2007 / 117 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz

There have been many great actor/director collaborative teams throughout the course of cinema history. The most respected, of course, is probably the teaming of Robert DeNiro and Martin Scorsese though James Stewart and Frank Capra are also a pretty tough act to beat. John Woo and Chow Yun Fat were a good team as well and Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese have a pretty solid track record thus far (Scorsese seems more devoted to actors than most people are toward their spouses). Why do these actor/director combos work so well? I suspect the answer is simply that the two men in question have similar creative sensibilities. They’re interested in the same sorts of material, understand what the other needs to do an excellent job, and, most importantly, don’t manage to completely piss one another off. None of these collaborators, however, have shit on Johnny Depp and Tim Burton. They may never have done a movie as brilliant as “It’s a Wonderful Life” or “Goodfellas” but at least they don’t have a “New York, New York” in their resume.

(more…)

Share on Facebook

2007 / 113 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz

Adapting a book into a movie, I’d imagine, is a tricky business. Not as tricky as fighting sharks for a living or circumcising grizzly bears, but still relatively tricky. You have to take the best parts of a book and realize them on screen while sacrificing the things that only work in literary form (i.e. the thoughts and interior monologues of characters, philosophical musings, and things so expensive that showing them would cost more than the average American corporation makes in a year). It’s a precarious tightrope, and a lot of filmmakers that try to walk it inevitably fall to their doom. You have to win new fans to the film (because, let’s face it, only losers and gay people read) without alienating the the schmucks and fags that read the original book. You have to capture the scope and point of the novel, and put its most memorable bits up on the big screen, without getting bogged down in those little nuances and intricacies that make reading such a delight. If you can manage to bring those little intricacies up to the screen (like the makers of “High Fidelity”), hey, so much the better. But most filmmakers either don’t bother to try or fail miserably.

(more…)

Share on Facebook

2007 / 112 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz

Sometimes it’s hard to divorce the content of a movie from the experience of actually seeing it, but I shall try nonetheless. I must say, without hyperbole, that seeing “Beowulf” on an IMAX screen and in 3-D was flat-out one of the best cinematic experiences of my entire life. Considering how many movies I’ve actually seen, I think you can understand what bold praise that is. The 3-D presentation of this movie is nothing short of awesome and, if you have any inkling toward seeing this movie, you simply owe it to yourself to see it in 3-D and on the biggest possible screen. That being said, the question remains: is “Beowulf” a good movie?

(more…)

Share on Facebook

1980 / 219 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz

If you’re wondering how the experimental, edgy films of the Seventies could give way to the commercial, adolescent-friendly, cuddly films of the Eighties, you really need look no further than “Heaven’s Gate”. “Heaven’s Gate” is the film that took independent-minded, edgy, adult cinematic fare to its ultimate, expensive conclusion. If that sounds like a good thing, well, it is…kinda.

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Well you have spoken and we have heard your call. This podcast is entirely comprised of listener suggested topics, since you have all proven to be much wiser than us with your suggestions.

For the meaty part of the show we delve into the relevance of animated films and discuss the ones we like and the ones we feel are overrated, or just plain lame. Also, why do we keep hearing more and more about foreign films? Are they just that good, or do people want to be cultured, or do Hollywood movies suck so bad that people have to look elsewhere? As always, we discuss in our own special way. Then to finish things off we discuss the directors of today who will be the titans of tomorrow. Essentially who will be the Kubricks, Spielbergs, and De Palmas decades from now? You may just be surprised by some of our choices and the directions the conversation manages to go in.

Then there’s the usual early podcast rambling in which we discuss nude fight scenes, Owen Wilson, and creative ways to die in a Western amongst other things including a short discussion of Shoot ‘em Up to tide you over until the meat of the show arrives.

Enjoy and discuss!

[iTunes] Subscribe to the Podcast directly in iTunes (MP3).
[RSS] Add the A Fistful of Reviews Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator and have the show delivered automatically (MP3).
[MP3] Download the show in MP3 format.

Share on Facebook

by Dale J. Nauertz

In years past, I’ve used all sorts of gimmicks (well, okay, one gimmick involving color-coordinating and Homeland Security) to denote films I’m actually interested in seeing between Labor Day and New Years. This time, I’m just going to mention the films I want to see. I’ll number the ten I’m most interested in watching and then mention a few I wouldn’t have to be dragged to. But this year I’m not going to bother listing every movie that’s coming down the pike. Screw that. Life is too short for me to tell you why you shouldn’t give a shit about “Saw IV” or “Alvin and the Chipmunks”. You should already know.

(more…)

Share on Facebook

1980 / 111 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz

Much like “The Exorcist” and “Jaws”, “National Lampoon’s Animal House” was a box-office juggernaut whose appeal was so simple that it inspired a platoon of lame knock-offs. Hollywood producers and execs, eager to exploit any success, decided that the public wanted demons and ravenous fish, and made boatloads of movies that cheapened the originals by pandering to their audience’s most basic interests and ripping off as many elements of the successful films as possible. With “Animal House”, those same producers seemed to decide that all it took to make a hit comedy were tits and men without scruples. A plethora of soulless, hollow, T&A-filled dreck like “Porky’s” (that movie sucks, I don’t care what anyone says), “Private School” and “Screwballs” followed. Miraculously, despite all these horrible knock-offs, “Animal House” has retained its sterling reputation and is a movie that is still beloved, admired, referenced and quoted to death to this very day.

(more…)

Share on Facebook

2007 / 86 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz

As soon as I heard there was a movie coming out called “Shoot ‘Em Up”, I was intrigued. When I learned that it starred Clive Owen, the modern king of bad-assery after “Sin City”, I became more excited. When I discovered that Clive was going up against a villain played by Paul Giamatti, an actor who is never ever boring, my excitement grew. When I saw the trailer, full of car chases, explosions and plenty of bullets flying around, I put it on my must-see list. Then I promptly forgot all about its existence…until I saw an ad for it and learned that it would be released this past weekend. (A violent, fun-filled action movie AND a western released on the same weekend…the movie gods have officially smiled down on me.) I was unable to see it this weekend (you try dragging your fiancee to a film entitled “Shoot ‘Em Up”) but I DID get in there as soon as I was able.

(more…)

Share on Facebook

1980 / 111 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz

If you absolutely, positively have to watch a big-budget sci-fi movie made specifically to capitalize on the surprise success of “Star Wars”, watch “Flash Gordon”. Truly, accept no substitutes.

(more…)

Share on Facebook

1997/ 129 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz

I’m thinking about doing a series of articles on films that actually deliver the popcorn movie goods, without going back to the usual suspects and legitimate classics (i.e. “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, “Star Wars”, “Jaws”, etc.). Now, before you all get too excited, you must realize that I am probably too lazy to stick with such a thing, and I may have trouble thinking of enough movies that fit the requirements I would impose on such a subject. For one thing, the movie has to have plenty of explosions. Secondly, it needs to have characters that you actually care about. Third, it has to have something that clearly distinguishes itself from all the other blockbuster and wannabe blockbuster dreck. And, of course, it must be fun.

(more…)

Share on Facebook