2005 / 119 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Right off the bat let me confess something: I am a browncoat. For those of you who are uninitiated, that means I’m a fan of the television series “Firefly”, which is the series this film has sprung from. I’ve been a fan since, oh, July. So in the grand scheme of things, I’m a Johnny Come Lately to this TV series, which had a brief run on the Fox network in the late months of 2002. I remember watching one episode while unpacking boxes after I first moved to Madison (and, yes, most of those boxes did contain DVDs). I liked that episode, and then promptly forgot about it till hearing that they were making a show that lasted only fourteen episodes (only eleven of which were actually televised) into a major motion picture. The only other times a cancelled TV show has made the leap to the big screen were a) “Star Trek” and b) “Police Squad”, which became the movie “The Naked Gun”. So this whole phenomenon is not unprecedented, but it is rare. I guess that has something to do with the pedigree of the man who created the series, and wrote and directed this film: Joss Whedon. Joss made the “Buffy” and “Angel” shows (which you probably already know) and I was not a gigantic fan of either of those series. But when I started watching “Firefly”, I really loved it. I connected instantly with the characters and I really dug the whole universe that Whedon created for the show (and this movie). Also, unlike “Buffy” and “Angel”, this show had barely any cheese in it.

Why do I mention all this? Two reasons. First of all, I would just like to reiterate what a geek I truly am. I waited in line for a midnight screening of a film based on a sci-fi series that only lasted eleven televised episodes and I didn’t get into that show until buying it (having only seen one episode) on DVD. (I think we can all agree that’s pretty geeky, and not very logical.) Second of all, I already liked the “Firefly/ Serenity” universe. I already cared about these characters and dug these fictional stomping grounds. I guess what I’m trying to say is this: I’m probably not the least biased of reviewers.

For all the non-browncoats out there, here’s the basic idea of “Serenity”. It’s five hundred years in the future and the human race has outgrown Earth. We’ve moved on to a completely different galaxy, terra-formed the planets and moons therein, and established a new solar system and a new government known as The Alliance, which controls and regulates pretty much everything on these planets. On the edge of this solar system, roving like a pack of hungry wolves, are a race of bloodthirsty cannibals known as Reavers. According to legend, the Reavers were men who went mad at the edge of space. A few years back, The Alliance was challenged by a faction known as The Independents (otherwise known as The Browncoats) who were basically like The Confederacy without the slave-owning. The Browncoats lost and now one of them, a captain by the name of Malcolm Reynolds, cruises the cosmos under the Alliance radar doing odd and mostly illegal jobs. Along the line he has picked up two fugitives that the Alliance is quite keen on recapturing: a telepathic, spooky girl named River Tam (Summer Glau) and her doctor brother Simon (Sean Maher). A new Alliance operative (Chiwetel Eijiofor, who really should choose a stage name) has taken on the task of tracking River down as the movie opens. For the rest of the film, Mal (the charismatic Nathan Fillion) and his crew of brigands are doing their best to defend River from this assassin and discover what, exactly, the government is so eager to kill her for.

I’ve seen this movie twice already and while I did love the show, I think I love this movie more. Without knowing anything about the “Firefly” universe, you should come to love the main characters within the first fifteen minutes. They’re just good, well-written characters that are tremendously easy to like. Hell, even the film’s psychopath is a character you appreciate and want to know more about. He’s got more dimensions than the average cinematic psycho. So when the shit starts hitting the fan about halfway through and the characters get placed in jeopardy, it puts you on the edge of your seat. The best science fiction remembers that it’s a compelling plot and good characters that make for great entertainment, and “Serenity” is brilliant in that regard. The special effects are often not up to “Star Wars” caliber, but I guarantee you won’t even give a shit. The whole government conspiracy plot plays out magnificently, and these are characters I am happy to follow to the ends of the universe, characters whose perils put me through the wringer. In fact, I hope this film does well. It left me wanting more. In that regard, it reminds me of the original “Star Wars” trilogy. And, like that trilogy, “Serenity” succeeds because its characters are not scientists or high-minded military men exploring a new frontier: they’re outlaws taking whatever job they can get to keep food on the table and gas in the tanks. And when people like this find something worth fighting for and decide to risk everything for something noble…well, that’s pretty damned interesting, as far as I’m concerned.

I love the plot and I love the characters, and both combine to make this one of the most emotionally wrenching and suspenseful films I’ve seen in a long, long time. It’s a lesson more hollow Hollywood blockbusters would do well to learn. The film has a gritty, lived-in look that reminded me of the “Alien” films. It’s not one of those sci-fi films where everything looks pristine and new. Also, every member of the cast (none of them are all that well known) give everything they’ve got to these roles. This is clearly a labor of love for the actors as well as the crew, and that love spills over into the audience. In my opinion, this is the best, non-“Star Wars”, science fiction film since “The Matrix”, and it’s definitely one of the most fun EVER. Unlike most sci-fi, the “Firefly” universe has a simple, human message and a lot of heart behind it. That is what ultimately distinguishes the film and the series. And the movie never feels like just a long episode of the show. It is epic both in idea and plot (and in terms of scope).

I don’t know if the average viewer will appreciate it, but a couple of the people I convinced to go along with me loved this movie, and they’d only seen bits and pieces of the original show. An appreciation of the show might add some depth to the movie, but it’s far from mandatory. The film does a great job of setting everything you need to know up within the first five minutes, and investing you emotionally in the characters in the ten minutes shortly thereafter. After that, I’m fairly confident that everyone in the audience will be sucked in as efficiently as I was. All things aside, this is simply a damn good movie. Joss Whedon has never done anything better.

This year has been short on movies that I’ve legitimately loved, but I really loved this one. Give it a chance. You might love it too.

2005 / 116 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I expected nothing more of “The 40 Year Old Virgin” than a one-joke premise about a guy with an inability to get laid and a possible obsession with Star Trek (seems only natural) and the film’s ad campaign didn’t really give me a reason to expect anything more. But I like Steve Carell (if only for his fine work on “The Daily Show” and his hilarious turn as a retarded weatherman in the movie “Anchorman”) and I was starved for entertainment one weekend, so I found myself in line to see it. And, much to my surprise, it’s pretty damned good.

Steve Carell is the virgin of the title. He’s a terminally dorky man whose apartment is filled with action figures, most of which are still in their original packaging. Unfortunately, so is his penis. Over an illicit game of late-night poker, he inadvertently lets it slip that he has never had sex. His co-workers, of course, have a field day with this. They also make it their mission in life to rectify this situation. The rest of the movie has his work buddies giving him all sorts of (mostly bad) advice meant to ingratiate him to the fairer sex. Meanwhile, he strikes up a sweet and predominantly chaste relationship with a single mother who sells other people’s merchandise on Ebay. That’s really all there is in the way of a plot here, but it’s more than enough to make the film an entertaining romp.

For one thing, Carell is great. He gives a star-making performance here that has more levels to it than the previously suspected, one-note, dorky-guy-who-can’t-get-laid routine. Andy is a legitimately nice guy with enough morals to keep him from just having sex with the first woman to cross his path. He seems to want more out of a relationship than just meaningless sex, which makes him a sweet and winning character rather than a lame characterization. The filmmakers and Carell have developed Andy nicely, and the result is that we in the audience have a rooting interest in him. We want him to succeed, and yet we still laugh at the predicaments that he somehow gets himself into, like an ill-advised night with a frequently drunk girl and a regrettable afternoon of speed-dating.

The supporting actors all do a great job as well. Paul Rudd is hilarious as a guy obsessed with a three-month relationship he had a couple of years ago (he really isn’t any less pathetic than Andy). Romany Malco takes what might have been the standard playah caricature and imbues him with some interesting and human layers (while sacrificing none of the inherent hilarity). And Seth Rogen is great as a stoner with some odd dating advice. They’re the ones trying to get Andy laid (Malco’s character says it best when he proclaims “from now on, your dick is my dick”) and it’s interesting that these characters actually seem to learn more from Andy about being good people than Andy learns about being successful at the dating scene. For all its sex jokes (and there are plenty, most of them hilarious) this is a surprisingly sweet natured movie. Unlike “The Wedding Crashers”, a raunchy comedy that was torpedoed by a lame romantic subplot that was shoehorned in, “The 40 Year Old Virgin” has laughs and a heart, and juggles both expertly. Catherine Keener gives a sweet and sexy performance as the object of Andy’s affection, and the scenes involving their clumsy courtship work well as comedy and pathos.

The writing and direction are great and all the elements of the film gel really nicely. It’s not a perfect comedy: a couple of jokes are too off color for their own good, and one or two just don’t work, and the Indian characters are basically just funny stereotypes. But the plot and most of the characters are great, the laughs are very strong, and it’s got a heart. In a weak summer, “The 40 Year Old Virgin” is a refreshing surprise that should make Carell a breakout star on the same level as Will Ferrell. Hell, I think he’s a better actor, and he definitely stole “Anchorman” out from under the man. All things considered, “The 40 Year Old Virgin” is one of the best films of the year. And it’s definitely the funniest.

2005 / 118 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Terry Gilliam’s films are sometimes a mess, but at least they’re usually entertaining and visually stunning messes. I cite “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” as a perfect example. Say what you will, but it’s not a great movie. It isn’t. Seriously, I’m sorry to break this to you. But it is a mesmerizing film that I’ve watched several times, despite its ample flaws (which have grown less distracting with each viewing). The plot is a mess. In fact, there really isn’t much of a plot. That’s not really the point of “Fear and Loathing”. It does, however, have great visual style and an amazing, oddball performance by Johnny Depp (one of his best, in fact) and it’s one of the few films about drugs that actually makes you feel like you’re on drugs when you watch it, even if you do so utterly stone sober. Still, I think even its biggest supporters will have to admit it’s something of a mess. “Brazil” was a brilliant film, probably Gilliam’s finest and most thought-provoking work, but even “Brazil” isn’t put together as well as it could be. Gilliam is prone to flights of fancy and a bit too enamored of his own visual flair, and that rarely denotes a tightly scripted and paced film. The only real exception in Gilliam’s repertoire is “The Twelve Monkeys”. Now that was a tightly scripted film which still allowed Gilliam to frolic with some impressive visuals (it also had great performances by Madeline Stowe, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt). Terry showed a modicum of restraint on that one. Then again, maybe the script was so good that even Terry wanted to do it justice.

With “The Brothers Grimm” Terry, for perhaps the first time, seems to be earnestly trying to make a mainstream film. Maybe he wants to make a ton of money and finally get his “Don Quixote” film off the ground. Who knows? The problem is that Terry has never, NEVER made a mainstream film in his life. “Twelve Monkeys” was probably the closest he’s ever come to it, but it was a little too dark and complex to be considered “mainstream”. “The Brothers Grimm” should appeal to the average moviegoer more than anything he’s made since “Time Bandits”, and while sitting through it is not quite the chore that sitting through “Time Bandits” was, it’s by no means a successful film. There are moments of inspiration and whimsy, but they are mired in a dense forest of failed jokes, lifeless action sequences, and boring would-be spectacle.

But before I put the cart entirely ahead of the horse, let me break down the plot for you. The Brothers Grimm (Matt Damon and Heath Ledger) of the title are wandering con men, pretending to vanquish supernatural foes and phenomena in every town they breeze into. When the Napoleonic forces of France take over Eastern Europe, however, a French general (Jonathan Pryce) and his bumbling lieutenant (Peter Stormare) capture the Grimms and force them to retrieve a group of young girls kidnapped in a nearby, German village. Soon the Grimms discover that there are actual supernatural phenomena afoot in this town and they must now step up and be heroes if they want to remain free. It’s a promising enough premise, but it’s been given little embellishment by screenwriter Ehren Kruger (who also wrote “The Ring” and “Arlington Road”). The plot of the film is actually a fairly good one, but the movie takes too many side roads and stops at the expense of too many thrills that aren’t thrilling and jokes that aren’t funny. Instead of focusing on what, in the end, turns out to be a decent story, the movie’s script just keeps taking its characters out of an enchanted forest, then putting them back into it, then having them captured by authorities, and then repeating all these events over and over and over again. Seriously, that’s the entire plot this flick has.

Damon and Ledger do their best with the thin characters they’ve been given, but after a promising start, they become nothing more than cardboard cutouts at the service of a plot that becomes overly convoluted in the service of a movie that is absurd and boring where it should be magical and enchanting. Pryce and Stormare seem to compensate for their boring characters by making their own as outlandish as humanly possible. Thank God the scenery is so good, because Pete and Jonathan seem to be ravenous, pushing their French caricatures to annoying extremes. The main goal of the film seems to be bashing the French, a pastime already done to death in so many other venues, in interminable interludes which I suspect were meant to be wacky.

The actors are wasted across the board, as are the special effects (few of which are all that special) and the cool, wannabe-Burton sets of the German town and surrounding forests. Not only that, but there’s a CGI werewolf in this film, and those ALWAYS piss me off. Only at the end of the film does the plot really float to the surface, and by then it’s too little too late. The rest of the film is nothing more than a series of lame French jokes and child abductions, some of which are disturbingly incongruous to the film’s tone. It’s the film’s tone, in fact, that proves its major weakness. It’s all over the map, as if the movie can’t decide whether to be a fun romp or a scary picture or a political satire for the Napoleonic era. In the end, it ends up being nothing but hollow. The Brothers Grimm are reduced to nothing more than half-assed, Napoleonic Ghostbusters without wit or flair…or any other identifiable commodity. The same goes for the movie, which is like a poor man’s Tim Burton film where it should be a big, messy, interesting Gilliam flick. I don’t know if this is actually the case, but it feels like Terry Gilliam compromised his aesthetics to produce a film he felt would be a crowd-pleaser…and still ended up with nothing. Gilliam’s films are usually a mess, but they’re generally more exciting than this.

For all its bizarre moments and gorgeous production design, “The Brothers Grimm” is strangely lifeless and uninspired.

By Dale Nauertz

Hello friends and neighbors. It’s that time of year again. The time when I enlighten all of you as to the few films yet to arrive in the remaining months of the year that I actually care to see. Last year, you may remember (and if not, you can look last year’s installment up in the Essays section of the site) there wasn’t anything that I was really frothing at the mouth to check out (“The Life Aquatic” was the top of that list by default) but I managed to scare up ten movies all the same. This year is more of the same. Though, I must admit, I am chomping at the bit to see a couple of these. I’m not willing to lose a finger or take time off from work for any of them, but I have a heavy interest. In fact, to illustrate my level of interest, I have devised a color coded system reminiscent of the one our Department of Homeland Security uses to tell you how close to shitting your pants with fear you should be over the latest, vague terrorist threats the CIA has discovered (Go here in case you have no idea what I’m talking about). Therefore, I shall compile several lists; each list organized by the level of interest I have and each level of interest represented by a corresponding color.

Green: signifies films I have no interest in, but which still exist for some reason. I won’t be mentioning them on this list because, really, what’s the point? I don’t care about them, and you shouldn’t either. They were a waste of the filmmaker’s time (from the looks of things) and they shouldn’t bother you either.

Example: “The Man” with Eugene Levy and Samuel L. Jackson.

Blue: I probably won’t mention many of these either. These are films I would not actively flee from if I found myself trapped in a theater where they were playing, but films that I would not, ideally, put myself in a position to see. Unlike the green list, however, I would not be tempted to gnaw my arm off to escape.

Example: “Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo”. It looks terrible, but I’ll probably end up seeing it someday because I enjoyed the first one. Still, my money could be spent on better things.

Yellow: movies I want to see, sort of. They’re not high priority, but I’m not ruling them out. I may even see them in the theater, if I have absolutely nothing better to do with my time.

Example: “V for Vendetta” with Natalie Portman and some guy in a weird mask overthrowing a fascist government…probably by using “bullet time”.

Orange: these are movies I want to see, and have a great deal of interest in, but if they come out the same weekend as anything on the “Red” list, they’ll have to wait their turn.

Example: “The Legend of Zorro”. Yeah, it’s an unnecessary sequel, but it looks like it could be fun.

Red: Movies I really, really want to see. These are films that I cannot wait for.

Example: “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”.

Now, let the games begin!

RED ALERT FILMS:

1. “Elizabethtown”

Cameron Crowe is one of my personal gods of filmmaking. I’ve never seen a bad film with him at the helm, and I’ve only seen one that was less than amazing (“Singles”). He wrote and directed this story about a man (Orlando Bloom, here’s hoping he can act without carrying a sword…hell, here’s hoping he can ACT) going to a Southern town he’s never been to (the city of the title) to bury his father there. Along the way, he encounters relatives he’s never met and a plucky, charming flight attendant (Kirsten Dunst) who changes his life…or something. It sounds a bit like “Garden State”, but that’s all right. I’d take a warmed-over version of “Garden State” over most things I’ve watched at the theater this year. And with Crowe in charge, I’m sure there will be some unexpected delights that will take this movie to wonderful places you never thought it would or could go. In short, it looks to be a well-written, uplifting movie, the sort that Crowe could probably make with his eyes closed.

2. “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”

I blame Stephen King. Seriously. I’d heard about the Harry Potter books, but I’d never really paid them much mind. I thought they were only for kids. I had known adults who had read them, but not many of them, and they were usually adults with kids anyway. But then I read a book by King called “On Writing”. In the back of that book, he mentioned recent books he thought were well done. The Harry Potter tomes were on that list. For me, you see, King is a gateway writer, the literary equivalent of pot. He’s a great writer, and he’s been my favorite forever. So whenever he recommends a book or a writer, I give them a shot. He’s the reason I had devoured the Potter books (the ones that were out, anyway) within a couple of months. (He’s also the reason I gave a book called “Fargo Rock City” a chance, thanks to a blurb by him on its cover. Now I’m a huge Chuck Klosterman fan. I have a lot of things to thank Steve for.) Needless to say, I’ve seen all the Potter films so far, and I like all of them. The third one has the most artistry, but I admire the slavish adaptations of the first two as well because they are literally (no pun intended) like the books I fell in love with in the first place. Of all the books, “Goblet of Fire” is my favorite thus far. It’s a riveting, action-packed read that develops the characters nicely, has the best set pieces of the series, and is darker than all the rest. It’s like “Harry Potter and the Temple of Doom”, at least in the last couple chapters. The prospect of this phenomenal book being turned into a film has me excited, especially since it’ll be rated PG-13, hopefully preserving the unsettling darkness of the final chapters. Trust me, if it’s even close to the book, it’ll be a great time.

3. “Serenity”

After “Sith” hit theaters, I realized that my main source of sci-fi goodness had come to an end. I therefore ventured out to find new science fiction arenas that would hopefully thrill me half as much, worlds that had leapt from the writers’ imagination with that same spark George Lucas had brought to his films. For some reason, “Star Trek” has never really done this for me. “Farscape” is good, I like it a lot, but there are still a few things about it that just don’t sit well with me (an overdose of quirkiness, perhaps). “Firefly”, however, was just right. I got it for free from Amazon.com when I opened a Visa card account with them, and I blew through the DVD set, saddened when I had watched the last of the fourteen, all too short episodes. I wanted more. Thank God those magnificent idiots at Universal decided to give Joss Whedon (creator of “Firefly” as well as “Angel” and “Buffy”…neither of which are half as compelling as “Firefly”) fifty million bucks to bring these characters and this universe to the big screen. Thank God, as well, that Whedon used the same actors as he did on the show. Thank God he didn’t replace Nate Fillion’s unique brand of bad-ass cool, for example, with that of some schmoe like Josh Hartnett or Mel Gibson. I loved this show, and I love the trailers for this movie. It hits theaters on September 30th. That gives you all plenty of time to rent “Firefly” off Netflix and find out just how great it is. I’ve already converted my brother-in-law. Trust me, it’s great stuff.

4. “Lord of War”

Nicolas Cage movies end up on this list almost every year, I think. Maybe it’s because, when he’s at the top of his game, there are few people in movies that I would rather watch. When a director knows how to make use of him, few actors are better. He essays a sense of quirkiness and fun, but never at the expense of character or of the overall film. Like Johnny Depp, he’s a great cinematic oddball…most of the time. In the wrong director’s hands, however, he can be a giant sleeping pill (“Windtalkers” and “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin” spring to mind). The trailer for this movie looks fantastic, with Cage playing a supercool international arms dealer. This movie looks to do for gun merchants what “Blow” did for coke dealers. This is to make them damned entertaining, as well as thought provoking, subjects. Hell, it looks so good that even the presence of Ethan Hawke doesn’t irk me.

5. “Munich”

Steven Spielberg is now filming this tale about a Mossad agent (Eric Bana) tracking a group of Palestinian terrorists responsible for killing a group of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, but it will allegedly be ready by Christmas. This sounds like one of Spielberg’s ballsiest projects yet, and he’s been doing some ballsy stuff lately, like turning the alien invasion genre on its head with “War of the Worlds”. “War of the Worlds” was basically about terrorists from another planet, after all. If Spielberg gives us the hard-hitting, gritty drama that I think he will, this should be a shoe-in for Best Picture consideration. Considering his recent track record, however, it’ll probably be an excellent movie that fumbles somehow in the last twenty minutes. But the closest thing he’s done to perfection lately was “Catch Me If You Can”, another movie based on real events, so I’ve got some real hope for this one. If nothing else, it should be interesting to watch.

6. “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang”

Before Quentin Tarantino emerged, Shane Black was the “It” writer of the Hollywood scene. It’s hard to fathom in retrospect, but “The Long Kiss Goodnight” was actually the highest selling screenplay of its time. In fact, with his concoctions of well conceived action, colorful dialogue, rampant profanity, dirty jokes and guy talk, he may even have been the forerunner of a guy like Tarantino. After “Long Kiss”, however, Shane disappeared from Hollywood without a trace. Now he’s back, having written and directed this film which stars Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. That seems like an odd combination (well, actually, it seems like an uninsurable combination) but those are sort of Black’s specialty. Look at Damon Wayans and Bruce Willis in “The Last Boy Scout” or Danny Glover and Mel “Riggs” Gibson in the first two “Lethal Weapon” flicks, all written by Black. Those are great teams. If Black knows what he’s doing (and I, for one, believe that he does) then perhaps he has crafted another winning team with this tale of a thief posing as an actor playing a detective (tutored by gay detective Val Kilmer). It’s a great concept, and it’s got a fun trailer. Plus, I’m personally happy to see one of my favorite screenwriters working again. This man is the M. Night Shyamalan of action cinema (and his worst movie is arguably better than “The Village”).

7. “The Producers”

I can’t afford to go to the Broadway show, so this will have to do: a movie version of the musical based on the ‘60’s Mel Brooks film about a Broadway producer and a neurotic accountant intentionally making a Broadway flop. Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane are reprising the roles they made their own and Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell are on hand for support. I own the soundtrack to the Broadway show, and it is hilarious. I can’t wait to see the actions that go along with it. It should be a rollicking good time.

And those are the only ones I have a burning desire to see. Now we move on to…

ORANGE ALERT FILMS:

1. “Wallace and Gromit in the Curse of the Were-rabbit”

The big-toothed inventor with a penchant for cheese and his intelligent dog sidekick has always been a big source of amusement for me, and now they have their own movie. Hooray!

Wallace and Gromit in the Curse of the Were-rabbit Trailer

2. “Waiting…”

I love Ryan Reynolds, even when the movie he’s in is less than stellar. He always gives his best, and I appreciate it. Plus, with his sardonic air and hipster quality, he sort of reminds me of a modern Chevy Chase…back when Chevy was still regularly funny. He’s in this movie which, from the trailer, looks ready to do for waiters what “Office Space” did for office workers. Justin Long, Anna Farris, hilarious stand-up comic Dane Cook and Luis Guzman co-star.

3. “The New World”

I didn’t like “The Thin Red Line”. I thought it was, to quote Mel Gibson’s opinion of his own “Million Dollar Hotel”: “as boring as a dead dog’s ass”. That was directed by Terrence Malick, who also did “Badlands” and “Days of Heaven”, neither of which sucked. In fact, they were gorgeous. And I hated “Alexander” which starred Colin Farrell and Christopher Plummer. They are both in this film. And yet, somehow, I have a good feeling about this one. Mostly because it tells the story of the explorers who “discovered” America (well, after Columbus) and I find that to be an interesting and largely unfilmed portion of history. So I will check out this movie. But if it had less people who had made movies I disliked involved, it might have made it to the Red Alert status.

4. “Shopgirl”

I want to see this because, deep in my heart, I still hope that Steve Martin can be funny. He’s had a dry spell with everything he’s done since “Bowfinger”, but I still have my fingers crossed for this movie where he apparently falls in love with a retail clerk played by Claire Danes. It’s based on a book he wrote. Please, Steve, don’t screw this up.

5. “The Fountain”

I had almost completely forgotten about this film until an afternoon I spent leafing through magazines at Barnes and Noble (one of my favorite, cheap pastimes) and discovered via Premiere magazine that it’s actually slated to come out this year. It’s a story from director Darren Aronofsky (the possible lunatic who made “Pi” and “Requiem for a Dream”) about a man traveling through time to save the woman he loves…or something. Hugh Jackman (sans claws) is the time traveler and Rachel Weisz is the woman in question. Apparently, this film spans from the conquistador days of the 16th century to a spaceship in the year 2500. Wow. The film was originally set to have Brad Pitt as its lead, but he skipped out to have sex with Angelina Jolie or something. Oh well, I like Hugh Jackman and with Aronofsky in charge, this film is bound to have at least a couple of screws loose. It sounds lighter than his usual fare…but then again, maybe it isn’t. Only time will tell.

6. “The Legend of Zorro”

Seven years after the fact, we get a sequel to “The Mask of Zorro”. Now, “The Mask of Zorro” was a diverting bit of entertainment (and it did introduce most American males to the natural resource that is Catherine Zeta Jones) but I doubt anyone was clamoring for a sequel to it. Hell, most people have probably forgotten the original film even exists. I know I pretty much forget about it until I recognize it lurking in my DVD collection…and even then I am rarely prompted to pop it in. Whenever I DO happen to pop it in, however, I realize it’s a fun, entertaining and action-packed film filled with beautiful women, luscious cinematography and cool swordplay and horse stunts. Here’s hoping that this sequel will have more of the same…though, sadly, without Anthony Hopkins and with a less attractive incarnation of Catherine Zeta Jones. (Truthfully, I’m not sure if Catherine is really any less attractive…I think it’s just that I’ve gotten tired of seeing her over the past decade. It’s like the Grand Canyon: if you saw it on the cover of a magazine every day, you’d stop caring after while.)

7. “The Transporter 2”

I love Jason Statham. I think he’s set to become the leading action hero of his generation. And I loved “The Transporter” despite the fact that there wasn’t a brain in its head. It’s just a good time, nothing more. So I hope this will be a good time too…though I have my doubts.

8. “Ice Harvest”

John Cusack hasn’t done anything that I’ve found intriguing for a while, but hopefully this allegedly dark thriller set around Christmas-time, co-starring Billy Bob Thornton, and directed by Harold Ramis will change that trend. That’s about all I know about this movie, but it’s enough to pique my interest.

And that’s about all for the movies on my Orange Alert list.

YELLOW ALERT FILMS: 

“Proof” 

Probably an Oscar bait movie: it has Gwyneth Paltrow, Hope Davis, and Anthony Hopkins in it. It’s about a dying math genius and his daughters, I think.

“The Libertine”

A dark, period drama starring Johnny Depp.

“The Weather Man”

It’s more Nicolas Cage. This time he’s a put-upon weather man who undergoes a life crisis.

“Syriana”

George Clooney in a Steven Soderbergh film about our national dependence on oil: should be a light, breezy romantic comedy that stirs absolutely no controversy.

“Flight Plan”

Jodie Foster takes “Panic Room” on a plane. Someone is messing with her daughter. I’ve run afoul of Jodie a time or two and, trust me; you don’t want to be doing that.

“The Corpse Bride”

Johnny Depp lends his voice to a Tim Burton-produced story about a man who “accidentally” marries a corpse. It’s a stop motion animated film in the same vein as “The Nightmare Before Christmas” and should find a cult following among the same audience: hard-core animation fans and Goths.

“Jarhead”

A movie about soldiers directed by Sam Mendes. I like Sam Mendes, so I’ll probably go.

“The Ringer”

Johnny Knoxville stars in this movie from the Farrelly brothers about a con artist pretending to be disabled so he can compete in the special Olympics. Even though Cartman did the same thing in a hilarious “South Park” episode, this should be worth a peek. Besides, Brian Cox is in it!

“V for Vendetta”

Yet another great Alan Moore comic gets a Hollywood adaptation, and will probably end up being yet another disappointment. Still, hope springs eternal.

“Rent”

It’s a musical. I like musicals. Apparently, everyone in this musical dies of AIDS. So, y’know, it should be a blast! (By the way, I was being sarcastic.)

BLUE ALERT FILMS:
Movies I barely care about, but might still wind up seeing. 

“King Kong”

I know Peter Jackson has been dying to make this for years, but I still don’t see why any of the rest of us should give a damn. The effects in the trailer don’t look any better than those in “Jurassic Park” and the storyline is, let’s face it, fairly cheesy. It worked in the ‘30’s, but I’m just not sure it’ll work nowadays. And Jack Black just seems all wrong for this flick.

“Zathura”

A couple of kids play a board game that takes them into Outer Space. If it sounds a lot like “Jumanji”, well, it IS by the same author. I just want to know what company it is, in this fantasy universe, which keeps making all these board games that come to life. I picture them as a satanic version of Parker Brothers. Who ARE these people, anyway?

“Domino”

I wanted to see this movie a lot more before I saw an actual trailer for it. The premise is neat: a woman casts aside her modeling career to become a bounty hunter. The cast is pretty good: Keira Knightley, Mickey Rourke, Lucy Liu and the ever-watchable Christopher Walken. Unfortunately, Tony Scott seems to be indulging the same overdose of style that sabotaged his “Man on Fire”. But Walken is still in it.

“A Sound of Thunder”

This movie was mentioned on my list last year. A bunch of guys go back in time to hunt dinosaurs and end up screwing up the space-time continuum. Did Professor Emmett Brown teach us nothing?

“The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”

Hey, everybody, let’s cash in on “Lord of the Rings”! I’ll end up seeing it for the lion and because, after “Constantine”, I love Tilda Swinton. She plays the witch of the title. From the trailer, it looks like they put “Lord of the Rings”, “Lemony Snicket” and “Harry Potter” in a blender and ended up with this. Plus, I find the colon in the title to be disturbing. I’ve got a feeling that means they’re going to make ALL of these books into a movie and there were…what? A hundred of them? Seven, at the very least. I may have gotten myself hooked on four seasons worth of “Alias”, but I’m not committing to thirty-eight films about some magical closet. Sorry, but no thanks.

And there you have it. Don’t bother looking anywhere else; these are the only films you should remotely care about. Take it from me, I’ve done the research. And of these, the Red list is the only one I really, truly care about. The rest are just time-fillers. Choose wisely, mark down the release dates (you’ll have to find those on your own, I couldn’t be bothered), and I’ll see you at the movies!

2005 / 106 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

It’s amazing. I didn’t think this movie could possibly have less plot or character development than the show on which it was based.

I stand corrected.

I am an ardent fan of the original series and have been for about as long as I can remember. It’s not a great show, but it’s one of the first things I can ever remember being a fan of. When I was five (and even younger) my Friday nights used to consist of me sitting enthralled in front of the television, watching the “Dukes of Hazzard”. I was little, so I didn’t realize how cheesy it was. Though, even then, I realized that every episode of the show was pretty much identical. The Dukes, on probation for prior moonshine trafficking, are usually framed for some crime they didn’t commit by Boss Hogg and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane (the alleged authority figures in Hazzard, who are defined by their greed and lack of intelligence) who have always wanted the Dukes out of the way because the Dukes are two of the few people in the county that aren’t completely morally corrupt. The crime was almost always committed by people from out of town and was always solved at the end of the episode, usually as the result of a car chase. There, now you know the plot to every episode of this series. I purchased the first season DVD set of the series, purely out of nostalgia. And, oddly enough, even though the plot to every episode is the same, the show’s endearing characters, down-home charm and ample car chases still manage to entertain after all these years. There is a timeless quality to the cheesy fun of this show, unlike the exceptionally dated qualities of shows like “Knight Rider”, “The A-Team” and especially “Miami Vice” (it’s hard to believe a show about pastel wearing cops who have a pet alligator was ever considered “gritty”).

The new movie is just as stupid as the old show. In fact, it’s even stupider. But that innocent, home-spun charm has been replaced by a volume and shiny things. Instead of the goofy, low-key shenanigans of the television show, we have a loud, bombastic spectacle of cars smashing incoherently into one another while classic rock blares on the soundtrack. Most of the spontaneity and innocence have been drained on the show’s trip to the big screen. Moments of it are a lot of fun, and I actually thought that the first half of the film was a pretty good representation of what worked about the old show, only updated with a wink for the new millennium. However, the movie goes on a lot longer than it has to, and without enough plot to fill an average episode of the series.

For one thing, instead of Boss Hogg and Rosco being buffoons with more schemes than brains, Hogg and Coltrane are pretty evil dudes here. They have none of the silly byplay or the slapstick antics that their predecessors had. And that really hinders the film. One of the few complications of the original show was that Hogg and Coltrane were, deep down, good guys. They were greedy and ambitious, but they didn’t have the ruthlessness or the intellect to be effective scumbags. This angle lent a shade of gray to the usual good vs. evil plotline of the show. Usually there was good (Dukes) and evil (the bad guys from out of town) but there was also the gray area in between (represented by Rosco and Hogg). Without Rosco and Hogg’s greedy incompetence, the average plot of the old show wouldn’t have filled twenty minutes. With that gray area included, the show was safely padded to fill an hour. And, usually, that hour still felt pretty padded. If you blow that scenario up to an hour and a half and remove the Hogg/Rosco moral gray area from the average plot, you might get a sense of just how empty this film feels. Twenty minutes of plot (and that’s being generous) are now providing the skeleton of an hour and forty-five minutes of entertainment. The first half works pretty well with some fun jabs at the old show, a respect for the main characters and some neat car stunts. But the film is coasting on fumes by the hour mark and completely out of gas by the seventy-five minute point. It just doesn’t have enough conflict or fun to fill that much time. It’s stupid, sure, that’s to be expected. No one is going into this film expecting “Hamlet”, for crying out loud. And I’m not even going to complain about the changes made between the movie and the show. That’s not the point. The point is that there’s just not enough material here for an entire film.

There are other problems as well. Willie Nelson is surprisingly lifeless here. Uncle Jesse was the heart and soul of the original series and Willie just doesn’t manage to convey that. Denver Pyle’s absence is sorely felt. And Burt Reynolds is just here to collect a paycheck, as he was in “The Longest Yard” (2005) or “Bean: The Movie” or virtually anything he’s done since “Boogie Nights”. He’s not buffoonish enough to play the Boss Hogg of old and not menacing enough to play the Hogg presented here. He just doesn’t fit. And MC Gainey, while a dependable character actor, is all wrong for the part of Rosco. But at least he’s more menacing than Reynolds.

So what does work? Johnny Knoxville and Seann William “Stiffler” Scott, for one thing. I had my doubts about them, but they are great here. They seem to be in touch with the spirit of this whole enterprise and do a fantastic job as a couple of good ol’ boys with no bigger agenda in mind than driving fast and having a good time. Without them, this movie would be a complete waste of time. But they’ve got charisma. Jessica Simpson, surprisingly, also works well here. All that’s required of her is to look hot and have some spunk, and she fulfills both of those requirements quite well. And the screenplay is quite good in spots. I appreciated the fact that they included The Balladeer (narrator) device and the freeze frames of the old series. It gave the movie a certain flair that kept it from being completely generic. Oh, and I loved the General Lee. This car is the real star of the show, and it’s given plenty of screen time. You can appreciate that Stiffler would be more in love with this car than any of the women in the movie (though the women in the movie are quite lovely, I’m thinking of moving to Hazzard).

Unfortunately, the car chases are filmed and edited in the same haphazard, confusing fashion as they have been in most modern films. There is an art to the car chase that seems, sadly, to be deceased these days. Occasionally, a movie like “The Transporter” or “Ronin” gets it right. But most of the time, (and in this film) we are treated to the same shoddy action choreography that marred movies like the modern “Gone in Sixty Seconds” and “The Bourne Supremacy”. If the filmmakers are going through all the trouble of staging these big action sequences, I’d at least like to see what is happening. Let me see what all that money is being spent on, and I’ll be a much happier camper.

In short, this film is just another mediocre film in what’s turning out to be a very mundane summer. I haven’t seen any films this summer that I’ve flat-out despised, but aside from “Revenge of the Sith” and “War of the Worlds”, I haven’t really seen any good ones either. “The Dukes” has some things that work and some that don’t, and it’s not fun enough to qualify as “dumb fun” which, really, is all that I was asking for. It’s got too many lame jokes, too much incoherent action, too little charm, and less plot than the first “Smokey and the Bandit” (which had virtually no plot).

But at least it’s better than “Smokey and the Bandit 2”.

2005 / 119 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Wedding Crashers” is a great, raunchy comedy that is, unfortunately, trapped inside a bland, predictable romantic comedy. It has two leads, and each of them seems to be in their own movie. I’ll explain that further in a couple more paragraphs.

The premise of the film is great: Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson are friends and divorce mediators (is there really such a thing? Guys who referee divorce proceedings?) who have stumbled upon an ingenious hobby. They show up, uninvited, at weddings and the subsequent receptions, pretending to be remote and largely forgotten members of the extended family. Why? So they can partake of the free food, free booze, and the women who find the idea of a wedding to be something of an aphrodisiac. They make a good impression, liven up the wedding, and then make off with whatever they want and wait until the next weekend, when they will repeat the process all over again.

Unfortunately, they meet their matches at the wedding of Christopher Walken’s daughter (he’s an upper echelon member of the American government who, it seems, is poised to become the next president of the United States…I hope there is a sequel to this film only because it would be great to watch what Walken might do as president). Two of Walken’s other daughters are bridesmaids and gather the attentions of Vaughn and Wilson. Wilson falls for Rachel McAdams, a sweet yet cynical (and impassioned) girl who mocks her sister’s distinctive vows. Vaughn seduces Isla Fisher, a girl who seems like a naïve virgin at first, but soon morphs into a sex-crazed, clinging maniac. It is at this point that the movie breaks off into two separate entities.

I prefer the Vince Vaughn movie. Vince is hilarious. He talks a mile a minute, and most everything he says is hilarious. The situations he gets himself into, and the way he deals with them (with the brand of fast-talking cool he made his name with in the movie “Swingers”) are hilarious, ribald and fantastic. Oh, and unpredictable. This portion of the film goes to some strange and dark places (including a hilarious bit with a painting and a gay brother) and had me doubled over at times.

Unfortunately, this movie is surgically attached to the Owen Wilson movie. Aside from a hilarious appearance by Jane Seymour as Walken’s overly amorous wife (yes, Dr. Quinn is a bitter, horny trophy wife), this movie is pretty fucking boring. Wilson and McAdams both seem to have charisma, but they are given almost nothing to do with it. They might even have had some chemistry, if the script had backed them up. While courting, these characters do such innovative things as…RIDING BIKES and WALKING ON THE BEACH! We’ve never seen anything like THAT before. Of course she has a boyfriend (Bradley Cooper, who was so good in the TV series “Alias” and is so utterly wasted here), and of course that boyfriend is the standard asshole you would expect. Just once I’d like to see a romantic comedy where the hero and the guy his intended love interest are currently seeing are both nice guys. That might make for a little something I like to call “conflict”. And, of course, Wilson’s wedding crashing cover is soon blown and it is revealed to his love interest that he LIED to her all along and that their entire relationship up until that point has been built entirely on bullshit. This is at the end of the second act, as required by romantic comedy dogma. This portion of the film has a slavish devotion to romantic comedy procedure and barely deviates from it for as much as a minute. All it needs is a last minute dash to the airport.

These two parts of the movie seem almost in direct contradiction with one another. It’s obvious that the filmmakers wanted to make a raunchy, swaggering comedy that would appeal to frat guys, but they also wanted a cute, allegedly heart-warming comedy that would appeal to their girlfriends. They compromised the one to deliver the other, and they delivered the other in a completely routine fashion that causes the eyes to glaze over. So no matter how great and raunchy the Vince Vaughn movie may be it is ultimately hamstrung by the safe, cuddly Owen Wilson film. Much has been made about this film being an “R-rated” comedy, as though this were the most refreshing thing in all the world. And, yes, the film does benefit from being “R-rated”, but it’s nowhere near as funny as the R-rated “Old School” which said to hell with notions of romance and, instead, tickled the funny bone relentlessly, and in a most riotous and profane fashion. Plus, Luke Wilson did a better job in that movie than his brother does in this (Owen should stick to his partnerships with Wes Anderson and Jackie Chan, where he truly shines), Vaughn was allowed to be as a dark and droll (yet oddly lovable) as he wanted to be, and Will Ferrell was not simply relegated to a brief, nasty third-act cameo (as he is here). And the subtle romance in “Old School” between Luke Wilson and Ellen Pompeo was a lot more interesting. Oh, and you know what? I think women enjoyed that movie ANYWAY! Because I’m sure most women are going to find Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdam’s rote romance to be as boring as I did. (Maybe I have too much faith in women, but I think a lot of them will.)

My advice? Wait and rent this movie. That way you can just skip over all the romantic comedy lameness and go directly to any scene where Vince Vaughn struts his stuff or Jane Seymour tries to seduce someone. Just go with me on this one. You’ll thank me for it.

2005 / 115 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Unlike most people my age, I do not hold “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” on any kind of pedestal. By and large, I think it’s a heavily flawed movie with some good moments and a great performance by Gene Wilder as the titular candy tycoon. Wilder gives perhaps his greatest performance of all time in the film, and the kid who plays Charlie does a decent job (everyone does, really) but the production design is a little garish and the songs that are shoehorned into the production really grind the proceedings to a halt. (Though the songs performed by the Oompa Loompas are fantastic.) It’s a pleasant diversion, but no sacred cow. Not for me, anyway. Perhaps my opinion on it has something to do with the fact that I did not see it until after high school.

With Tim Burton at the helm and Johnny Depp as the eccentric Mr. Wonka, this movie had pretty much the best possible team behind it. Wilder was brilliant, but Depp is always excellent and abstract, so I felt he was the best man to fill in Gene’s rather large shoes. And, as I said earlier, I do not regard the original film as any sacred enterprise. Therefore, I was expecting a treat as I bought my ticket to this new version of Road Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”.

And, in some respects, the movie delivered. As a whole, however, I preferred the original.

“Charlie” is the story of a boy named Charlie (Freddie Highmore) who lives in squalor with his loving family (his mother is Helena Bonham Carter, his father is Noah Taylor, and his grandfather Joe is played by David Kelly). One day, he opens a Wonka candy bar and discovers a golden ticket which entitles him to a tour of the reclusive candyman’s factory. Along with him come five other children: the gluttonous Augustus Gloop, the selfish Veruca Salt, the overly confident Violet Bouregard and the all-out annoying Mike TeeVee. Wonka (Depp) takes them on a tour of the factory which has some unexpected surprises (these surprises, however, are not unexpected to anyone familiar with the original film or the source book).

The film trumps the earlier movie in several areas. First of all, the production design is eye-popping and glorious. The special effects generate an air of magic. Danny Elfman’s score, as usual, is top notch. And then we have the most drastic improvement: Charlie and his family. They were endearing in the original film, but they are even more captivating here. I loved these people. Charlie is a darling little boy, and Highmore plays him so realistically that he isn’t grating. In the wrong hands, his character could be a sappy candidate for sainthood, but Highmore makes you believe. I loved this boy in “Finding Neverland” and I love him again here. He’s a phenomenal talent, and he is easily the best thing about both movies. Taylor and Bonham Carter are also great in unexpected, domestic roles and David Kelly sparkles and shines as Charlie’s kindly (and slightly loony) grandfather. The entire family ensemble is so good that when Charlie does find the golden ticket, I could actually feel tears of joy in my eyes.

This early stuff generates a wave of goodwill that lasts through the first couple of rough patches. However, it isn’t quite enough to last for the entire film. Why? Well, here is where the original film was superior.

For one thing, the film is too long. It’s magical entertainment for a while, but then it keeps going and going, piling on annoying child antics (not by Freddie, but the other child characters are profoundly irritating and the performances that bring them to life don’t help), lackluster musical numbers, and an unnecessary back story. It doesn’t add much to know how Wonka came to be the way that he is. In fact, it robs his character of the mysterious nature that made him so interesting in the original film. Depp doesn’t help any. He’s funny, sure, but his performance is fairly one-note. He doesn’t give Wonka the effortless layers that Gene Wilder provided. He’s creepy, but not creepy enough, and he’s funny but never all that hilarious. It’s an odd performance, to be sure, but it’s one of his least interesting in a long time. Does this mean that Johnny Depp has finally sold out? I hope not, but only time will tell. It’s nice to see Christopher Lee on hand as well, but the movie doesn’t give him anything interesting to do.

None of the musical numbers are quite as lame as that “Candyman” number from the 1971 movie, but they’re not all that great either. The first Oompa Loompa song is lively and fun. It filled me with a sense of giddiness. Unfortunately, each subsequent song gets a little worse and a little more jarring. They ruin the momentum of the film and, besides, I couldn’t even understand the lyrics.

The worst thing about the film, however, is the fact that Charlie seems to disappear into the background once the film arrives at the factory. Charlie is the heart and soul of the film, he and his family are the most magical thing about it, and moving the focus to the other children (who are dull and annoying) and Wonka (who’s oddly flat) really hurts the film. Ultimately, the factory tour is too long, not all that exciting (the events of the tour seem like glossier retreads of the original film) and hollow. There’s no life to much of this stuff, which the film seems to compensate for by going overboard and piling on the extravagance at every turn. All they really needed to do was pay a little more attention to Charlie and Grandpa Joe. The focus returns to them near the end, but it’s a case of too little, too late. By that point, I was just tired of sitting in this theater, tired of this world that had once been so magical and filled me with such giddy delight.

If the film would have lived up to the promise of it’s first hour, it would have been quite a treat indeed. But unfortunately, for all its flash and flair, I prefer the low-key pleasures of the original Willy Wonka. It might not have been as extravagant and gorgeous, but it kept its eye on the ball and its heart in the right place.

2005 / 116 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“This is only a war as much as there’s a war between us and maggots. This is extermination.”

“War of the Worlds” is the alien invasion film I’ve always wanted to see.even if I had never realized it. It’s the only one that really takes the whole notion seriously and plays it as straight as it should be played. Director Steven Spielberg has nicely eschewed all of the trappings that usually adorn such a premise. Gone are the shots of world leaders staring at screens of spaceships and saying things like “My God”. Gone are the dozens of main characters who are meant to show us the whole invasion from a multitude of different viewpoints, thus spreading and dissipating our emotional investment and giving us, instead of a few well defined characters, a lot of boring and sloppily written ones. Gone is the usual plotline of a few plucky heroes rising up and saving the day, finding a cheesy way to destroy the aliens (like, oh, shall we say a computer virus). “War of the Worlds” is the story of 1930’s Europe, except that it is set in America and has replaced the Nazis with a race of aliens. After seeing this film, I think I know why so many Americans were freaked out by that infamous Orson Welles radio play of the same material back in 1939.

The plot is simple. What if aliens visited Earth.and didn’t want us around? What if they staged a complete takeover with an army of nearly impenetrable war machines, vaporizing us and destroying every mark that we ever existed? How would you react? What would you do? And where the hell would you go? This is what happens to Tom Cruise, a machine-operator on the dockyards of the Jersey shore. After a freakish lightning storm, Cruise witnesses an attack by alien forces mere blocks from his house. After taking the only working car (why this car works when the others does not is never adequately explained.something about the solenoids, but still.you’d think a couple of other cars would still function) he decides to take his children (Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin) to his estranged wife’s family in Boston. He does this simply because he has no idea what else to do. He is not a fighter. He doesn’t even know if there is a way to bring these aliens down. His son longs to fight against these creatures. Cruise just wants to survive.

Thus, unlike most films of this nature which are about a small group of people defending their turf against alien invasion and doing whatever they can to kick alien ass, this is more of an Anne Frank version of alien invasion. Our heroes hide in basements, run for their lives, and do whatever it takes to keep themselves alive in very dire circumstances. In short, Cruise and his family do what you or I would likely do in the same situation, and that is what makes the film so riveting, and what puts it head and shoulders above any film of this type ever made.

Spielberg has made such a variety of films that it’s almost like there are several different Spielbergs. For example, the Spielberg who made “Hook” doesn’t seem to have a lot in common with the one that made “Schindler’s List”. The Spielberg that made “Jaws” doesn’t superficially share a lot of common ground with the man who made “The Terminal”. (Though, after seeing “Sugarland Express”, it’s easy to see where the guy who made “Catch Me if You Can” came from.) And the guy who made “War of the Worlds” doesn’t seem to be the same guy who gave us the aliens in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” or “E.T.” This film was made by the Steve who brought us “Saving Private Ryan”, “Schindler’s List” and “Jaws”. The Spielberg behind the camera on this film is a man capable of dark, brutal and yet ultimately human stories that don’t sugarcoat anything and certainly don’t soft pedal.

It’s hardly surprising that a director with Spielberg’s craft and talent could craft the finest alien invasion film I’ve ever seen (not that that’s saying much considering such competitors as “Independence Day”). What is surprising, however, is how dark, brutal and intense this film manages to be. There are moments in this film eerily reminiscent of the 9/11 attacks or, as I mentioned earlier, the invasion of Poland during World War Two. There are people covered in ash that was once other human beings. There are posters asking if people have seen missing loved ones. There are major metropolitan areas reduced to nothing more than disturbingly realistic rubble. And there are many other moments of chilling power, both visual and story-wise. The sight of the alien tripods looming over a small city, for example, and reducing it to dust with blasts from its lasers against the backdrop of the night sky is an image that I believe is forever seared into the tissue of my brain. More than a couple moments of this film reminded me of the similarly creepy “Signs” by M. Night Shyamalan: a group of people hiding from aliens in a basement, for example, and the fact that the story of this otherworldly occupation is told from the tight point of view of a single family rather than the messy viewpoints of dozens of people. But whereas Shyamalan’s film is ultimately about the power of faith, Spielberg is playing with the entire canvas of human emotion here. This film is much more of an epic than the other, and the aliens are a lot more destructive.

Moments of the film also reminded me of George A. Romero’s work. Romero uses his zombie invasions as a catalyst to explore human nature, specifically the survival instincts of human beings. Spielberg does the same thing, only to greater effect (sorry, George). Even when the aliens are nowhere to be found, the tension of this film is often unbearable. After all, humans are fascinating and flawed beings that have some strange ways of acting once panic sets in and all the usual rules get tossed out the window.

It helps that the aliens in this invasion are, by far, the creepiest ever caught on cinema. We barely get a glimpse of them and, when we do, they fit the standard alien template. They look sort of like a cross between an alien and a predator, only with softer, almost cute facial features. So it isn’t their appearance that raises the hair on your forearms (we don’t even get a look at them until three-quarters of the way into the movie), it’s the sheer impossibility of reasoning with them or even killing them. Their machines are immense, damned near unstoppable and capable of catastrophic power, and the mysterious nature of their motives is very unnerving. I can’t remember previously watching a summer movie where I was so sure that the human race was going to lose. Steve might be renowned for such commodities as hope and warmth in his other films, but there’s precious little of that in evidence here. That makes the human moments between Cruise and Dakota Fanning even more touching. This is the essence of humanity (complicated and distant as their relationship may be). This is what we’re praying the aliens are unable to destroy. If these scenes hadn’t worked, the movie wouldn’t have crawled so deeply under my skin. But the acting and writing and direction of these scenes, and pretty much every scene, is damn near flawless. Steve is a great, great director and he’s at his finest here. Everyone involved in this film seems to have brought their A game to the table. The special effects are phenomenal, but since this is Spielberg we’re talking about, that goes without saying. The acting is great (with Tom Cruise and Tim Robbins doing especially good work). The writing by David Koepp (who I believe should get a crown as Hollywood’s Golden Hack) and Josh Friedman is pulse pounding and natural.

The movie is not, however, without a couple of small problems. As I said, the aliens (when we see them) don’t look terribly original. There are a couple inconsistencies with the plot (a wristwatch has been stopped, but a camcorder still works? The Hell?) and the ending does go a little soft. Then again, compared to the rest of the movie, almost anything might have seemed soft. This is a very hard-edged movie, and definitely not the sort of flick you expect to stumble upon in the midst of summer, when idiocy usually rules the day. It’s too dark, too well-made, too richly nuanced and observant to be a typical summer film. It’s too disturbing to work as a fun, popcorn flick.

If you’re looking for a great ride, you might be disappointed. If you’re looking for a great film, you certainly will not be.

2005 / 116 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

I would say the basic purpose of a movie review is to tell people whether or not a film is worth their time to go see. I mean, you’ve got to drive in the car, find a parking spot, wait in line, buy really expensive snacks, sit through 20 minutes of trailers and ads and then of course the movie itself. It’s a full evening, so hopefully the film is worth your trouble. Sadly, I’d have to say “War of the Worlds” isn’t. Why not? Well, because you’ve already seen it.

Oh no, I’m not talking about the 1953 version. No, the problem with 2005’s “War of the Worlds” is that it’s basically a montage of everything Spielberg’s ever done. In fact it’s almost like a $135 million dollar parody of a Spielberg flick. Even this film’s much-lauded “action set pieces” are pretty much all lifted from his earlier efforts, especially the “Jurassic Park” films. Ok let’s do a quick checklist:

1) Dysfunctional family with divorcees, check
2) Huge build-up sequence to the dinosaur, I mean alien tripod, check.
3) Overly long “hide and seek” scene where the hero(s) avoid being detected by (pick one) a) alien probe tentacle b) velociraptor in kitchen c) robot spider in apartment building, check
4) Endless shots of people looking at things in awe
5) Cars tossed into the air / water and people jumping out of the way of them

If I had to describe this movie in one word it’d be “lazy”. Sure some scenes are really well done, such as a very long take involving multiple angles of a car as Tom & Co escape a city, or a mob scene where said car is taken from them. But then everything else is something you’ve seen before, and usually it was a Spielberg movie to boot. It’s like they copy/pasted this movie together because it was easier on their super-tight schedule that way. Hell, there’s even a part where people are picked up off the ground by a machine and put into a floating “cage basket”, just like in “A.I.” (a vastly superior Spielberg sci-fi film, IMHO) Hell, they probably used the same prop! At least Teddy was in “A.I.” to kick some ass.

As with “Minority Report” critics are falling over themselves to praise this movie and herald it as “Spielberg’s best since Raiders!” (Raiders being apparently the gold standard of review comparison for every movie ever made, as well it should be) But hell I liked “Minority” a lot more than this, at least it seemed fresh and filled with IDEAS. Alright so I’ve established “War” seems like Spielberg ripping himself off. Now let’s get to all the other annoying stuff: (May contain spoilers, but again I’m not really recommending this film so who cares?)

1) Alien “EMF” (electro magnetic force) beams zap out all electronics in the opening attack, including whatever electronics were apparently in Tom Cruise’s 1960’s-era Mustang, causing it to stall out. All cars are dead. All electricity is off. A guy is taking photos but the foley department had the foresight to include the “grind grind” sound of a manual film advancement knob. However, a cheap-ass VIDEO CAMERA apparently still works because it would be cool for the guy using it to die, have the camera land on the ground and show the first round of deaths from its view screen. Sure.

2) I swear half this movie takes place in basements.

3) Ug this one pissed me off! Tim Robbins plays a psycho who lets Tom & Dakota hide out in his (you guessed it) basement while the aliens pass by overhead. He carries a shotgun in every scene. Anyway, after a couple “hide and seek” scenes with an alien sensor probe some real live aliens / velociraptors come down to check out the basement. Robbins then loads 1 FRICKING SHELL into his shotgun. So he carried it around unloaded while aliens were killing everything that moved above them? And then to kill 3 aliens he loads 1 shell? ??? The final insult is when he cocks the pump action to load the shell, he slides it down about 1 inch and then back up. Gee every other movie I’ve ever seen they have to pump it the full amount to get shells to load. I guess Tim Robbins is above that. I know it’s a nitpick but dammit it’s annoying. Like the glass with the .22 caliber bullet holes in Jurassic Park that were supposedly made by a shotgun and the fact it took about 1.5 seconds for a pump shotgun to make 3 of them.

4) Everything in this movie is about big things moving around and almost hitting the heroes. Tripod feet, cars, debris, propellers, whatever. It feels like it’s 1993 and you’re watching “Jurassic Park”. Or 1996 and you’re watching “Twister”. It just feels so dated now.

5) Come to think of it, this movie is basically “Jurassic Park” meets “Twister”. Really, that’s how I saw it. Honestly it could have used the Paxton touch.

6) In one scene Tom’s son wants to look over a hill and see the “War of the Worlds” Waves of tanks and other army vehicles are streaming in and fire and brimstone light up the sky. Tom stops him but the son stays anyways (See next item) Does the camera pan over the hill and indeed show us The War of the Worlds? No! Maybe some see this as a tasteful way of doing it, to just sort of HEAR the battle, but dammit! Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure my ticket said “War of the Worlds” not “I Wonder What’s Beyond That Hill?” As Tom would say “Show me the money!”

7) Tom’s son character allegedly dies at one point. (See above) I mean, it’s either go down a hill with Tom or hang out at the top with the mile-wide wall of fire and the alien death tripods. The son, as far as we know, stays and is “dead”. So when he magically shows up at the end of the movie it’s pretty damn annoying. I’ll buy that crap in “The Mummy” but not something trying to be as important as this. One minute you’re thinking “Wow, Spielberg had the guts to kill off a son!” and the next you think “Oh wait he didn’t” It’s so improbable (at the end) I thought maybe Tom Cruise was like, “dreaming” his son was alive.

The aliens die at the end for the same reason as in the 1953 version (and I’m assuming the book) I almost wish they would have done something different with this - especially since it makes for such an anti-climatic ending. Sure it’s a cool “twist” the first time a movie ends that way but not the second. No, the second time it’s just lame.

I guess I could go on but why bother. I didn’t see “The Terminal” but this is definitely in my opinion Spielberg’s weakest film in a long, long time and what I would consider the first real disappointment of the summer (hell I even liked “Batman Begins” better) Hell I’ll even go so far as to say “Independence Day” was better. At least it was FUN! I really don’t think “War” will do all that much beyond opening weekend, but maybe at least Hollywood will learn something from that. The rash of remakes is bad enough, but filmmakers remaking their own stuff is downright creepy. You want people back in theaters, give us something original to watch! It’s pretty bad when there’s only a couple movies in a summer that AREN’T remakes. (”The Island” and “Stealth” come to mind, but that’s about it)

This week I’m complaining about:

5 Shitty Remakes Nicole Kidman Could Do Next

NOTE: This was previously going to be a rant about annoying trends started by hit movies, but I figured I if I wanted to bitch about Nicole Kidman and “Bewitched” I’d better do it before the movie bombs (well, in its second weekend) and falls off the radar.

With the newly released “Bewitched” and last year’s “The Stepford Wives” it’s pretty obvious that Nicole Kidman, AKA ex-Mrs. Tom Cruise has a single mantra for the remainder of her career:

“I shall do nothing but shitty remakes!”

And why not? Remakes are all the rage in Hollywood, and probably will be until either audiences grow sick of them or someone actually creative moves to Tinsel town (whichever comes first) In the meantime, why shouldn’t every remake star Nicole Kidman? I mean, it “worked” twice, why not again? With this in mind, here’s 5 Shitty Remakes Nicole Kidman Could Do Next. Aspiring screenwriters, pay attention and call your agents!

“Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf?”

The plot: An alcoholic whore (Kidman) and her pussy-whipped husband (Hm… Russel Crowe?) invite over some young teachers from the campus Crowe works at for a late night of drinking, debauchery and character development.

The Catch: This time, they really DO have a son, who shows up halfway through the movie for revenge (and burgen), turning the film from an insightful adult drama into a thrill-a-minute slasher flick. In the end Kidman has to kill her own son (not a dry eye in the house) by dousing him with her last bottle of gin (thus resolving her alcoholism) and lighting it aflame.

The Tagline: “Son’s Coming Home For Dinner”

“Pretty Woman”