2007 / 144 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Well here we are. Another summer and another blatant attempt by Hollywood to tap into our collective nostalgia for a childhood long since past in order to make a quick buck (or a few hundred million of them anyway). Usually I don’t particularly care as it is typically something I could give less than a crap about like Dukes of Hazzard or The Cat in the Hat that finds itself being taken advantage of by the mad Hollywood marketing machine.

(more…)

2007 / 90 Minutes / Unrated
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I am not what one would call a horror film aficionado by any stretch of the imagination. So it would be prudent of me to start out this review by saying that, to date, I have yet to see any of the Saw or Hostel movies. For whatever reason I have never acquired a taste for them like many filmgoers have. Now, of course, I appreciate the greatness of films like The Exorcist and The Shining, but to me those are films that manage to transcend the genre and exist outside the boundaries of what a horror film should be.

(more…)

2004 / 106 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

When I first heard the premise of this film it sounded as if someone had put “Groundhog Day” and “Memento” in a blender and the result was something involving Drew Barrymore, Adam Sandler, and sea mammals.

To my surprise it was that and a whole lot more. It may not be as well crafted and clever as “Memento”, or as funny as “Groundhog Day” but it does contain an ingredient that those two films were lacking in: heart.

“50 First Dates” proves to be a surprisingly emotional film and yet it never feels manipulative. This is due in large part to the considerable talents of its stars. Sandler, after some shaky early scenes, shows that his performance in “Punch-Drunk Love” was no fluke in his candid portrayal of Henry Roth, a caretaker of a Hawaiian Sea World of sorts. Apparently he is some sort of Hawaiian Don Juan who woos women while they are on vacation only to sever ties with them when their vacation comes to an end.

Henry is quite at ease with the “no strings” relationship lifestyle he has made for himself when one day he finds himself in a restaurant sitting across from Lucy (Barrymore). He manages to start a conversation with her and they actually hit it off. They even make plans to have breakfast again the next day. So when tomorrow comes and Henry arrives for breakfast he is shocked to find that Lucy acts as if she has never met him before in her life. Come to find out, Lucy might as well be Guy Pearce’s sister as she suffers from short-term memory loss. To further complicate things her family and friends recreate the events of the day of the accident that caused her condition every single day. So, in essence, she keeps living the same day over and over again.

Henry falls in love with her and every day he makes it his mission to make her fall in love with him all over again. Some days he succeeds and other days he crashes and burns, but he never stops trying. On the worst days, Lucy finds out that her life is not what she thinks it is. On these days she goes to the doctor and is told that she will never get her short-term memory back. The only consolation is that she won’t remember any of this when she wakes up the next day.

The role of Lucy would be a difficult role for any actress to take on, but Drew handles it with grace and a great deal of conviction. Like Sandler, she gets the opportunity to showcase the full range of her acting abilities in this film. She’s not just a pretty face, as evidenced by her previous work in “Riding in Cars With Boys”, and this performance should help to solidify her status as a talented actress if people give this film a chance.

At this point, you’re probably thinking “Jones! I thought this was supposed to be a comedy?” Have no fear my friends, it is a film that has its fair share of funny moments. Most of these moments are the product of the scene-stealing performance turned in by Rob Schneider as Henry’s friend and coworker Ula. If you were to look up comic relief in the dictionary you should find a picture of him in this role to provide the definition. He is a hopelessly inept man who at the very least is sincere in all of his words and actions no matter how inappropriate they may be. There was one scene in particular that illustrated this. Henry tries to get Lucy’s attention when she is driving by, by having Ula appear to be mugging him. Ula gets a little more of her attention than he was expecting when she starts beating the crap out of him with a baseball bat. I have rarely laughed as hard during a movie as I did at this scene. Depends are optional, but recommended.

“50 First Dates” proves to be reminiscent of “Shallow Hal” in that it is a comedy with a lot more going on than one would suspect. There are a few weak points involving animal humor and whatnot, but not enough to outweigh its surprisingly considerable strengths. It is anchored by strong performances and a fairly clever script that never takes the easy way out, as it always remains true to its premise. That, my friends, is a rare commodity these days, especially in a comedy.

I went in to “50 First Dates” expecting little more than a routine romantic comedy involving Adam Sandler, Drew Barrymore, and sea mammals. I came out having experienced a movie that was far better than it had any right to be.

Quite honestly, I can’t think of anything else I could ask of a movie.

2003 / 111 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

It is a rare thing for me to say that a film left me feeling assaulted. Perhaps, I should have qualified that statement by saying “good” film. I say this, because I have felt assaulted by horrifically bad movies like “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” and “Goldmember” to name a couple past offenders. Although those would be defined more as muggings than assaults I suppose, as my wallet did feel a bit lighter after sitting through those pieces of crap.

The point of my initial statement is that I have rarely seen films that quite literally leave you changed after having seen them. The last of these films would have been “Requiem For a Dream” and to a lesser extent “Mystic River”. These films leave you planted in your seat as the credits roll and, as you emerge from the theater, you realize that you will never look at the world in the same way again.

“Monster”, make no mistake about it, is one of these films. It cuts no corners. It pulls no punches. It does not sugarcoat its subject matter. It is, at its essence, a raw nerve, unflinching in its vulnerable state of display for us to judge as we see fit. This is what makes this film unnerving. It is also what makes this film an ordeal to make it through.

Based on a true story, “Monster” is about the downward spiral of Aileen Wuornos, one of the first known female serial killers. After a miserable childhood of abuse and neglect she set out on her own and fell into a life of prostitution on the highways of Florida. The film focuses on a nine month period in her life when she took part in a lesbian relationship with a woman named Selby. During this time, after a night when one of her “clients” attempted to kill her, she began killing anyone she came across who she perceived as having intent to rape her. In essence she turned the tables on the idea of serial killers preying on prostitutes by instead having the prostitute prey on the would-be rapists/killers.

The fact that the film is based on real-life events, does give it a little extra heft. The burden of making these events come to life is placed squarely on the shoulders of the cast. In particular, Charlize Theron delivers the performance of her life as the tortured soul Aileen Wuornos. Due to some fantastic makeup effects she comes across as unrecognizable as the woman who was most recently seen in the remake of “The Italian Job”. Charlize takes herself to places it is quite likely she did not know she had inside of her to bring out the emotion that presents in this role. She carries a lifetime of pain and lost innocence in every glance of her dark eyes. There is a lot to say about her performance, but to say anymore would be to rob anyone who hasn’t yet seen the film the chance of being exposed to it for the first time, so I will say no more.

There have been many movies about serial killers in the past. Most don’t really have much to say, as they usually focus on the more morbid facets of the serial killer way of life. Rarely, if ever do they focus on the person who became the serial killer. What made them that way? Where do they come from? What finally pushed them over the edge? This is just one area where “Monster” sets itself apart. It doesn’t apologize for its protagonist’s actions, nor does it condemn them. It merely tells her story and shows us how exactly it is that a young girl from Michigan could one day grow into a cold-blooded monster on the highways of Florida. This was refreshing to see and, I must say, much more interesting than watching the acts themselves.

There are many themes at play in the film. Bruce Dern plays a Vietnam vet, who has befriended Aileen. He speaks of the parallels between her life and his. How neither were given much of a chance and as a result they were forced to do whatever it took to live. Christina Ricci, in an underappreciated performance, as Aileen’s lover Selby plays out the surprising love story portion of the film. This element really surprised me as, in the end, I felt it was the prevailing theme of the film. Aileen’s love for Selby is to a certain extent what drives her to do the horrific things she does. She wants to give Selby everything that she wants in life, no matter the cost.

For those who like a certain amount of style in their movies (myself included) you won’t find it here. The story is told in a straightforward manner that enhances the subject matter. To have been stylish like “Requiem For a Dream” for example would have been detrimental to the film in a number of ways. Instead director Patty Jenkins was wise enough to allow her talented cast to carry the film. The saying goes that sometimes less is more. In the case of “Monster” the saying holds true.

As I said earlier “Monster” is not an easy film to sit through. There is one scene in fact that may be too much for some viewers to take. If you see the film (which I hope you will) you will know of which scene I speak. Some might say that it is too much, but I feel it is the most necessary element of the entire film. It is a scene that shows us what could make a person do the things Aileen did. It shows us that, given Aileen’s circumstances, any of us could be prone to taking to the life she chose from that moment on To hear it spoken would not have been enough. It had to be shown, so that those of us living our “normal” lives could understand just how ugly the world can be to those who have had the poorest of poor hands dealt to them.

On some level it is frightening to know such a world exists, but when I think about it, it seems to me that it would be even more frightening not knowing of the existence of that world at all.

1969 / 165 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Jason Jones

A trio of outlaws arrive at a train station. These men need not say a word. You know that their purpose in being here has no good will behind it. The ticket salesman is put under lock and key and a young lady is sent fleeing. The men take up positions outside the station and wait for a train. One of the men is pestered by a fly, another by water dripping on his hat and the last of them just plain looks pestered. After a time, the train arrives, a harmonica wails and three men are dead and another wounded in a brilliant flash of fury.

Welcome to the world of Sergio Leone.

Sergio is a man who shouldn’t need an introduction, but probably does given the sorry state of a world that is bludgeoned to death by Jerry Bruckheimer films on a near weekly basis.

Sergio was a God among directors. He made some of the greatest films the screen has ever seen including “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”, “Once Upon a Time In America” and this film to name a few. He had a way with the camera that has been often imitated, but seldom reproduced. His films relied on restraint while being bold and brash at the same time. The heroes (If you want to call them that.) of his films were men of few words who allowed their actions to speak for themselves. Scenes such as the one involving the train station, lasted ten minutes with a minimal amount of dialog being spoken, but Sergio keeps you riveted to the screen with his keen eye for human nature, as well as the anticipation of what is to come. He has been behind some of the most gorgeous and dramatic shots in film history. He was a man with no equal. He was, and is, a God.

As I mentioned before “Once Upon a Time In The West” is one of the films that elevated him to this “God” status. It is a film that is epic in design, but has a very noble down-to-earth quality about it as well. There are two central questions to this film. The first being: “Why is “Harmonica” (Charles Bronson) intent on tracking down Frank (Henry Fonda)? The other is: “What is so special about the land that Jill (the infinitely gorgeous Claudia Cardinale) resides on? These questions are pondered and investigated through the interlocking stories of Frank, “Harmonica”, Jill and Cheyenne (the incomparable Jason Robards).

The story begins at the previously described train station and continues with Frank showing just how evil he really is. I won’t ruin it for you, because it is an amazing feeling when you realize that it is Henry Fonda who is committing these cruel acts. Jill arrives at a different train station only to find no one there to greet here and a life that is now in shambles. Along the way to her new home she stops at a saloon only to run into Cheyenne. He has just escaped from the police and drops into the saloon to wait for his men to arrive. While at the saloon he makes the acquaintance of “Harmonica” in one of a slew of memorable scenes from the film. It turns out Cheyenne was set up to take a fall and he’s not too happy about it. He, along with “Harmonica” as self -appointed protector of Jill, have vowed, in their typically unspoken manner, to get to the bottom of what’s going on.

And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg. It is a beautifully told tale with many unforgettable scenes to make you repeat the film over and over in your head after you first see it. The performances are all brilliant in every way imaginable. I mean what can be said about Jason Robards that hasn’t been said already? He is brilliant in the role of the sympathetic outlaw Cheyenne. Everything the man does is exquisite. The way he delivers his lines. The way he carries himself. Everything I say! December 26, 2000 truly was a dark day for cinema, as it marked the day that this legend of a man left us for greener pastures. May you forever rest in peace Jason Robards. You will be forever in my thoughts and memories.

It’s difficult to go on after realizing such a loss, but Robards, being the consummate man that he was, would have wanted the show to go on. One of the other standout performances is delivered by Charles Bronson as the soft-spoken man-with-an-agenda that is “Harmonica”.

He, as is typical for Leone’s central characters, is a man of few words. When he does speak people would do well to listen, because the man does not waste his words. The incredibly gorgeous Claudia Cardinale brings a great amount of passion and determination to the role of Jill. I don’t think I have ever laid my eyes upon a more beautiful woman than Ms. Cardinale. She is a woman of many talents as she can act just as wonderfully as she looks.

She is one of the more intriguing female characters in the history of cinema. A woman who is very strong-willed that also knows when it’s time to accept a man’s help. She washes the men, who take pleasure in her body, away with a hot bath that makes her feel pure again.

She gains the respect of men like Cheyenne and “Harmonica” by way of her actions and her strong will. You wouldn’t expect men like them to respect her, but they do anyway. That is just a small part of what makes Jill such an interesting character. Henry Fonda delivers one of his most unusual performances. He is the bad guy! He does a fine job with a role that is most definitely not one that he is accustomed to. Frank is a heartless, soulless prick and Henry plays him to perfection. Few villains have ever been so ruthless. Rounding out the cast are Gabrielle Ferzetti as a railroad baron of sorts, as well as some cameo appearances by the likes of Jack Elam, Keenan Wynn, Woody Strode and Lionel Stander. The cameos are all short, but memorable, and they all do nothing but add to the film as a whole.

I have already praised Sergio earlier in the review, so I will not belabor the point now. His work can speak for itself. Someone I will take the time to praise now is composer extraordinaire Ennio Morricone. Much the same as Sergio is the God of directors, Ennio is the God of composers. The man has done so many scores that he has lost count. Some of the most distinctive scores belong to this man. Whether you know it or not you have heard his score from “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” and you should hear his work in “The Untouchables”. These are just two of a whole library of incredible film scores that we will never hear the likes of again. Unless, of course, Ennio chooses to bless us with something reminiscent of his past in his future work. What makes this score so special? There are too many reasons, but I shall attempt to touch on the majority of them.

He takes simplicity and makes us fall in love with it. Something like a harmonica for instance. He makes it haunt and enliven us at the same time. It sounds beautiful, yet disturbing at the same time. It is the theme of Bronson’s character and it suits him well. He is a simple man who is capable of goodness, as well as violence much the same as his them. I think that is what makes Morricone such a master. He gives each character their own individual theme that defines them perfectly without them ever having to be seen. Take Cheyenne’s theme for instance. It is sinister, playful, and mysterious all at once. I can think of no better way to describe Cheyenne than in this way, which is exactly what Ennio’s theme has captured. I get goosebumps just thinking about it. Out of all of Morricone’s work, it is his work on this film that I feel is him at his best. A work that is very diverse and rewarding, without which this film would not be half as good as it is.

Oh how I do love this movie. It even flirted with favorite film status for me for awhile before “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” reasserted itself, in it’s proper place, as the heart and soul of what makes me love movies so much. I love them, because of movies like “Once Upon a Time In The West. They can be truly magical experiences when the right people are making them. People like Sergio Leone and Ennio Morricone make me love movies more than any man should.

And I love them for it.

1990 / 115 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

“Sister, when I’ve raised hell, you’ll know it.”

Meet Tom, a man who, much like Pinhead, invests a large amount of his time raising hell. His is a life of turmoil that only he can resolve. His turmoil consists of a motley crue of thugs, scum and even a disenchanted mistress to whom the above line is spoken. He eventually does raise hell, but it wasn’t anything that I found to be compelling, which is just one of this film’s many problems.

“Miller’s Crossing” follows in the rich tradition of mob films that have come before it, even going so far as to introduce itself in the same manner as “The Godfather” with a protectee making a proposal to their protector.

The protector, in this case, being Leo (Albert Finney) and the protectee a man by the name of Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito). Leo is at the head of the table, but the aforementioned Tom (Gabriel Byrne) is his right hand man. Leo does a lot of hollering and usually ends up making the decisions, but Tom is the man behind the scenes who does the thinking for Leo and helps guide him to the proper decisions. Caspar, on the other hand, is none too happy with the fact that Leo will not cater to his desire to have a lowlife named Bernie (John Turturro) put out of his misery. Caspar being the hot-headed Italian that he is chooses to burn the bridges between himself and Leo, so that he can go out on his own.

This part of the story is countered with the relationship between Tom and Leo and the woman they love, Verna (Marcia Gay Harden). Tom and Verna have been laying a little pipe on the side despite the fact that Leo and Verna had been seeing each other. This continues until Leo is about to make a decision without knowing all the facts. Tom discloses to Leo that he has been sleeping with Verna. This leads to Leo burning the bridges that bind him and Tom by beating the crap out of him and essentially saying that he never wants to see him again.

Tom has made a real mess of things and he knows it. He knows that there is only one way to set things straight again. This is what the second part of the film centers on. Bodies will pile up, lines will be drawn in the proverbial sand and ties will be severed as Tom attempts to rectify the situation that he is responsible for.

Like most Coen brothers movies this movie’s primary flaw is that it doesn’t seem to do anything. I oftentimes find myself asking the question, “What’s the point?” I have seen five of their movies now and, for the most part they are competent, but all lack a sense of direction.

My favorite film of theirs, “The Big Lebowski”, is as pointless and directionless as any of their other films, but the lack of purpose and direction serves the film, because that is what makes the central character of the film, “The Dude”, who he is. His life is without purpose and direction, thus the Coen mantra is well served in the case of “The Big Lebowski”. Here, however, it does not work. It has ingredients that we have seen done many times before and with much more clarity and efficiency. The love triangle, loss of trust between friends and the guy who is trying to make things right again are all intangibles present in this film that, if done properly, could have lended themselves to creating a thoughtful film of the same ilk as the other great mob films. Instead it languishes in it’s own self righteous world choosing to do things at a pace that can be described as tedious at best.

There are few moments that I can even describe as memorable from this film. The only one that really comes to mind is when Bernie is begging Tom to spare his life. It is a simple scene shot in a wooded area which gives it a sense of detachment from the rest of the film. Listening to Bernie’s shrieking and whimpering amidst the limbs of trees that have undoubtedly heard these pleadings before, the viewer is given the impression that we are about to witness a revelation. This is exactly what we are treated to, but unfortunately we get little more of this throughout the rest of the film.

The remainder of the film is comprised of some interesting cinematography that reminded me greatly of Sergio Leone’s mob epic “Once Upon a Time in America”. The dark brooding nature of the locales, the way the camera hangs on the nuances of a character’s mere facial movements for minutes at a time and the way the camera is put in places to give us clues about the future are all reminiscent of Leone’s work. There are also moments that made me think of Hitchcock’s work in “Psycho”, such as the scene involving the camera and the staircase. Unfortunately the Coens manage to take this fine cinematography and put it to little use.

The one thing that managed to keep me awake for the full extent of the film was the wonderful performances of it’s fine actors. I expected great acting when I decided to watch this film and great acting is exactly what I got. Albert Finney, Gabriel Byrne, Marcia Gay Harden and John Turturro all turn in performances that can only be described as top-shelf. It was interesting to watch Finney sink his teeth into the role of a mob boss. He does an admirable job of conveying the authority of the position, as well as a vulnerable side that is grounded in the emotions that exist between Tom, Verna and himself. Byrne turns in his usual fine performance as the physical and emotional center of the film, Tom. Recent Academy Award winner Harden manages to lend a level of dignity to Verna, a woman who is known to sleep with just about anyone who will give her the time of day. Lastly, a staple factor in Coen films, John Turturro portraying a weasel of a character as usual. He can pretty much play this sort of character in his sleep nowadays thanks to his work in this film. These fine performances are oftentimes undermined by a script that is so in love with itself that it won’t give it’s actors room to breathe. The dialogue rambles on, criss-crossing itself at every opportunity leaving the viewer to make sense out of the mish-mash of nonsense that has just been perpetrated upon them.

There was very little about this film that held my interest. Even the few set pieces that are on display here leave one longing for more. Such as the ambush at Leo’s place. Just when I thought things might get interesting the film fired a blank and left me behind longing for much more than I had received. There were many times when I had to fight to stay awake thanks to the film’s laborious pacing. This is not a film that should be avoided at all costs, but should only be seen if your local video store is out of “Once Upon a Time in America”, “The Untouchables”, “Casino”, “Goodfellas” all three parts of “The Godfather” and your need for a mob film is so great that you cannot make it through another day without seeing one. Otherwise, I would recommend looking elsewhere for mob thrills and hell raising, because “Miller’s Crossing” is a film that delivers on neither premise.

1990 / 183 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

You know those movies that everybody says are really good, but you still don’t feel compelled to see them? The ones that they say you will kick yourself for not having seen sooner once you finally do get around to watching it for the first time?

I think you do. I think we’ve all had that experience at one time or another. For me the most recent of these experiences would have to be “Dances With Wolves”.

“Dances With Wolves” is a film the likes of which have not been seen before. It begins with a discussion of whether or not to save a man’s leg and ends with a man and the woman he loves going on a journey to find a life of happiness and prosperity together. It is a beautifully told story that I will definitely be wanting to revisit again someday.

The journey of Lieutenant John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) begins with an ill-fated attempt at bringing about his own demise that leads to him being elevated to hero status amongst his colleagues in the ranks of the Union army. Through this heightened status he is given the choice of where he would like to be stationed next. He chooses the farthest reaches of the frontier, because he has always wanted to see how the frontier of reality compares with the frontier of his dreams. When he arrives, he finds his new post vacant of any activity. Those who were there before him have been long since gone. Being the dutiful soldier that he is, Dunbar begins maintaining the post with the hope that one day more men will be sent to help in the cause. He keeps a journal in which he records the happenings of each day. More often than not the journal is composed of little more than his orders to himself in maintaining the post, but one day a wolf stops by and looks over Dunbar’s activities with genuine curiosity. After the wolf stops by the next couple of days, Dunbar decides to name him Two Socks, because of his front legs having the appearance of a pair of socks. A friendship is born between the two and Dunbar’s horse. Their interaction continues throughout the coming days and it seems Dunbar may never make contact with another human again.

One day an Indian comes across his post and everything changes. At first their is tension between the Indians and this lone white man, but, over time, a bond is formed. Communication is difficult until a young white woman, who has been living with the indians since she was very young, finds her English-speaking tongue again. Once this breakthrough is made, relations prosper between Dunbar and the Indians. They befriend him and he becomes a part of the tribe. He is given the name Dances With Wolves by the tribe and a romance begins to form between him and the English-speaking woman Stands With A Fist. It is a love story that is beautifully conceived and delivered. Life is good until inevitable confrontations with another tribe and the forces of the white men rear their ugly heads.

Kevin Costner (”Tin Cup”) took the dual role of actor and director for this film and he flourishes in both roles. He is stranded in the frontier much the same as Tom Hanks is stranded on that island in “Cast Away”. His character has a much more genuine and likable feel to him than that of Hanks. I really wanted this man to succeed in restoring his post and fulfilling his life, whereas I just wanted to see Hanks get off that island and get on with his miserable life. Zemeckis should have taken notes from Costner on how to accomplish this affect with the startling ease that Costner manages to bring it to realization. Costner delivers many tender moments that will wrench your heart in ways that I never felt him capable of.

Mary McDonnell (”Mumford”) also delivers in beautiful fashion in the role of Stands With A Fist. She is given a very difficult role and she pulls it off without any hitches. The scenes where she is struggling to find the right words to say in English are wonderful to watch, as she sells the performance well enough to make you think that she truly does not know the words that she seeks. Why this woman is not in more films is something that I cannot explain.

Graham Greene (”The Green Mile”) gives his usual steady, sure-handed performance as Kicking Bird, the man who wants to give Dunbar a chance. His character feels that Dunbar could be a man who could create treaties between the Indians and white men. He often becomes frustrated by the lack of progress in the communication between he and Dunbar due to the language barrier. Throughout he remains committed to his newfound friend, doing whatever he can to make the friendship grow. It is through the chemistry between Greene and Costner that this relationship is allowed to blossom.

There are many heartfelt, beautiful memories that I have from this film. The lush cinematography that brings frontier life to wondrous reality. The scenes when the Indians are trying to decipher Dunbar’s words and vice versa. The scenes between Costner and McDonnell when you can see the love they have for one another in every fiber of their being. I could go on and on, but I shall save the rest of the discovery for you to undertake on your own.

Every time I think of this film I will be drawn back to the feelings of joy, wonder and warmth that it gave me. It is both gorgeous to look at and unceasingly enchanting to experience.

Stories like this are rare and the masterful telling of them is rarer yet. You owe it to yourself to be consumed by this movie in much the same way that I was. You will thank yourself for it.

I know I do.

1999 / 101 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

“G.S.W. That’s what the hospitals call it. Gun shot wound. The doctor has to report it to the police. That makes it hard for guys in my line to get what I’d call quality healthcare.”

These are the words of a man having alcohol poured on his back, so that some flunky can remove two bullets from the man’s back. His name is Porter and he is pissed. Mel Gibson brings him to surly life like no one else can.

After the rousing backroom medical institution introduction we are treated to a montage of scenes that show that we are dealing with a dyed in the wool conman, and you’ll love him for it. Mel looks like a real low-life piece of crap during these scenes and I must say that I love it.

He has the look of a man who would be unhinged if it wasn’t such hard work. Porter is a man who has been double crossed and, like most anyone who finds themselves at the short end of the stick in a situation such as this, is not happy about it.

The double crossing is done by a guy named Val Resnick and Porter’s wife, who have needs for the money that don’t include Porter. Val needs the cash to worm his way back into The Syndicate, which is the city’s proprietor’s of organized crime and the wife needs to have a steady flow of heroin. So they shoot Porter and leave him for dead. Wrong move fools. Last time I checked, that was Mel Gibson that you just shot and Mel doesn’t go away easily. The total haul from the heist was $140,000 and Porter wants his cut, which was $70,000. This becomes a great source of humor for the duration of the film.

Porter is not amused and is back in town looking to collect on what is rightfully his, or as rightfully his as anything can be that is stolen. He finds his wife, fried out of her brains and answers the door to find her dealer on the other side of it. Porter uses the necessary means to derive the information he desires from the punk and finds himself looking for a slippery weasel named Arthur Stegman. When he finds Stegman he’s up to his ears in crooked cops and heavyset black men with bleeding ears. In grilling Stegman he starts to put a few of the pieces of the puzzle together and things begin to make sense.

This all leads to a rendezvous with a callgirl from his past and a bunch of the higher ups in The Syndicate. It doesn’t really matter to Porter, as he will stop at nothing to get his $70,000 back. He will be mean to James Coburn’s luggage and maybe even a couple of his toes will look like roast beef, but that won’t stop him. You will root for the bad guy, much as the film’s tagline says, because you’ve never seen a bad guy quite like this before.

Written and directed by Brian Helgeland, who also wrote “L.A. Confidential”, “Payback” is a gritty no holds barred look at a world in which no decent people live. There are just varying degress of scum on display here and it’s a great time waiting to be had. Much like The Man With No Name in “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”, Porter is the guy you root for by default. In the viewer’s eyes, he is the lesser of all the evils. Mel breathes life into this man of limited morals and etched-in-stone principles. Mel is always great to watch, but I don’t think I have ever enjoyed any of his performances as much as this one. I think what I like so much about it is that he is playing the role of a piece of shit. Look at him as he leans against that light pole, during the early moments of the film, as he searches for a pocket to pick and tell me that the words “piece of shit” don’t leap into your mind. They find their way into my mind every time I watch this movie and it’s great! Another reason I find myself committed to this performance over all of Mel’s others is that he is pissed right from the get go. There’s something great about movies that have their lead character pissed off and out for revenge from the very beginning. “The Outlaw Josey Wales” is another fine example of this sub-genre of film. “You kill my family, I kill you” is what that film says, whereas “Payback” says, “You attempt to kill me and take my money, I kill you and take my money back”.

Revenge is the name of the game that “Payback” plays and it does it in a wonderfully fresh, tongue-in-cheek manner that will keep you wanting more. Somewhere amidst the grim, washed out world in which Porter lives there is a great deal of fun and laughs to be had at the expense of both Porter and those on the business end of Porter’s Magnum.

If a good old fashioned revenge-laden romp through the criminal world sounds like your idea of a good time, then “Payback” is just what the doctor ordered.

1999 / 91 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Here it is. The film critics around the world hailed as:

“THE film event of 1998!”

DOG PARK!!!

Okay. So maybe that was some other movie involving Shakespeare, or Ryan’s privates that received that acclaim. But it had to be said for the sake of lunacy, if nothing else. What? You say this film came out in 1999? Well then I must have confused it with some kid seeing dead people, or a man knowing that he will be dead within a year’s time. Regardless, “Dog Park” has all the intangibles of a great film. Dogs, a park, Natasha Henstridge, Luke Wilson, Janeane Garofalo, etc. Nothing but quality can come from such a film, right?

For the most part yes, but it could have been better. Although the same can be said for ninety percent of the movies ever made.

In most parts of the world if you want to find a significant other you a few options: bars, grocery stores, libraries and, if you’re really desperate, church. All other options should be exhausted before resorting to option number four. Nothing against you churchfolk, but it just doesn’t really seem like a bastion of dating activity to me. Now let’s get back to the matter at hand. In the town that this film languishes in, the local dog park (Do these places exist?) is the place to go if you want to meet your match. This is the place where our good friend Luke Wilson likes to hang out with his friend Janeane Garofalo and her dogs. He does this, because his girlfriend has just left him and taken his dog with her.

I don’t think anything could break a man more than having his woman AND dog leave him. How this man goes on living is beyond me. Maybe he manages due to the fact that one night at a singles bar, after eating his pea soup, he makes the acquaintance of Natasha Henstridge. She has just been dumped as well (You can tell this is a movie, because I don’t think there is a man living today who would be dumb enough to dump her). They go back to Luke’s place and just when things are getting hot and heavy, she decides to worship the porcelain god. Apparently she doesn’t hold her liquor to well. Embarrassed by her actions she leaves and begins avoiding Luke in every way that she can. Inevitably they will find a way to get together, but the fun is in seeing how they will get there.

It would be foolish to delve to deeply into a movie like this. It exists solely to entertain and it succeeds the majority of the time. The performances are what you would expect from a film like this. Luke Wilson deadpans every line in his wonderfully monotone manner. He even manages to refer to a night of sexual activity as being “ninja-fucked”. Natasha Henstridge need do nothing more than look gorgeous to fulfill her contractual responsibilities, but she manages to turn in a nice little performance that is much the same as her work in “The Whole Nine Yards”. Janeane doesn’t have a lot to do here, but she does well with what she has. She’s not in her usual cynical bastard mode here, which is a nice change of pace from what I’m used to seeing from her. I can’t say that there is anything terribly spectacular about the direction to speak of, but it doesn’t need to be. It merely does it’s job by sitting there and allowing the story to unfold in it’s own timely manner.

In the end “Dog Park” is a film that you have probably seen before in some way, shape, or form. Many scenes you have seen done before, such as the scenes involving the dog psychiatrist. They are mildly humorous, but they were done far better in “Down and Out In Beverly Hills”. The film does have enough inspired moments of it’s own that it should keep you entertained from beginning to end. Plus you even get to find out what it is to be “ninja-fucked”. With information like that contained within, I’m thinking that “Dog Park” is a film that I would not want to go through life without seeing at least once.

1985 / 94 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Jason Jones

There’s some old saying that has something to do with “style over substance” or “style before substance”. I don’t know which one it is for certain, but I am quite sure that whoever said this had the films of Ridley Scott in mind.

Don’t get me wrong. I like Ridley, but he does have a tendency to get a little too wrapped up in the visual aspects of a film and forget about the story being told.

The film “Legend” is a prime example.

Sure the film looks nice, very nice in fact. Although I must say that the fairy dust floating in the rays of sunlight routine gets a little tired after a while. Aside from that, it is quite pleasing to the eyes, but I need a little more than “eye candy” to get me involved in a film.

Now you may call me greedy, but I expect to have this thing called a plot thrown in to wet my appetite. Not just any plot mind you, because even this film has something that could be construed as one if you looked at in the proper light. I expect a plot that justifies the film being made in the first place. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

Now you’re probably asking yourself what sort of film has a plot that is unworthy of being made into a film. My answer would be “Legend”. I mean. What in the name of Tom Cruise was going on here?!?

I want to make sure all of you are ready for this, so please be seated and focus your mind, because you are about to find out what the incredibly lame plot of this movie entails. One last time for those of you just joining the program. Are you ready?

YES!!!

Well here it is. The world falls into darkness due to some ignorant woman, who is no more than a mere mortal, laying her hands on a unicorn, which leads to the unicorn losing it’s horn to some jive-talking goblin. Yes, you heard right. The world falls into darkness due to a unicorn losing it’s horn. The reasoning behind this is never really explained to my satisfaction.

It seems it is because a mortal touched the unicorn, but we are never let in on the secret of why it is bad for a mortal to touch a unicorn and presumably good for an immortal to touch one. This troubled me more than it should have, but it pissed me off regardless. I must tell you it was quite exciting for me to watch the remainder of this film with the knowledge that this was all the more plot I was going to get.

Tom Cruise, in his early days in film, stumbles through this movie leering at clouds and scolding the ignorant woman who, of course, just so happens to be his love interest. I was pretty much embarrassed for Tom while watching this. He wanders around looking as if he got lost on the way to the set for “Top Gun” (which looks like “Apocalypse Now” in comparison to “Legend”). There is evidence that this could be true. I noticed a few times where Tom seemed to be unsure of what his lines were so, instead of ad-libbing, he chose to say nothing at all. I probably would have done the same. After all, what good would it have done?

Oh yeah. Tim Curry is in this movie. It’s not like you can tell, but I’m told he’s in there somewhere. He supposedly plays the evil entity responsible for the unicorn’s loss of horn.
I’m curious. Does that mean that the poor thing would now be called a corn? I figure it’s called a unicorn in the first place, because unihorn just doesn’t sound cool. Maybe it would just be nameless. See how much trouble I’m having searching for meaning in this movie? I told you it was devoid of interest. Regardless, Tim Curry is involved but, unlike Tom Cruise, you can’t tell it’s him. Good for Tim. Bad for Tom.

Other than the principles you’ve got a wily elf, named Gump, running around and that jive-talking goblin I mentioned before. I want to know what the story is with that. I can handle the fact that this movie should never have been made and I was foolish enough to sit through it.

What I can’t handle, is watching this movie and having to be subjected to a goblin who throws around some of the sorriest rhymes this side of Eminem. I don’t need that and neither do you.

The best thing about this pestilence is that it has a run time of just under ninety minutes. So, if you do have the misfortune of stumbling into it, the bleeding is fairly minimal.

I’ve heard some good legends before. The sword in the stone, the lady of the lake and Babe Ruth calling his shot are what I would call legends. This film is all style and no substance. It is not legendary. It is a cautionary tale of what a legend should not be.

Even “The Blair Witch Project” had more substance than whatever the nonsense is that’s going on here!