overall I think this holiday season will be pretty big, much better than summer. Of course pundits will attribute this to the now-lower gas prices but it’s the MOVIES themselves that make the difference. (I can see the headlines now: “People brave deadly BIRD FLU to see Harry Potter” What BS) Anyway, let’s get started, going in sort-of chronological order.

November 4th
CHICKEN LITTLE
AKA “Let’s throw away all our 2D animation stuff and do it all on computer now!” Disney Feature Animation Studios, Directed by the guy who did “Emperor’s New Groove” and starring the usual cast of TV and independent film actors.

WILL MAKE: $175 million US
Rating: SUCCESS

“Chicken Little” comes out this Friday and it’ll probably do pretty well. Not on its merits, mind you - it’s got to be the ugliest looking CGI film ever, and that’s a big feat considering I think most CGI films are already ugly. And not from the huge advertising budget either.

Nope, “Chicken Little” will be this year’s “JUMANJI”. (The funnest word to say in all history) See, I worked in a theatre when “JUMANJI” came out and it didn’t make money cause people wanted to see it. It made money because “Toy Story” was always sold out and people went to the next family-friendly poster they saw - “JUMANJI” - the “overflow film”.

Of course there’s no “Toy Story” this year, instead we have the TRUE 800-lb gorilla of the season “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” That movie will sell out faster than a lifeboat store on the “Titanic”. Everyone who arrives too late and gets turned away will go see “Chicken Little”. Guaranteed. Eisner probably knows this, but will say the film is a success because the studio “went 3D, and that’s what the people wanted”.

November 9th
Get Rich or Die Tryin’
AKA “Hey that 8-Mile movie made a bunch of money!”
Starring: Some rapper whose name involves money, ice or the letter T. (shrug)

WILL MAKE: $30-$50 million US
Rating: Bleh

Naturally they’re going for the “8 Mile” ripoff with this one, but I don’t think anyone will really care. I’m not a hip-hop expert but I’m pretty sure M&M (screw his real name, or how to spell the fake one) is, and was, a LOT more popular than this 50 cent piece dude. But of course they probably got this sucka in the can for 20 mill (or 20,000 G’s) so they’re pretty much assured of not going broke. Or dyin’ tryin’.

November 11th
Zathura
AKA “JUMANJI 2 – Electric Boogaloo”
Starring: Some kids, outer space, robots. Released by Sony “We’re reverting to the kind of shit we released in the early 90’s” Pictures (Columbia)

WILL MAKE: $35-$50 million US
Rating: BOMB (based off expense of film)

Who gives a fuck about this movie? It’s been 10 years since JUMANJI, and they’re trying to say this is part of the (bleh) “franchise” I hate movie franchises. Or the term at least. Movies are supposed to be about art. Franchises are about selling shitty hamburgers.

Anyway, same plot as Jumanji but the “spillovers” from Harry Potter and the Cash Cow of Doom will go to “Chicken Little” instead since its ad budget appears to be 100 times that of Zathura. Plus it’s easier for kids to say “Chick N Lit Tul” than this phonetic abortion.

Who the hell calls a movie “Zathura”? It’s hard to say, isn’t fun to say, and sounds like a character from Olivia Newton John’s “Xanadu” or “Legend”. “JUMANJI”, while a bullshit word, was at least easy to remember and of course, really fun to say. Try yelling out “JUMANJI!” at the top of your lungs some time, you’ll have a blast.

The title IS important, Hollywood. You’d be surprised how many people pick which movie they’ll see by just going to the theatre and looking at the posters. Do some research on that once, and you’ll realize people probably think the following when they see some titles:

“The Constant Gardener” – a Martha Stewart movie?
“Jarhead” – somebody who cans a lot of fruit?
“Aeon Flux” – a paste that helps you solder?

November 18th
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
AKA “All your money are belong to us”
Starring: The Harry Potter gang. Released by Warner Brothers.

WILL MAKE: $350-$400 million US
Rating: UBER-SMASH HIT of 2005

Harry Potter 4 is going to make so much money it’s not even funny. Utter shit-loads. Titanic-loads. Something to think about is “Goblet of Fire” was the book released in 2000, when the Potter phenomenon really took off, so it’s the one everyone remembers. (And supposedly the best, but I wouldn’t know, shucks, I don’t do much book readin’).

I don’t know what else to really say. It’ll be the biggest hit of the year, trouncing Star Wars, and probably one of the biggest hits of all time. The kids will all flock to it, and the adult readers, who would flock to it anyway, will flock even faster since it’s rated PG-13. Oh I know what to say while I’m hear. I am quite sick of would-be pedophiles who go on and on about how hot Emma Waston will someday be. Ug! I guess with the Olsen Skanks turning 18 somebody had to be the “next big thing” Just watch, 5 years from now we’ll see Emma Waston in “Aeon Flux 2” or “20 Things I Hate About You” Then her career will promptly vanish and she’ll be reduced to Sci-Fi channel original pictures or an extra on Stargate: Atlantis SVU.

November 18th
Walk The Line
AKA “That Ray movie was well-received, let’s find another dead singer to exploit”
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon and some other people. Released by 20th Century Fox

WILL MAKE: $40-$60 million cash US
Rating: Eh.

Actresses have it easy – when they want an Oscar all they have to die is take off their shirt. Actors on the other hand must always play dead famous people, preferably ones with mental defects. Thus Joaquin Phoenix pines for an Oscar with “Walk The Line”, a movie about the life of Johnny Cash.

I dunno – I’m not to hot on obvious Oscar-grab movies. I like Cash and all but I don’t give a rat’s ass about this movie. Now a “How Cameron Met Paxton” movie – THAT I’d see.

November 23rd
Rent
AKA “Hey we’re only 3 years behind Chicago!”
Starring: A bunch of people who sing I guess. Directed by… Chris Columbus? Released by Sony “Bombs R Us” Pictures

WILL MAKE: $20-$40 million cash US
Rating: Cheap bomb (dirty bomb?)

I actually like musicals a lot but I don’t care about this thing. My feeling is nobody else will too, or they’ll go see “The Producers” instead. There’s no star power as with “Chicago” and I have a feeling it just won’t be as good, so no word of mouth. Damn sell your Sony stock NOW!

December 2nd
Aeon Flux
AKA Zit on the ass of Cameron’s upcoming Battle Angel Alita
Starring: Charlize Theron. Directed by… oh probably some music video director. Released by (please don’t be Sony…) THANK GOD! Paramount Pictures.

WILL MAKE: $10-$20 million cash US
Rating: NUCLEAR BOMB

I’ll be upfront you with – I am going to this movie. Jones and I have already decided this will be the first official “in theatre” Shitty Movie Night. Plus he’s a Charlize fan and apparently has actually SEEN the old Aeon Flux show on MTV. But on to why they made this…

How much crack do these execs smoke? I mean really? “Let’s make an expensive sci-fi movie based off a 10 year old MTV show that ran for 1 season” Oh fucking BRILLIANT. Even the uber-popular “Beavis and Butthead” show didn’t translate into big box office bucks, and they actually released the film close enough to the show to be relevant.

Of course what do I know? Maybe it’s policy to make X number of bombs per year to wipe out the profits from successful films. I mean, as long as everyone gets paid on a film who cares if it makes money? Too bad real life isn’t like that. “I will spend 100 grand on a house and sell it for 35 grand, and that’s FINE!” Sheesh.

Final thing – Charlize Theron. OK she won her Oscar using the OTHER method for actresses (extreme weight change) but still. Why does every actress immediately make SHIT after winning an Oscar? Oh right, the money. A short list to make you cry:

Mira Sorvino – “Mighty Aphrodite”, then “Replacement Killers” and “MIMIC”
Angelina Jolie – “Girl, Interrupted”, then “TOMB RAIDER”
Halle Berry – “Monster’s Ball”, then, ug, “CATWOMAN”.
Nicole Kidman – “The Hours”, then THE STEPFORD FUCKING WIVES

And I’m sure Hillary Swank is reading the script for “Pong: The Movie” as we speak.

December 9th
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
(Longest title since “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”)
Starring: A bunch of kids, a lion, a witch and get this – a wardrobe!. Directed by Andrew Adamson. Released by Disney.

WILL MAKE: $150-$200 million US (possibly even more)
Rating: HIT

I think I actually read this book like a zillion years ago. I can’t remember what happened, but it seems like it was a fairly popular tale. Kind of for kids I think. Anyway this is Disney’s knee-jerk slap themselves in the face reaction for passing on “Lord of the Rings” and I think they’ll do OK with it. By the time it comes out everyone will have already seen “Harry Potter” 16 times so it’ll have room to breathe.

Supposedly this movie has a Christian undercurrent to it – I can’t recall. That won’t hurt the box office, if anything it’ll help. I mean, “Passion of the Christ” anyone? I think people are possibly getting a little sick of the agnostic or evolutionist approach in most films, or the fact if God is used at all it’s just in passing or from the “religious nut” character. I mean, I actually think a “Ten Commandments” remake would be a huge, huge hit. Maybe I’m wrong. But I bet “Chronicles” proves me right. To paraphrase Wesley Snipes: “Always bet on God!”

December 14th
King Kong
Starring: Naomi “I was in Tank Girl” Watts, Jack Black and a big CGI ape. Directed by Peter Jackson. Released by Universal.

WILL MAKE: $150-$200 million US (tops)
Rating: DISAPPOINTMENT

Mark my words now – this will be the sure-fire “big disappointment” of the season. Sure it’ll make money, but with a cost of over $200 million, not counting advertising, it’ll fall short of what they want. I’m sure it’ll be interesting, have good effects, blah blah blah, but I just don’t think people will care. Really all it has going for it is “from the director of Lord of the Rings”.

In 1933 King Kong was something filmgoers had never seen before. The 1976 remake was pretty cheesy but it did OK, despite the flood of “disaster” films it was released during. Now we have Kong 2005.

The problem here is we’ve all seen “Jurassic Park”, which set the standard for all the “run away from the monster” movies that have come since. And these movies are always the same: A monster is on the loose/attacks. People are not directly killed by it, or it is shown off-camera. Lots of cars are thrown around. The monster attacks or is seen near well-known landmarks. Most of the action involves people “jumping out of the way” of things. (falling cars, girders, electrical lines) Again nobody thinks to, oh I don’t know, SHOOT the bad creatures.

This same kind of conflict-less bland crap is evident in the Kong 2005 trailer. Actually, half that trailer is about them finding Naomi Watts and her walking onto a ship, so we may be in more trouble than we think (or the effects weren’t ready, a more likely scenario) The “people making a movie within a movie” thing never works, it always comes off as phony and pretentious. (Plus making movies is actually extremely boring and monotonous) It only really worked in “Ed Wood” since that’s what the movie was about rather than just a scene or two.

Maybe I’ll be wrong and this film will rock. But I’m not a Peter Jackson fanboy so I won’t believe it til I see it. I just have this feeling this movie is just going to be seen as another “monster on the loose” flick by most people. I mean, in 1998, even with the amazing duo of Bill Paxton and Charlize Theron “Mighty Joe Young” didn’t do squat. (Paxton: “Oh shit! A giant monkey! Game over man!”) We’ll see if people go ape-shit for this or not.

December 14th
Diary of a Japanese Hooker
Starring: A bunch of people. Directed by Rob Marshall. Released by Dreamworks.

WILL MAKE: $100-$150 million US
Rating: SUCCESS

I didn’t read this book of course. Seems like Spielberg was gonna do this flick for the longest time (just like Indy 4) but now Rob “Chicago” Marshall is taking a whack at it. He’ll probably whack it out of the park.

I think it’ll make money because 1) it was a book 2) it’ll have that “Dances with Wolves” meets “Bridges of Madison County” meets “The Last Samurai” thing going 3) it seems like an “important” film that people will check out. The older crowd will see it, and they’re the SECRET WEAPON of smash hits (cough cough “Titanic”).

December 16th
The Producers
Starring: Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, the Kill Bill chick. Directed by… beats me… Not Mel Brooks, I know that. Released by Universal.

WILL MAKE: $50-$100 million US
Rating: Eh.

I haven’t seen the original movie or the new stage play. But it’s cool Mel Brooks is still kicking out stuff. Anyway, what to say about this… It won’t be a “Chicago” sized hit, but maybe close. Will knock out Rent with the electric bill to spare. Again the “play within a play within a movie” thing is always kind of confusing. Sure it works on Broadway but that’s Broadway, we’re talking about a theatrical release here. It’ll do alright, but it’s certainly not the next “Sound of Music”.

December 23rd
Munich
Starring: Eric Bana and the New Bond. Directed by Steven “The Kids Can Never Die!” Spielberg. Released by Universal.

WILL MAKE: $100-$150 million US
Rating: SUCCESS

Here’s the controversial movie of the year! (or so they say) Apparently this is about some assassins and the 1972 Olympics. I don’t know much more than that, but it involves 1) terrorism 2) past events 3) Steven Spielberg so it’s guaranteed to be a hit. People will go just to see it as it’ll likely raise a lot of questions and debate. Let’s just hope it has more balls than “War of the Worlds” and its “resurrected from the dead” Tom Cruise’s son.

Well there you have it. My (sort of) complete list of box office hits and misses. This list is surely so accurate you can buy or sell stock of studios right now! Your profit margins will be amazing! Have fun and see you at the movies!

2005 / 145 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I didn’t think he was still capable of it, but today Ridley Scott managed to blow me away.

I didn’t see “Kingdom of Heaven” in the theater. Judging by the film’s box office returns, I was not alone. People stayed away from this film in droves. It was yet another sword and sandal epic. It starred Orlando Bloom (like most of the other sword and sandal epics have lately). It looked long (really it’s not as long as “Batman Begins”, but for some reason it just looked like it was gonna suck away at least three hours of one’s life). It didn’t have any particular hook (from its lackluster ad campaign, anyway). It was directed by Ridley Scott, and we all assumed that, having already made “Gladiator”, he had already said everything interesting he had to say in this genre. And it came on the heels of “Alexander”, which was an absolutely terrible example of this kind of film. After sitting- no, agonizing- through “Alexander” I (for one) was done with this type of movie pretty much forever. Simply put: as a filmgoing public, we were tired of “Kingdom of Heaven” before it even came out. We hadn’t seen it, but it just felt like we had. Those are the reasons I stayed away, anyway.

But damn was I wrong. And so, probably, were you.

“Kingdom of Heaven” distinguishes itself from all the other sword and sandal flicks for one great reason: it’s the only one that’s truly relevant to events in the world today. Think about it: it’s about Christians fighting Muslims in the Middle East, in a war that is basically being fought to make rich people richer and bring more power to the people with power. If that doesn’t sound pertinent, then you haven’t been paying much attention to the news for the past decade or so.

For one thing, Ridley’s direction is great. He plays with some big themes here, and he emphasizes them just enough to make them interesting without getting preachy. His work with color and mood are as good as ever. He makes this time period rich and immediate and gorgeous to the eye. He stages the battles and fights with a clear eye and without muddying them up with the sort of incoherent choreography that undermines so many films of this type…including, I must say, “Gladiator”. I always knew what was going on at every moment in every one of these fights, though he still conveys it in frantic style that makes you feel like you’re actually there on the sidelines. It’s one of the few examples I can think of where this style of fight choreography actually works (“Saving Private Ryan” is another). The style of the film is totally Ridley’s and it works better than it has in years. Sure, I liked “Matchstick Men”, but that was a small, character-driven film. It wasn’t the sort of vast spectacle he’s conveying here. Ridley’s command of spectacle is better here than it has perhaps ever been. He creates all the spectacle and makes it truly spectacular without ever sacrificing the nuances of his characters or the points he is trying to make. He allows enough time for the political and religious machinations behind these events (and the ramifications of them) without sacrificing a moment of the glorious action. He devotes enough time to the characters but not so much that the film grinds to a halt while these characters are established. It’s not perfect (there are a few too many shots of large armies toting large banners that are waving in the wind in slow motion) but it’s astonishingly effective.

I love that the film actually has a lot to say about topics as large as War, Religion, personal morality, national morality, politics and even Love. Ridley takes the Crusades and uses the subject to explore issues that still drive men and nations to this very day. After all, as the film’s end credits say, “To this very day, peace in the kingdom of heaven remains elusive”. Ridley actually seems keen on exploring the sort of issues that have made the Middle East such a quagmire for centuries. He and screenwriter William Monahan treat both sides of this conflict with respect and illustrate the motivations driving men on either side. They delve deeply into characters that are surprisingly three dimensional for a big, summer war epic. Orlando Bloom’s character, for instance, is a meaty creation and Orlando does a damn good job of bringing him to life. At the beginning of the film, Orlando’s character has lost a wife and child to suicide. His father and a priest tell him that fighting against the heathens that have taken control of Jerusalem may be the only way that he can redeem himself and rescue his family from the torment of Hell. Orlando goes to war because there is nothing left for him at home, to rescue the soul of his dead wife, and to better understand God. These are fascinating motives, they’re certainly better than the usual Love or Revenge plot that fuels most of these films. Even as he gains respect on the battlefield and the love of a princess, his morals haunt him. His every choice is given an added weight as he grapples with doing the right thing, even when it may not be easy or even the best thing for everyone involved.

The rest of the cast deserves accolades as well. Liam Neeson is great as Orlando’s warrior father, who teaches him not only how to fight but something of the virtues that define nobility. David Thewlis lends great support in his small role and Jeremy Irons makes the most of one of the best roles he’s gotten in quite some time. After dreck like “Dungeons and Dragons”, I’m sure Irons was famished for something this meaty. Edward Norton is little more than a voice here, but he still fleshes out a character that is literally without a face. Marton Csokas and Brendan Gleeson are great as the sort of power-hungry bastards you just love to hate. Ghassan Massoud gives a great, charismatic performance as a Muslim warlord (a performance brimming with soul and humanity). And Eva Green, while not the most complex character of the piece, still makes her princess something more than just a pretty face or a damsel in distress. (And she shows that a female character can have strength without wielding a sword or a bow.)

If anything, the film moves a bit too briskly. I understand that Ridley was forced to make a lot of cuts and trim a lot to get the film short enough to appease the studio. While I really like this cut of the film, I am very interested in seeing Ridley’s original vision. So many moments of this film could use a little more fleshing out, a little more time to develop into something even deeper. Perhaps Ridley’s original cut allowed such fine developments. I don’t know. All I do know is that while the film is well and briskly paced, it could have used a little breathing room. But that’s a minor nitpick. It’s never a bad thing when a movie leaves you wanting more.

The acting is great, the story and dialogue are intriguing, the direction is steady and assured and the messages of the film are important ones. This movie is so much better than Scott’s previous sword and sandal foray: “Gladiator”. “Gladiator” could have made interesting points about how governments since the beginning of time have relied on spectacle and entertainment as a way to distract the masses, but instead it was nothing more than a bloody revenge drama with some good acting. “Kingdom of Heaven” is so much more than that. Those expecting bloody, violent battles will be satisfied. But they might end up with a few things to think about as well.

It’s not quite “Ben-Hur” or “Lawrence of Arabia”, but it’s closer than films like “Gladiator” and especially “Alexander”. And it’s the only movie in Ridley Scott’s recent filmography that deserves to stand on a plateau with “Alien” and “Blade Runner”.

2005 / 123 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Elizabethtown” is all about love and death and looking to the future. It’s about last looks and first kisses and funerals and unruly children. In short, it’s about Life, with a capital “L”. It may very well be director Cameron Crowe’s worst film, but it’s still worth three fists. If anything, that’s a testament to Crowe’s particular genius.

“Elizabethtown” is essentially the story of Drew Baylor. Drew has distanced himself from his family to concentrate on designing a sneaker. This sneaker has been released to great fanfare and hype and the movie begins with several semis filled with these shoes returning to the factory. Drew has orchestrated a massive, billion-dollar failure. Everyone in his office looks at him as though he is a leper. His boss Phil (Alec Baldwin, once again showing up to deliver a stunning cameo as he did in “Glengarry Glen Ross”) tries to be as gentle as possible, but the results are still devastating. The situation obviously demands someone’s head on a platter, and Drew’s head seems to be the perfect fit. Coming in the midst of all this, the death of Drew’s father in a small Kentucky town seems more like a mere annoyance than the life-shattering event it might otherwise have been. Drew has been nominated by his unstable, overcompensating mother (Susan Sarandon) and his insecure sister (Judy Greer) to make the trip to this town and bring his father’s ashes home. On the way, he meets an almost insufferably perky stewardess on a ridiculously empty red-eye flight (she’s played by Kirsten Dunst).

Just from that description, you might be able to see the film’s problem. It’s pulling itself in too many directions. Yet, even with all these threads competing for the viewer’s attention, Crowe has a tendency to make too many scenes wear out their welcome by going on entirely too long. Actually, as I think back on the film, I’d say that pretty much every scene goes on at least one minute too long. Crowe’s strengths have always been in dialogue and character. Admittedly, these are two of my favorite things about most of my favorite movies, and I’ve loved Crowe a long time simply for his craftsmanship with such things. He tends to make emotional, beautifully conceived movies about characters going through emotional crises, though when he brought his distinctive sensibilities to the sci-fi thriller genre with “Vanilla Sky”, I found the result to be an impressive achievement. Still, Cameron’s forte seems to be these nearly existential meditations on life and love. “Elizabethtown” has all the right ingredients to be a film on par with his great work on “Jerry Maguire” and “Almost Famous”, it just doesn’t seem to know exactly how to combine these ingredients, or in what proportions. Some of the dialogue is a bit too cute or schmaltzy (and some of it sounds like nothing an actual human being would ever say) and so are some of the situations. And the road trip at the end goes on too long, has too many points it’s trying to make, and seems a bit preposterous. Susan Sarandon’s big scene also works better in theory than it does in practice. I appreciate what Cameron was trying to convey there, I just don’t think a boner joke and some rambling anecdotes are the proper way to get it done.

“So why the hell are you giving this film such a high grade?” you’re probably wondering right about now. Because, though it is a largely unfocused mess, it’s a clearly heartfelt mess. Cameron makes a lot of good points and has a lot to say, even if he doesn’t say it perfectly (or even exceptionally well). He seems to be working his ass off to make a point here and, even though he isn’t all that successful, he exposes more human truths on accident than most filmmakers do on purpose. There are a lot of moments in this film that will have you nodding your head in emotional recognition. His choices of music for the background of the film aren’t as good as his usual choices (again, the use of a mostly forgotten Elton John tune has more emotional resonance than any of the others, and the choice of one particular U2 song feels just a tad too obvious) but they still fill in a few emotional gaps. He gets legitimately great performances out of Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst (I hadn’t held out much hope for either of them in this, but they won me over…especially Orlando, who finally uses those striking blue eyes as a window into the soul of his character) and uses supporting actors like Paul Schneider, Loudon Wainwright, Gailard Sartain and Bruce McGill to their fullest potential.

It’s sloppy and occasionally frustrating, but it’s still a Cameron Crowe film. I can’t explain exactly what it is about a Crowe film, but when you’re watching one you just get this feeling that you don’t get watching anyone else’s work. I can’t describe that feeling, but if you’re the sort of person who watches “Almost Famous” or “Jerry Maguire” or “Say Anything” with any regularity, I think you know what I’m talking about. The movie’s not great, but “Elizabethtown” is sincere and funny and emotionally honest.

2005 / 123 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

Short review: Watch Tim Burton’s “Big Fish” instead.

Slightly longer review:

I liked “Jerry Maguire” (only watched it once though), thought “Almost Famous” was pretty good. “Vanilla Sky” was cool and weird and somehow made over $100 million despite the fact it musta confused the hell outta most audiences. So yeah then I’d have to say “Elizabethtown” is the least of the Cameron Crowe films I’ve seen.

Here’s the plot: Legolas (I mean Orlando Bloom) loses his company a billion dollars and is about to kill himself when he gets a phone call from his sister saying his dad is dead. So he goes to – get this – ELIZABETHTOWN (we have a title!) to get his body and bring it back home to Oregon.

(Note: This movie does get points for having a “young hip designer” character but NOT having them live in New York like every other film)

So of course the big thing is a romance between him and flight attendant Kirsten Dunst, star of “Spider-man” and “JUMANJI”! (Must always be written in all caps) They get to “meet cute” on the emptiest airplane I have ever seen. Let me clarify. Just a couple days ago I was on a flight from Dallas to Madison that was maybe 1/3 full and I thought “This is the emptiest airplane I have ever seen” But that record was SHATTERED by this movie as Orlando Bloom is the only person in the entire coach section. So they give him a seat in First Class, which itself maybe contains 3 people.

See, this is the kind of hokey romance bullshit I don’t like. The only way to get a flight attendant to talk to a character long enough for them to connect is to have the plane completely empty. On top of that, even though she’s not the bes