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!

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

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

So, without further ado, here we go.

1. “The Life Aquatic”

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

2. “Team America: World Police”

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

3. “I Heart Huckabees”

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

4. “The Aviator”

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

5. “Ocean’s Twelve”

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

6. “Alexander”

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

7. “Spanglish”

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

8. “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow”

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

9. “Shaun of the Dead”

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

10. “Finding Neverland”

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

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

“Closer”

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

“Blade: Trinity”

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

“National Treasure”

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

“A Sound of Thunder”

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

“Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason”

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

“The Forgotten”

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

“Surviving Christmas”

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

“Sideways”

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

“Meet the Fockers”

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

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

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

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

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

Well, friends and neighbors, it’s that time o’ the year again. It’s, um, fall? Yup, Fall. That’s what it is. And there’s a whole slate of flicks coming out in the last couple months here that are jockeying for your entertainment dollar. And some of these films don’t even look to suck. So, as I have done for the past couple of years, I’d like to shine the harsh light of day onto these flicks and let you know which movies I am most anxiously awaiting and, in short, look like they might actually be worth a damn. But, this year, there aren’t as many films that have me champing at the bit. There aren’t quite as many films this fall/winter that have me jumping up and down and clapping my hands like a little girl in anticipation. But oh well. There’s still a few of them lurking out there.

I think.

1. “Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”

“Fellowship of the Ring” was awesome! Seriously, just plain amazing. I loved every second of it and still watch it repeatedly. It’s probably already one of my favorite films of all time and, in retrospect, is the greatest movie of 2001. (”Moulin Rouge” is good and all but…) “The Two Towers” is a solid, even excellent film, but not quite as good as “Fellowship” and they changed a couple characters from the book and stuff like that which might not seem like much, but still occasionally pisses me off. Still, it’s a great movie and one of last year’s best. So, at the very least, “Return of the King” should shape up to be a great movie and provide some very breathtaking spectacle. At the best, it could leave “Fellowship” in the dust and make me ruin a perfectly good pair of pants come December 17th. So, you know, hooray!

2. “Kill Bill: Volume One”

Quentin Tarantino, I think I speak for an entire nation of film geeks when I say: “Where the hell have you been?” I loved “Pulp Fiction” and “Jackie Brown” (oh, right, and “Reservoir Dogs” which I’m not so huge on, but it’s still damn good) so I’ve been wanting more films from the Q Man. The only down side is that this is a balls to the wall kung fu flick, the plot of which sounds like “Charlie’s Angels” if Charlie screwed over one of the Angels and earned her hellish wrath. I claim that as a down side because I’d sorta like to see another movie with criminals and smart, witty dialogue and an occasional bloodbath. But it’ll be nice to see Quentin bring his witty touch to the whole kung fu genre and, hopefully, he will be able to inject it with the sense of flair and coolness that it’s sort of been losing lately thanks to the fact that there seems to be kung fu in every third film being made nowadays and they just keep getting more outlandish. (Thanks, “Matrix”!) But it’s been six years, so it’ll be nice to see the words “A Quentin Tarantino Film” splashed all over the big screen.

3. “Love Actually”

I like British people. Particularly, I like British comedians. They’re usually sharper and more sophisticated than American comedians and there’s just this indefinable something about them. I’m not sure what it is. Maybe it’s the fact that thirty years of Bond films have conditioned me to see them as dapper and debonair and seeing them as anything less is just somehow hilarious. This movie is just stocked with such people: Hugh Grant, Rowan Atkinson, Alan Rickman, Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, Liam Neeson, the gorgeous Keira Knightley and even a couple of Americans- Laura Linney and Denise Richards. Plus, the whole concoction is a romantic comedy brewed up by a master of the form: Richard Curtis who, since writing the “Black Adder” and “Mr. Bean” television series has gone on to pen the scripts for “Four Weddings and a Funeral” and “Notting Hill” as well as co-writing “Bridget Jones’s Diary”. And this one is a sprawling romantic comedy of epic proportions about sixteen separate people all falling in love or something like that. The trailer was funny and the movie looks highly intriguing, which is more than I can say about most of the movies set to release in the coming months…

4. “Intolerable Cruelty”

The Coen Brothers are back, and they have once again made an alliance with George Clooney. The trailer looks fun, despite the fact that Catherine Zeta Jones is in this…which can go either way. Billy Bob Thornton seems to be providing laughs simply by showing up, which is admirable, and the whole thing looks like a breezy good time. The reason it’s not higher on this list is because the screenplay appears to be written by two other guys and the Coens seem content merely to direct. This causes me concern, but if the Coens have devoted themselves to filming someone else’s work, then that work must be worth something. Looks amusing.

5. “Mystic River”

There is one main reason to see this movie: CLINT! CLINT! The hand of God is on the tiller of this film. He’s not in it, but he’s controlling every aspect of it, and that makes it worth at least a look. The buzz is pretty good on this one as well, and it’s got a great cast that includes Kevin Bacon, Sean Penn and Laurence Fishburne, who looks relieved not to be in another damn “Matrix” movie for once. But, if you’re wavering about seeing it, I have something else to say: CLINT! CLINT! CLINT!

6. “Runaway Jury”

I usually have no interest in seeing courtroom movies, or movies based on John Grisham books, but the trailer for this movie is a breathless marvel and if the movie is the same way, well, then it should be an intense experience. Cusack is in it, and so is “Mummy” beauty Rachel Weisz, as well as veteran folk like Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman. The cast is cool, the concept (scrambling to decide which side of a trial controls the jury of a billion-dollar trial) is cool and the whole thing just oozes a breathless, top-notch thriller sort of attitude. So count me in.

7. “Big Fish”

I like Tim Burton and have never disliked anything he’s done. He directs this and it stars Ewan McGregor, who is, in my belief, one of the finest young actors in Hollywood today. Plus, Danny Devito is running around, and that’s usually a good thing. Add all that up, and you’ve got my ass firmly planted in a seat. The whole plot of a man investigating the tall tales of his dying father, also sounds promising.

8. “The Singing Detective”

Robert Downey Jr. and Mel Gibson are among the players of this strange musical based on a British miniseries about a delusional detective. Songs, dance, delusions, a recovering drug addict (Downey) and Mel. Even if it doesn’t work at all, it should be fun to watch.

9. “The Matrix Revolutions”

I guess I have some desire to see this movie. I should have more, though, and that’s what bothers me. The original “Matrix” is, in my opinion, one of the best science fiction films of all time. The second is alright, I guess, and fun to watch, but not a whole lot more than that. I hope that “Matrix Revolutions” is more like the original, but since I am a realist, I believe it will be more like the latter. And if it isn’t at least a hell of a lot better than “Reloaded” and explains what the fuck was going ON in “Reloaded”, then I am officially disappointed. I’m sure I will be going on opening day anyway, but I will be sitting in the theater with my arms folded over my chest, waiting for the film to have made the trip worth my while.

10. “Timeline”

Unfortunately, Paul Walker is in this. But the trailer I have seen makes it look like a good time. It’s based on a Micheal Crichton novel, and those are usually entertaining. Plus the plot involves both time travel and medieval times, which are two things that I enjoy. So I’m going to go and hopefully have a lot of fun. That’s really all I expect.

Other than that, there really isn’t much I care to see. I’d like to see Tom kick some ass in “The Last Samurai” and I am looking forward to seeing Jack Nicholson play himself once again in “Something’s Gotta Give” and I can’t really say no to a movie entitled “Bad Santa” but these ten are the ones that I am most hankering for and, frankly, I could probably do without seeing a couple of them. So there you have it. It doesn’t look like that great of a year, and it hasn’t been so far. Unless “Return of the King” completely floors me, “Pirates of the Caribbean” will probably emerge as my favorite film of 2003. And that would be just a little weird.

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

“The Horror, the horror….”
-Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) in “Apocalypse Now”

Christmas is a time for good cheer. Thanksgiving is a time to give thanks for what you have been given and think about how fortunate you are. New Years is a time to reflect on the passing year and think about how to improve the one ahead.

But Halloween. That’s a whole different beast altogether. No such thoughtful holiday is Halloween. It’s a time to dress in costumes, eat candy, and watch a movie that will scare the bejesus out of you. Needless to say, it’s my favorite holiday. Much more fun than most other holidays. Much less commercialized (well, the whole holiday was started by commercialism anyway) and the commercialization that has set in is just about having fun. No treacly pap about brotherly love here covering an attempt to sell you everything from diapers to beer. There’s something I can get behind.

And since horror movies are what this holiday is all about, let me give you some handy hints about the good ones. Many of the films that try to pass themselves off as “scary” are just gory, or stupid, or lame. Some of them mistake blood for fear, which it isn’t, if you ask me. Fear is something more sneaky. Fear is about the half-glimpsed thing hiding in the woods. Fear is about what you can’t see more than what you can. I prefer something that achieves eerieness, something that makes my flesh crawl. Something that might even rob me of some sleep.

Which brings us to Number One on my top-five, all-time scary movie list:

1. “The Exorcist”

The only movie that has made me frightened before I even saw it. Just the idea is creepy. The devil taking control of your body. Well, the idea is pretty creepy as it is executed in THIS movie. Not in movies like “Lost Souls”. The turning of the head. The message that rises out of the little girl’s stomach. The overall tone of the movie. Those harrowing last twenty minutes. The phrases that come out of the poor girl’s mouth. I have never seen any horror movie that had such an impact on me. Easily still as horrifying and shocking today as it was twenty-seven years ago. Some have said that since this movie was made, it no longer retains its ability to shock. Some say that audiences have been too jaded since then. I say that’s all bullshit. This is still the creepiest thing ever to come down the pike.

2. “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”

The original, mind you. Not the sequels, not the crappy remake (which is, however, almost worth seeing just to see a young Matthew McConaughey as a sicko tow-truck driver, at least it does have one genuinely unsettling moment…and Rene Zellweger is in it too) I am talking about the first “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. This movie is truly shocking and unsettling. Like all master horror films, it does nothing to prepare you for the first scare. Suddenly, out of nowhere….well, I’ll let you see it for yourself. Despite its title, this movie is a triumph of eerie atmosphere and true horror, not of sheer gore for gore’s sake. Leatherface is a genuinely terrifying foe, unlike most of his horror movie ilk (he would literally have Freddy Krueger and Jason for dinner) and a force to be reckoned with. It also is sorta like the original “Blair Witch Project”. It’s so low-budget that it actually looks like it is really happening, or like something that actually did happen. Therefore, all the dark humor in the world (incredibly dark humor) cannot dilute the fear that is reaching out of the screen and seizing you by the throat. Not only that, but it’s a one-movie argument against picking up hitchhikers.

3. “Night of the Living Dead”

Unsettling and disturbing are also two great words to describe this, the mother of all zombie movies. Black and white and bringing new definition to the word “stark”, this movie works mainly because of its unpredictability and the claustrophobic aura it creates. Racism and other tensions run high between a group of people as they fight against an army of flesh-eating zombies baying at their door. You don’t know who will live and who will die. The movie also wins bonus points for its unique casting of a black man as the hero. Very creepy stuff, with a dark human commentary at its center.

4. “Evil Dead”

The other “Evil Dead” movies are just plain fun, but this one is harrowing to its icy core. The humor that made the others palattable is not in evidence here, or rather it is of a much darker strain than that of the other films. It is also the one time that gore actually works for a film. The movie succeeds mainly due to its goosebump-causing tone and its unique and ground-breaking bag of cinematic tricks. Not to mention the solid work of an impossibly fresh-faced Bruce Campbell. Sam Raimi’s Hollywood calling card.

5. “Poltergeist”

Tobe Hooper has two movies on this list. What a man. No one does horror any better than him. “Salem’s Lot” is pretty darn good too, although not quite good enough to eek its way onto this list. Anyway, this story of a young girl and mysterious forces in the most haunted house I have ever seen has more scares on it than you can ask of a movie (with the exception of “The Exorcist”). Good performances, creepy moments coming one after another, and many other virtues. A wild, twisted, and eerie ride.

5 1/2. “Scream”

The rest of the movie is nothing but an exercise in hip self-awareness, although a much more fun and involving exercise in hip self-awareness than its two successors and the endless list of clones that it inspired, but the first scene is truly terrifying. Poor, beautiful Drew Barrymore: alone in the house and called by a man who starts out rather sexy and interesting and then turns a lot more scary. The shocking part? SPOILER ALERT: Drew is the biggest star in the movie, and she ends up gutted by the time the opening credits roll. Yikes. That is creepy.

If you don’t want something terrifying on Halloween, however, well, there are some alternatives that are just plain fun.

“Sleepy Hollow”

Beautiful cinematography, decapitations, a dense and wonderful visual style and a hilarious and droll performance by Johnny Depp.

“Evil Dead 2″

For sheer fun and inventive gore, accept no substitutes. Bruce Campbell’s physical comedy here deserves favorable comparison to Buster Keaton and the effects are remarkable. Pure bloodthirsty fun from beginning to end.

“Ghostbusters”

Ghosts, Bill Murray, best comedy in the history of time. Nuff said.

“An American Werewolf in London”

A remarkable eerie tone, the best werewolf transformation in history (all on camera and all stunningly realistic) and some very funny moments of dark comedy. Also includes the funniest rotting corpse in cinematic history.

“Dead Alive”

Dark, violent, often hilarious, very sickening. A good time all around.

That should be enough to make your Halloween a good time. Just pick up some candy and popcorn, put on a costume, and let the fun (and maybe lack of sleep) begin. Enjoy.

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

Yes, friends and neighbors, it is once more that time of year. Summer has blown its wad like an impatient prom date and now we are left with Fall and Winter. A great many of the studios’ true show ponies and Oscar contenders will be trotted out for our amusement in the coming months. I have analyzed the Fall Preview Issues of both Premiere AND Entertainment Weekly and, as I have the past couple of years, I have made a list of the films that look the least likely to suck. These are the films I will be viewing for sure in the next few months. And I thought you might like a heads up on them as well. So here they are, in order of enthusiasm.

1. “Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”

I wasn’t that jacked up to see the first installment of this series, “Fellowship of the Ring”. But then I saw the movie and it began a love affair with a film such as I have not been treated to in quite some time. The film enthralled me. It riveted me. It got me addicted. I saw it more times in the theater than any other film. Does that mean it’s my favorite film ever? No. Does it mean that it would be one of my ten favorite films of all time? Probably not. But the film did hook me. So the prospect of another one, right on the heels of that one, made at the same time and before any of the greatness of the first one and creative gusto of the first film could dissipate on the part of the filmmakers involved has me drooling, quite frankly. I can guarantee you that this man will be there opening day to see “The Two Towers”. I want to see the continuation of this magnificent quest. I want to see the battle of Helm’s Deep. I want to see the Ents. I want to see more of Gollum. And, of course, I want to see SARUMAN! I cannot friggin’ wait. That’s all there is to it. Needless to say, I am taking the day off of work, and seeing the film at least once opening day.

2. “The Gangs of New York”

You may remember that this film was on my list last year (it was number one, in fact, with a bullet or two). Well, it never came out, it’s supposed to come out this year, and I am still burning to see it. My Scorsese mania has passed (or has gone into hibernation, at least) but the concept of a new film by this master of cinema, one involving elements of both the western and gangster genres and with Daniel Day Lewis running around like a badass in a tophat and the sort of moustache that went out of style in the 1910’s has me galvanized with excitement. Also, we get to see Leonardo DiCaprio work again, which is an exciting concept to those of us who like him (and screw the rest of you idiots). Oh, and the trailer kicks some major ass. This movie looks like a hell of a time.

3. “Catch Me if You Can”

Speaking of DiCaprio, he’s also in this film, playing the most successful con man in U.S. history. This film is based on the true story of a man who defrauded banks, airlines and universities and got a ton of money in the process. The man then went on to become a respected member of the U.S. security community. If that isn’t enough to entice you, the movie is directed by Steven Spielberg (who masterfully guided many awesome films, but proved he’s still got it with this year’s “Minority Report”) and stars, aside from Leo, Tom Hanks, Martin Sheen, Jennifer Garner and Christopher Walken. It can’t help but be good.

4. “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”

According to this film, and the man’s own autobiography, Chuck Barris was not only the host of the infamous Gong Show, but he was also a top secret agent of the U.S. government and an assassin. George Clooney is directing this oddball would-be gem and Sam Rockwell, one of the finest of modern character actors, gets his chance to carry the movie as the afore-mentioned Barris. Drew Barrymore and the irritatingly ubiquitous Julia Roberts are also in evidence. And the whole madcap romp is written by Charlie Kauffman, one of the absurd geniuses who pulled the strings on “Being John Malkovich”. I just have a really good, weird feeling about this one.

5. “Adaptation”

Contrary to popular opinion, I do not hate Nicolas Cage. When he’s good, he’s DAMN good. When he’s not, however, he’s (as my friend Ben describes him) A sleeping pill. He really sucks, and he has shown a real shitty aptitude for picking material lately (not to mention wives…. Lisa Marie PRESLEY? The Hell?). I didn’t have to see “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin” or “Family Man” to smell the odor of crap hanging about them. He hasn’t had a worthwhile film behind him since “Bringing Out the Dead”. And that was three years ago (well, it seems longer). But “Adaptation” is the sort of bizarre thing that Nic can bat right out of the park. It’s by the writer and director of “Being John Malkovich” and it requires him to (A) be fat (B) be twins (C) obsess over Meryl Streep and (D) do all sorts of weird things. This might be the sort of thing that can redeem Nic’s sorry ass and make me respect him again. Well, here’s hoping, anyway.

6. “Die Another Day”

Bond, James Bond. Pierce Brosnan is back. He beds a couple women, blows up a few things, drinks a few martinis, and saves the world again. And all is right with the world. Sure, “The World is Not Enough” was not my favorite Bond movie (it was my least favorite of all Brosnan’s films, though it did have a lot of good moments). But it was still damn entertaining. And aside from “The Man With the Golden Gun”, no Bond movie has been outright bad. They’re always a lot of fun. Where else can you get such a guarantee? Sure, I thought “XXX” had its charms. But it will be nice to kick back with the one secret agent you can most rely on. Nobody does it better, you know.

7. “Punch Drunk Love”

Adam Sandler and P.T. Anderson. There is no way in hell that these two names should be in the same sentence. And yet, P.T. Anderson, the man behind “Magnolia” and “Boogie Nights” has decided to make a film starring Adam Sandler, the desperate man-child imp and darling of stupid movie aficionados everywhere. Is Anderson finally making a misstep? Or does he see something that the rest of us don’t? This will either be a revelation or a trainwreck. Either way, I can’t wait to see it.

8. “Femme Fatale”

DE PALMA! I rest my case.

9. “Rules of Attraction”

A weird, dark little movie about teenagers and their various problems by the co-writer of “Pulp Fiction” (Roger Avery). I have a good feeling about this movie. It looks nice and twisted. Could be a good, bitter time.

10.”Solaris”

Clooney and Soderbergh together once more. This time in space. With James Cameron producing. It sounds like a meditation on life and death set in the cosmos: the sort of thing that movies like “2001: A Space Odyssey” have done before, but few others have attempted. This could really be something. And, whatever it is, I’m sure it won’t suck.

Well, there you have it: the ten films that I most have a hankering to check out. I don’t think any of them will really disappoint me (but I have been wrong before) and I’m not ruling out any dark horses that might sneak into the race. All in all, this year has been a good one and it should be interesting to see what lies ahead.

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

Tonight I had the great pleasure of meeting an honest-to-God famous person. Well, a famous person that you may not know. Bruce Campbell: American cinema’s best kept secret.

For the uninitiated out there: Bruce Campbell is the star of the “Evil Dead” film trilogy. He is the man with the chainsaw hand. The guy who says things like “Groovy” and “Gimme some sugar, baby”. He is the epitome of cool in a zombie crisis situation. But the great thing about him in these movies is that he isn’t the brightest of guys. He’s just the only guy who is around to deal with the problem. He isn’t the greatest of heroes. He’s just the only person around. A bit of a jerk, really, but he has to rise to the challenge. Therein lies the greatness of Bruce Campbell. He’s a fearless actor.

Sure, he isn’t the greatest thespian ever to appear on film, but he has a real charm to him. There’s just something great about him. He’s not afraid to do anything on film. He’s genuinely funny, with a slapstick air about him and a technique with physical comedy that makes him a bit of an heir to the throne of Buster Keaton (look no further than the scene where his hand becomes possessed in “Evil Dead 2″, it’s a gutbuster). He also is a master of what I like to call “eyebrow acting”. “Eyebrow acting” is just how it sounds: it’s conveying emotions with the eyebrows. But some people just don’t know how to use eyebrows properly. They don’t know the delicate range of emotions that a great flick of the eyebrows can convey. It’s an art that a lot of actors just don’t make use of. I only notice it because, in my few cinematic roles (videos shot by Ben Heckendorn) I have been told that I am very good at using my eyebrows. Therefore, I tend to notice it in other actors. But that isn’t all that he does well. Like Kurt Russell at his best (though better than Kurt) he has mastered the art of underplaying in a crisis situation. He has mastered the art of the one-liner.

In short: he rules.

But enough of eyebrows and other things. During a fifteen minute Q and A session, Bruce answered many questions that even those who are not interested in zombie flicks might find interesting. One of Bruce’s upcoming roles, for example, is that of a wrestling announcer in his friend Sam Raimi’s new movie. A little movie called “Spider Man”. Perhaps you’ve heard about it. Anyways, Bruce has the pivotal role of the man who names Spider Man. Really! He’s the announcer of a wrestling match between Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man and “Macho Man” Randy Savage. Tobey tells Bruce that he is “The Human Spider” and Bruce shakes his head. He then announces him as “The Amazing Spider Man”. “So, without me, the movie would be called ‘The Human Spider’.”

Bruce also told us a little something about a film called “Bubba Ho Tep”. Now, get a load of the plot of this one: Bruce plays Elvis Presley at age 68, now living in a retirement home. Ossie Davis is also in the film, as an elderly man who believes that he is JFK. See, Ossie thinks that he was painted black and put in the retirement home and that part of his brain is still being kept alive in the White House somewhere. He also believes that there is an ancient Aztec mummy roaming the halls of the retirement home sucking the souls out of the patrons through their assholes. I could not make this shit up. But I am glad someone has. It sounds like the most gonzo premise since “Being John Malkovich” and I, for one, hope that it doesn’t go straight to video the way that some sacreligious fan suggested this evening.

He also said that he will not be involved in the fifth “Phantasm” movie. But I don’t think anyone really gave a shit about that one anyway. Though, if Bruce were in it…..

Anyway, Bruce is the most personable and fun guy you could ever hope to meet. He’s a wonderful guy who actually seems a lot less conceited than most average people I have met. He allowed me to have my picture taken with him and signed a copy of his book, which, by the way, is the reason that he was in town. It’s called “If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B-Movie Actor” and, unlike most books about celebrities, this one is about the harsh reality of working in Hollywood as told by one of those people who slave away at it for years without achieving super-stardom. Think about it for a second and you’ll realize just how cool a concept that is. We all know what life is like for the Bruce Willises and Steven Spielbergs of the world. But what about the, well, the Bruce Campbells? If this intrigues you, then I whole-heartedly urge you to rush out and pick up a copy of his book. It’s twenty-five bucks well spent, from what I read while waiting in line to shake hands with the man. That’s right, I actually SHOOK HANDS with the guy who played Brisco County Jr.

All this may not mean anything to you, but to the true movie nuts like me…well, it’s just plain awesome. I will never forget the night I met Bruce Campbell and I will always be able to look at what he wrote me in the front of his book and smile.

“Dale-

Hail to the King.

Bruce.”

Cool. I’m still giddy about it!

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

This year has sucked, as far as movies are concerned. Oh sure, we’ve had a couple decent flicks. We’ve had “Moulin Rouge”, which was an amazing movie and probably would have been head and shoulders above all others in ANY film year. We’ve had “The Tailor of Panama”, my second favorite film of this year, which was remarkably witty, powerful and daring. But for the most part, it’s been tough going at the cineplex. Even the other great stuff has been fairly overrated: “Shrek” was cute and pretty funny, but I am officially sick of hearing about it. “Memento” was a neat trick, but I still think that far too many people have been jizzing over it. It’s not bad, but it’s not as amazing as everyone else seems to think. And the great critical response to “A.I.” just proves how weak this year has been. Until the last twenty minutes, this is Spielberg (Kubrick?) at his best. But then you’ve got those last twenty minutes, which shoot the entire, intelligent and fascinating film directly in the foot.

So I eagerly anticipate the rest of the year. There is some promising stuff yet to come. Thank God. Perhaps, like last year, the greatest films of the year are still ahead of us. I sincerely hope so. I am getting tired of disappointment. These are the films that I have the most hope for. They are the ones that I am keeping my eye on with anxious anticipation.

So, without any further ado, here it is.

1. “The Gangs of New York”

Scorsese has been passionate about making this movie for years. That gives me hope. I mean, come on. When the man responsible for “Raging Bull” and “Taxi Driver” is passionate about something, it’s worth your time. Scorsese is one of the legends and it will be nice to see what he does with this story: the story of warring factions on the streets of New York City as it is born in the 1860’s. The cast is also worthy of note: Leonardo DiCaprio (who I believe is one of the best actors of his generation), Daniel Day Lewis, Liam Neeson, and Cameron Diaz. My highest hopes are riding on this film. Should be interesting, to say the least.

2. “Vanilla Sky”

I would line up to see anything that Cameron Crowe does. He has never disappointed me. In fact, the opposite is true. Each time he crafts a film, he puts such a wealth of heart, soul, humor and brains into it that it just reminds you how hollow eighty percent of other films are. This is said to be a departure for Crowe. It is Crowe’s stab at a Hitchcock type of movie, from what I hear. It stars Tom Cruise (who was never better than in Crowe’s amazing “Jerry Maguire”: “Magnolia” be damned!), Jason Lee, Cameron Diaz, Penelope Cruz (not so thrilled about that) and Kurt Russell. In fact, early word that I have heard claims that Russell is so good in this that an Oscar might be in order. Don’t know about you, but any movie that might get Snake Plissken an award is definitely worthy of my time.

3. “From Hell”

London, 1890’s. Fog. Dark, cobblestone streets. Shadows. Gaslights. Jack the Ripper. Stylish direction. Johnny Depp. Sounds fine to me. I’m a sucker for Victorian England movies. Anything involving Sherlock Holmes, for example. So I’m waiting eagerly for this one. Plus, it had a cool trailer.

4. “The Majestic”

It’s by Frank Darabont, who batted his last two films (”The Shawshank Redemption” and “The Green Mile”) out of the park. So it should be interesting to see what he does with something that is not only not a Stephen King adaptation but is also a Capraesque comedy involving McCarthyism and amnesia. Plus, BRUCE CAMPBELL is in it! Yay! Oh, and Jim Carrey is the star of the piece. Martin Landau is here too, which is worth noting. But, uh, BRUCE CAMPBELL is in it! Would be higher on the list if not for the fact that Carrey looks like he’s trying to wrangle an Oscar again. It’s still got me excited.

5. “The Man Who Wasn’t There”

It’s by the Coen Brothers, two of the most original voices in modern cinema. It’s their return to their film noir roots. It’s got a laconic barber played by Billy Bob Thornton in it. Also on hand are James Gandolfini, Frances McDormand and Tony Shalhoub. Outta be fun.

6. “Monsters Inc.”

Pixar is back. Since Pixar have made movies that are both innovative and funny as hell with the “Toy Story” flicks and “A Bug’s Life”, I’ll see anything they have to offer. It also has the voices of Billy Crystal and John Goodman. I could use a good laugh, and this looks like the best chance for it.

7. “The Royal Tenenbaums”

It’s by the guys who made “Rushmore”! It’s got Bill Murray, Gene Hackman and Luke Wilson in it! It should be sharp and hilarious. Hell, “Bottle Rocket” was even excellent!

8. “K-Pax”

Jeff Bridges, meet Kevin Spacey. Kevin Spacey, meet Jeff Bridges. You two play nice now. Two of my favorite actors, one of them may be an alien. No, that’s the premise of the film. Though, you never can tell…..

9. “Heist”

David Mamet (”The Untouchables”, “State and Main”) wrote and directed this heist film starring the likes of Danny DeVito, Gene Hackman, Ricky Jay, Sam Rockwell, and Delroy Lindo. I’m a sucker for a heist flick, and this one certainly sounds promising.

10. “The Fellowship of the Ring”

Read the book, guess it was good. May as well see the movie. I just love it when a small, independent film like this gets a chance. If you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. I suppose I have to see this movie. May as well get it over with.

So there you are. Though something tells me that none of these movies is going to top “Moulin Rouge”. I don’t know, man, I just don’t see myself going to any of the ones I have just listed six times. But I do hope that I’m wrong. I just wanna be knocked off my feet by a movie the way that “Moulin Rouge” did. But I will settle for being marvelously entertained.

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the ending of the new film “Planet of the Apes”. Mostly, I believe, because people hate to think. They want everything wrapped neatly up with a little bow. Poor dears. Personally, I like a movie that challenges my mind, if only to fuck with it a little. How else can I explain the number of times that I’ve seen “Total Recall” just to figure out if it’s a dream or not. (I never figured that out, but I think that’s the whole point. And I think that’s cool.) The net is swarming with theories about the ending. Every day, it seems a new one pops up. Again, I think that’s great. It’s like a sort of puzzle! Burton respects your intelligence enough to give you something to puzzle about afterward, something to mull over around the water cooler.

So I decided to offer my own, somewhat less convoluted than most, explanation of the ending of “Planet of the Apes”. If you haven’t seen the film, then don’t read this, like a dumb ass, and then bitch at me for giving things away. I mean, Duh! They’re your eyes, you choose what you look at with them. I’m not going to take responsibility for that. You screwed your own pooch. Though I don’t think it’s a major worry. If you haven’t seen the film, you probably won’t know what I’m talking about anyway.

Okay, I saw it again the other night and here it goes. My friend Adam and I saw it and, on the way home in a massive rain storm, we think we may have figured out the end of the movie.

Get a load of this:

When the Oberon crashed, wouldn’t Earth send a rescue mission? Wouldn’t they send a ship to find the Oberon and find out what happened? And, if so, wouldn’t they use that same tracker device that Wahlberg had to find the Oberon wreckage. Once they did, they would find our old buddy Thade!

Thinking “WOW, look at that monkey!” they would let him go. And when they did, he would kill them all off….except for one man who could guide him back to Earth. I mean, he would want to settle his hash with Wahlberg, would he not? And it’s not unreasonable to believe that there would be a faction of apes that would still be loyal to Thade and follow him on his quest (hey, there are still neo-Nazis). So, with their captive human, they would arrive on Earth and, taking the planet by surprise, kill off a lot of humans and take over. Sure, the humans have guns, but look how much good that did Wahlberg at the end of the film. I think if an army of pissed off apes wanted to take over the planet, they could do a pretty damn good job of it.

Therefore, when Wahlberg arrives a hundred years after the start of the movie, the apes would have had a hundred years to take over and kick a lot of ass. They could have wiped out a pretty good segment of the human population by then.

At least, that was the theory that Adam and I hammered out and it’s the best theory I have figured out so far. The apes may have even got to Earth before the events of the film began, giving them more time to start some ape carnage. And they wouldn’t have gotten time to change the town of Washington D.C. over yet because they just settled into the culture that was already started by their cousins on the primate food chain: the humans. Why not? Worked for us, didn’t it? But they would have had plenty of time to kill all the humans, making them pretty flabbergasted when Wahlberg shows up.

So there you go. What do you think? It’s just a theory, mind you. And, if you find logic problems, just remember the “Mystery Science Theater 3000″ theme song: “Repeat to yourself, it’s just a show, I should really just relax.”

And, if you still are whining about the ending’s lack of sense, let me quote Russell Crowe in last year’s overrated “Gladiator”:

“Were you not entertained?”

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

It happens every year. Every year there is that BIG SUMMER ACTION MOVIE. You know what I’m talking about: the one that everyone and their brother is supposed to flock to. The one that is WHAT SUMMER is all about. And, invariably, it burns you. Because it is usually shit.

Oh, you doubt me? Hmmm, well, think it over. What did we have last year? “Mission: Impossible 2″. No wonder everyone thought last year was such a shitty movie year. It had this right smack dab in the middle of it. It wasn’t as horrible as I initially thought. No, I will confess. The plot is actually pretty solid. But it’s too long, its action scenes are way over the top, and Tom takes a major career backstep in it as far as acting is concerned. So it wasn’t as awful as I thought at first, but it was still a far cry from great. So they filled it full of explosions and put a lot of hype behind it. You can see almost anything with a lot of hype and explosions. If we learned anything from that Piece of Shit “Independence Day”, that should have been it. But I can’t just pick on “MI-2″. No, no. That’s not why I am sitting at my computer and communicating with all you fine people in cyberspace.

No. I am here to pick on “Pearl Harbor”.

If “Mission Impossible 2″ was the only example, we could just forget all about it. A fluke, you would say. Not even that awful of a movie, really. No big deal. Well, did you take stupid pills? Have you forgotten the awful dreck we have swallowed in the past few years? The shit that was supposed to be “Entertainment”? I sure as shit have not.

The following is a list of shitty movies that were forced down our throats in the summer moviegoing season:

“Independence Day”
“Batman Forever”
“Batman and Robin”
“Battlefield Earth”
“Armageddon” (or as Ben Heckendorn calls it: “I’m armageddon-a-headache”)
“Scary Movie”
“The Perfect Storm”
“Austin Powers 2″

And, lest ye forget, “The Phantom Menace”. Each of these movies could qualify as a crime against humanity itself. Each of these movies robbed me of hours I could have better spent clipping my toenails or masturbating or picking up cans along the roadside or WORKING. Any of those activities would be preferable. Oh, I even got conned into enjoying “The Phantom Menace” somehow. Deep down inside of me there was a small child who still loved anything Star Wars and refused to accept that the movie was not so great. Deep down inside, I was in denial. The THX and the nostalgia and the memories of better movies actually led to me being entertained. I apologize. I see now the error of my ways. But each of these movies was bad. But they each made money. Well, okay, “Battlefield Earth” didn’t make money, but it only proves there’s only so much shit that even AMERICANS will swallow.

My point? Each year there is a new, shitty movie with incredible hype and a well-cut trailer that makes anyone who has ever gone to a movie come out of hiding and salivate and get their butts into the seat. Sometimes, be it the air conditioning or the THX or the popcorn smells emanating from the lobby, the movie actually is somewhat enjoyable. And some of those movies are good. Some. But most of them, the ones with the most hype, suck. Suck big, in fact. Hype is usually a good indication that a movie is going to blow, and blow big time. It was the tremendous hype on “Men in Black” that killed it for me the first time I saw it. But that movie actually was good. It was the exception that proved the rule. It had style, it had class, it had wit. Something every movie on that list could have benefited from. Hype is another tool Hollywood uses when it realizes it has a dead dog on its hands. It’s a way to make their money back. Hell, they’re in business to make money. Any Hollywood executive who tells you he’s in it for the art, they’re bullshitting you. They’re making money. And when they put as much cash into a sick cow as they did “Pearl Harbor”, of course they are going to lure you into the theater any way they know how. They are going to hype this bitch up like it’s the second coming of Christ.

A good movie, you see, doesn’t need the hype. It relies on reviews and word of mouth. It relies on people who have seen the movie and will tell you that it is worthwhile. Example? “Titanic”. There was no hype on “Titanic”. Now you’re probably thinking: “Bullshit! I saw hype!” No, you didn’t you ignorant fool. You saw a couple ads. After that, it was just your friends harping on how great it was (it was great, just admit defeat right now) and urging you to go to the theater. If you went and it didn’t live up to those expectations, well, that was your friends making this thing sound impossibly great. Hollywood didn’t need to rub your face in the shit. They did that later, when “Titanic” was doing gangbusters and the studio realized they could make a little extra off it. That was reverse hype, not Hype. Hype is when, two weeks before the movie comes out, you see a print ad every time you open the newspaper, you are bombarded with music videos, you are firebombed and blitzkrieged by television commercials whenever you mistakenly pass by a television. Hype is what got us all into “Independence Day”. Hype is what lured you into “Godzilla”. Hype is what made “Armageddon” a hit. (God Help Us All!)

And that was the problem, dear friends. “Armageddon” was SHIT. Oh, yes it was. Don’t dispute it, you’re fighting a battle you cannot possibly win. It had a shitty romance, it had a lame ending, it had some fun stuff toward the front of the movie and then slowly turned to shit later on. It was patriotic, dumb bullshit with a hot chick in it (what would one of these retard movies be without a hot chick?) and it made a shitload of money because our brains seem to rust when it’s hot. “Armageddon” made money, so Micheal Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer were able to profit and go on to RAPE AMERICAN HISTORY by using their immense hype talents on-

“PEARL HARBOR”!

It’s a “Titanic” wannabe. Look at it! Look it right in the eyes! Two attractive people (Sorry, THREE, this is what’s known in Hollywood as ORIGINALITY) and a big disaster. “Titanic” worked, because it had characters we cared about and its effects were excellent and it had a heart and a soul. This is a clone of that. And we all know that clones have no soul. The original of something has a life to it. The clone of that same thing is just that thing warmed over. It’s like those guys who want to be black and turn their hat backwards. It doesn’t work, because everyone can see through it. Well, if you can’t see through it, “Pearl Harbor” is going to work. “Titanic” made money so Bay and ShitHeimer thought “Hell, WE can do that!” But they can’t. Neither of them is James Cameron. Want proof? Before “Titanic”, Cameron made “Terminator 2″, “Aliens” and “True Lies”. Before “Pearl Harbor” Bay has made “Armageddon”, “The Rock” (an entertaining flick, yes, but it does not prove he can do anything serious) and “Bad Boys”. You remember what a pile of shit “Bad Boys” was, don’t you? I sure as hell do. Ugh! I rest my case. Cameron cares about his characters. All evidence proves that Bay does not.

So if there are no characters to care about (one of them is Ben Affleck, so I’m pretty sure there aren’t), what do we care when the bombing happens? Yes, it was a terrible tragedy, but if we don’t like any of the people, it becomes nothing more than a bunch of “Cool” explosions, and that is entirely against the point. The battle stuff in “Saving Private Ryan” was harrowing. Harrowing. It was cool in that it was effective. But if we see people who could have been our grandparents being blown apart and think “Cool Explosion”, well, the movie is NOT doing its job. That’s my point. If this movie were being made by Spielberg or Cameron, I would be there opening night. If Coppola or Aronofsky or David Lean were making this movie, I would be first in line. Those are filmmakers who understand human drama, and know how to put us through the wringer. They know how to stage an explosion that has a point, that MEANS something. Bay does not. Nor does Bruckheimer.

Need more reasons to stay home? Okay. Here ya go.

A) There is a shitty Faith Hill song in it.

B) It WILL be as rapidly edited as a music video. No thanks. “Gladiator” was good despite that, but it’s a trick that won’t work too often.

C) It’s only PG-13. How the fuck can an effective War movie be PG-13? Huh? Tell me that!

D) The most intriguing stories in it are the real-life stories (from what I’ve read). So why not make the movie more true to life? Why not ditch the sappy love story (I’ve heard some of the lines of dialogue. One of them is “I’m going to give Danny my whole heart, but I’ll never see another sunset without thinking of you”. CLUNK. Remember this was the guy who brought you that fucking animal crackers scene!) and concentrate on the stuff that, oh, I don’t know, ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!???

E) The animal crackers scene in “Armageddon”.

I rest my case. If you go see this movie, you will just encourage this sort of stupid shit to keep going on. Movies in the summer (and every other time) will just keep getting worse and worse. They will just keep making shit this bad. Summer movies used to not suck. Remember “Ghostbusters”? “Jaws”? “Raiders of the Lost Ark”? These were summer films! Movies can be that good again, we just have to raise the bar. We must draw a line in the sand and say “No more of this bullshit! Respect my intelligence!” Women demand a certain amount of respect before they will allow a man to get into their pants. Why can’t we demand the same thing of a movie before it can worm it’s way into our wallet? We can! We should! Stand up! In the immortal words of Twisted Sister, just say “We’re Not Gonna Take It!”

If you must see a good love story about Pearl Harbor, rent “From Here to Eternity”. If you want to see the bombing done magnificently, rent “Tora, Tora, Tora”. You can make a difference. Voting is difference. That requires filling out a piece of paper. This requires not giving up your money. People actually LISTEN to that. Stop bitching about movies and put your money where your mouth is. It’s the only way these greedy Hollywood pricks are gonna learn.

(And, yes, I have been reading a lot of Carlin lately. This one’s for you, George, I’m sure you’d agree.)

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

Yes, it’s that time of year again. Time for everyone in Hollywood to tell us that they actually make uplifting and/or “important” films all year by selecting the four or five films of the year that actually made a difference. Well, most years anyway. But, apparently, not this year. The year 2000 was not as bad a year as most people say it was, but you would never know that from the damn Oscars.

Yes, I loved “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”. I thought “Traffic” and “Erin Brockovich” were both fine films. And I thought “Gladiator” was pretty good. But “pretty good” is nowhere near “Best Picture”, folks.

I mean, come on! Hey, Academy! Get your dick out of “Gladiator”’s ass already! Jeez! It was only a few notches above a Bruckheimer film! In fact, if you had Jerry Bruckheimer produce “Ben-Hur” and morph it with “Spartacus” the results would be not unlike “Gladiator”. It has the same “world through a pair of shades” tone to it. It has the same rapid, concentration-deficit editing style. The only difference is that it has a fairly compelling story and some great acting. But that does NOT make it the best film of the year.

The Best Film of the Year? It was possibly “Quills” or “Almost Famous” or “Cast Away”. But guess what? None of those films were even NOMINATED!!!!! Horse shit, I say! How anyone can look me in the eye and tell me that “Gladiator” was better than any of these films is beyond me. IT is a crock. Easily the least great picture to win Best Picture in the past ten years. Ridley Scott is an overrated windbag of a director, too, by the way. All style. All the same style since “Blade Runner” and none of them all that hot. I liked “Gladiator”, I liked “Thelma and Louise” and I liked “Hannibal” fairly well. But based on the strength of these films, I would rate him as nothing more than a competent hack. That’s it.

“Gladiator” is not even as good as “Charlie’s Angels” for the love of Christ!

Anyway, aside from their lavishing awards on “Gladiator” I thought the awards were fairly competent. Oh, and the oversight of “Almost Famous”, “Cast Away” and “Quills” that is. Oh, and “Nurse Betty”. Steve Martin was a breath of fresh air. He was much funnier than just about anyone ever to host the Awards, and lightyears better than Whoopi (couldn’t even sit through the 1998 awards thanks to her). Ernest Lehman deserves his recognition (Better late than never, I suppose). For writing “North by Northwest” and “Sabrina” alone he deserves an award. Dino has produced more movies than God and was worthy of his award as well.

Glad to see Benicio get recognized. He is awesome in just about anything. Thank God Cameron Crowe and Steven Soderbergh were recognized (the least the fucking Academy can do after mainly stiffing Crowe’s film) and the awards given to “Crouching Tiger” were nice to see also. I thought Ellen Burstyn deserved Best Actress, but Julia was my second choice and her acceptance speech dissolved my skepticism as I watched. However, how the Academy can stiff both Tom and Geoffrey for their best performances ever (Make it a tie) and give it to the utterly humorless Russell Crowe (thought he was gonna kill Steve Martin) is a travesty. Russell is a good actor, true, but not as good as either of those other men. Or Ed Harris, for that matter. Based on his work in that CLIP from “Pollock” I would almost be tempted to give him the award.

Vincent Price, oops, Bob Dylan deserved his award for Best Song (just listen to the songs and tell me he didn’t). And Bjork? What the hell is that woman on? I wanna know someday. A Swan dress? Uh, no comment. And it was nice to see Marcia Gay Harden even get mentioned! I have been interested by her work since I saw her in “Miller’s Crossing”. I didn’t see “Pollock” but it looks like a powerful work and she is always very good in anything. See her in “Space Cowboys” in fact.

So, in summary, the night was a sham and a travesty and a real pain in the ass. But it usually is and at least Steve Martin made everything worth sitting through. Nice to see someone funny aside from Billy (and funnier than Crystal, come on) hosting the things for a change.

Hope he’s back next year. And I hope that next year the Oscars award something of higher quality that tackles more important issues and comments upon the human condition in a refreshing and compelling manner.

Something like, oh, I don’t know, “Charlie’s Angels”.

Share on Facebook