1987 / 107 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

“If it bleeds. We can kill it.”

Over the course of his career, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been faced with a wide variety of adversaries. In “Commando” it was Dan Hedaya and a refugee from the Blue Oyster Club. In “The Villain” it was Kirk Douglas of all people. “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” saw him face off against what many would argue was his most compelling enemy: the T-1000. He even had to fend off Richard Dawson in “The Running Man”. Perhaps his most daunting challenge was in “End of Days” when he had to go toe to toe with The Devil himself.

These are all great movies and villains, with the exception being “The Villain” ironically enough. They are, for the most part, formidable opponents in their own ways, but I never once doubted Arnold’s ability to defeat them. Not for a second. Maybe had The Devil been played by someone more intimidating than Gabriel Byrne, or the T-1000 been played by someone manlier than Robert Patrick I would have feared that Arnold would have been incapable of getting the job done. There were times when self sacrifice was what it took for Arnold to reign victorious, but he was victorious nonetheless.

This all brings us to the case of the Predator. A foe of such strength and ability that one cannot help but question the likelihood of Arnold’s survival against it. I contend that he is the most formidable of all of Arnold’s adversaries. He’s invisible. He’s got a laser cannon mounted on his shoulder. He uses thermal imaging for vision and he can heal himself. Plus, as if you hadn’t figured it out by now, he is not of this world. The T-1000 would piss itself at the thought of having to face this creature.

So what has Arnold done to get himself into hot water this time you ask? As usual he gets injected into events that are of little concern to him, but he has to be the one to make things right again.

This time out he and his elite team of soldiers are sent into a Central American country to kick some guerrilla ass and extract some American and Russian ambassadors in the process. Everything seems routine at first, but then something starts killing Arnold’s men and eventually it becomes clear that they are being hunted. It quickly turns into survival of the fittest with the victor being all but certain.

This movie means business right from the outset. A chopper lands on the beach and there is Arnie smoking a stogie, just waiting to kill somebody. He promptly heads inside and greets Carl Weathers by calling him a “son of a bitch”. More movies need to start this way. I call it the “Arnold Way”. You’ll notice, if you watch a lot of his movies, that they waste no time getting started. This one has us in the jungle within five minutes. “Eraser” has three dead people and a house blown up in the same period of time. In “True Lies” he crawls out of a hole in the ice, hacks into a computer, tangos with Tia Carrere, blows the hell out of a building, kills a number of people, and outruns a herd of snowmobiles all in the opening ten minutes. Nobody opens a movie like Arnie. Nobody.

This time out he even has a quality supporting cast that comprises his team. There’s the Gatling gun wielding Governor of Minnesota, Jesse “I ain’t got time to bleed” Ventura, as well as the always dependable Bill Duke who play closeknit friends within the team. Then there is the pussy joke spewing Shane Black, who is better known for writing screenplays for films like “Lethal Weapon”, “The Last Boy Scout”, and “The Long Kiss Goodnight”. All of which rule I might add, plus Shane is actually quite funny here in his limited screen time. Rounding out the team are an Indian tracker named Billy and an interpreter named Poncho. All involved deliver memorable performances including the young native woman they take prisoner along the way.

Where this movie really excels is in building tension out of the unknown. Anybody can die at any time. This quickly becomes apparent when members of Arnold’s team get gutted and have their chests become yawning craters in what have to be some of the grisliest deaths seen in an Arnold movie. Once his team knows it is being hunted they know that if they are to have a chance they must confront their hidden adversary before he picks them all off one by one. This is where things really start to get cool as they set traps for the Predator and attempt to turn the tables on him by making him the hunted rather than the hunter.

All of this leads to the inevitable confrontation between Arnold and the Predator. The final twenty minutes of this movie demonstrate just how brilliant action films can be when they want to be. Seeing Arnold attempting to exploit a weakness he has found in the Predator, as well as catching him off guard by using his own tactics against him are set up and exploited with such precision that one cannot help but be immersed in the action. It quickly becomes a chess match between two cunning hunters that will end in an unforgettable conclusion.

“Predator” has all the action and suspense that one would expect from the combined talents of Arnold Schwarzenegger and director John Mctiernan (”Die Hard”). It is in an alien being, that has come to Earth merely for the sport of hunting humans, known to us only as the Predator that Arnold finds his greatest match.

On a side note I must say that, that was a refreshing thing about this movie. For once when an alien race comes to Earth it doesn’t want to destroy the planet and take it for it’s own. This time around it is a single alien who is only interested in taking some skulls home to put on the mantle. I thought that was cool as hell and I wish that there were more aliens like this out there. Unfortunately, as evidenced by films like “Mars Attacks!”, “Independence Day”, and “Alien”, there are not any other aliens like this out there.

For now though we can take solace in the fact that the Predator is this sort of alien and that Arnold must face him in the greatest showdown of his career. Whether he will stand victorious when all is said and done is anybody’s guess. One thing is for certain though…

The smart money is always on Arnold.

1992 / 112 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I have a friend who rates this film as his favorite movie of all time. Now, I myself would not put it on a pedestal quite that high, but I can at least see where he’s coming from.

“White Men Can’t Jump” is director Ron Shelton’s (”Bull Durham”) attempt at reigning in the chaos that is life on the basketball courts of Los Angeles. He does a remarkable job of capturing the atmosphere of a day of hoopin’ it up. Anyone who has played playground basketball will immediately be able to identify with it. So with the aesthetics in place you are probably wondering what the movie is all about.

A synopsis of the plot would go something like the following……Billy Hoyle (Woody Harrelson) is a white boy from out east who is looking for a new area to “hustle”. His girlfriend (Rosie Perez) has grand aspirations of making it onto the game show “Jeopardy” and a voice that sounds like a cat being pressed through a strainer crossways. Shortly after his arrival Billy hustles the local “stud hoopster’, Sidney Deane (Wesley Snipes). After the hustle they decide to team up and do some cooperative hustling (for a change) in order to prepare for a big Two-on-Two tournament that is on the horizon. To add a little intrigue into the story, Billy is attempting to pay off a rather large debt to a couple of guys known simply as the Stucci Brothers. It seems they attempted to fix a game a while back and, when Billy decided not to go along with the fix, they lost their ass. Now they want it back and Billy is on a shortened timetable to come up with the coin. Hence the hustling.

What makes this movie work is the interaction between Woody and Snipes. They have some of the funniest dialog I have ever heard and it rarely lets up as the film progresses. The verbal barbs are delivered with a “can you top this?” flavor that inevitably leads to fits of uncontrollable laughter. If you want virtually nonstop laughs then this is your movie. In my opinion, it is second only to “Slap Shot” in the realm of sports comedies. “Slap Shot” rates higher on the merits of the “dick wiggling” scene alone. Watch it. You’ll laugh your ass off.

But that is another review entirely. I digress.

This film is not without a few serious moments, but they are quickly swept away with more trash talk which will quickly reposition the smile on your face and the laughter in your voice. It is also an intensely quotable movie with lines like: “Ain’t no thing, but chicken wing on a string from Burger King” and “I’m gonna put my mouth where this money is” to wet your appetite.

In determining my rating for this film I was torn between varying degrees of the “A” echelon.

Why was I torn you ask? I was immediately compelled to give it an “A” based solely upon the nuisance that is Rosie Perez’s voice. She sounds like a hooker on a Brooklyn street corner with a mouth full of chew. Yes, it’s that bad. For the defense we have Sidney Deane’s assertion that he “took Michael Jordan to the hole.” Now, anyone who knows me knows of the bitter resentment that resides in my heart for the aforementioned former Chicago Bull douchebag. So, it goes without saying, that a smile comes to my face every time Snipes recites that line. Problem is, later in the movie, he is wearing Michael Jordan shorts as part of his attire. Now, am I supposed to take this as his blatant reminder to everyone that he did take Jordan to the hole, or is he just an ignorant fool. I like to think that it is the former, but at the same time I can’t ignore the latter.

In the end Rosie’s annoying voice outweighs the merits of Wesley’s boasts and inconclusive short-wearing. Hence the “A”.

1979 / 89 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Jason Jones

You can’t help but love Arnie. There’s just something about the guy. I’m not even sure what it is, but what I do know is that I love watching his movies. So much so that, when I heard that one of his early films was a Western that also involved the talents of Kirk Douglas, I immediately made my way to the local video store on the outside chance that they would have it available for rental.

Amazingly enough, lurking just below a copy of “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot” with “Eastwood” in huge letters on the cover, was “The Villain” starring Kirk Douglas and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Make no mistake about it. This movie is nothing to write home about. It’s a spoof of the Western genre and a pretty poor one at that, but thanks to the presence of Arnie and an incredibly gorgeous Ann Margret there is some enjoyment to be found here.

The haphazard plot involves the most worthless villain in the history of villainy, Cactus Jack (Douglas), attempting to prevent Handsome Stranger (Schwarzenegger) from guiding Charming Jones (Ann Margret), and a large sum of cash, home to her father Parody (Strother Martin). Jack has been hired to do this by a crooked bank owner (Jack Elam), who is so crooked that he doesn’t keep any money in the bank, because he doesn’t trust them. Apparently, if the money doesn’t make it home to Parody, then the banker gets ownership of the hill that Parody has been mining. This would not be good for Parody since, according to him, “the hill has enough silver in it to make a St. Louis hooker happy.” I don’t know how much silver it takes to make a St. Louis hooker happy, but I have a feeling it’s a lot.

The plot really does nothing more than provide a loose framework for Jack to make like the Wile E. Coyote of the Old West. He is so inept that he can’t even jump on top of a train like any proper black clad villain. One part that was actually funny happens when Jack tries to blow the bank safe at the beginning of the movie. Instead of blowing the lock on the safe, he only manages to blow the bank itself to bits and leave the safe standing unscathed. There was also a part late in the movie when he paints a rock wall black, a la Wile E. Coyote, in the hopes of stopping Arnie only to see him ride right through the wall. I probably shouldn’t have laughed, but I did anyway.

The reason I laughed is simple. It was because of Arnie. He just looks so happy in this movie that you can’t help but smile whenever you see him. The first time he shows up is hilarious in ways I can’t quite describe. Just picture Arnie duded up in a white cowboy outfit that looks like it’s about five sizes too small, a 10 gallon hat and a huge grin on his face. Outfitted like the Handsome Stranger that he is, he proceeds to help a little old lady across the street against her will and also orders what appears to be an entire cow for dinner. Before he can enjoy his meal though, he is beckoned to the train station to meet the incredibly voluptuous, curvaceous creature that is Ann Margret. They promptly set off with cash in tow and Cactus Jack attempting to foil their plans every step of the way.

Probably the most laughable thing about this movie is the fact that Jack is constantly trying to sabotage them along their way and Arnie never even notices his efforts until the very end when they finally meet face to face. Aside from that, most of the jokes fall pretty flat with the exception of the site gags provided by Jack’s horse and a shifty Indian Chief who rides around on a Clydesdale bearing a Swastika on its chest, while spouting phrases like “Piss on the white man!” in a voice that sounds disturbingly like what I imagine a constipated Howard Cosell would sound like.

This film has its moments. Granted they are few and far between, but they are there nonetheless. Mainly they are thanks to the efforts of Arnie who, as always, gives himself completely to the role regardless of its ridiculous nature. If you’re a fan of Arnie then you owe it to yourself to see his one and only Western. If you’re not a big fan of Arnie then you would be wise to steer clear of this one in your quest for laughter, as it provides far less than the necessary number of laughs to make it worth your time.

2001 / 121 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

It is a very rare feat for a visually enticing film to have the substance to match its style. Oftentimes, a stylish film will falter along the way and end up as a David Lynch film. In other cases you get Ridley Scott films, which are quite stylish, but still have a fairly solid plot before going astray somewhere before the end credits roll. Then there are those rare instances where we are allowed to indulge in films that have the substance to match the style. This is the realm of masters such as De Palma, Leone, Kubrick, and Lean to name a few. When we watch movies such as these we are beside ourselves with joy, because we are being treated to the very essence of cinema at its finest. This is the sort of territory that “From Hell” chooses to make its mark.

“From Hell” is the fictionalized account of the events surrounding the case of Jack the Ripper in 1888 London. In fact, its a sort of “what if” proposal in the same vein as Oliver Stone’s mesmerizing take on the assassination of President Kennedy in “JFK”. In the hands of the Hughes brothers, “From Hell” is able to carve out its own niche in the world of the conspiracy thriller.

We see the world of 1888 London through the eyes of clairvoyant police detective Inspector Abberline (Johnny Depp). He is semi-famous for his “visions” which have led to the solution of many cases he has been involved in. These visions come to him by way of his indulgence in opium and absinthe. The way the Hughes brothers convey these visions/hallucinations to the audience through a haze of green mist, as if we are soaked in absinthe ourselves, is quite effective. This is important because the Inspector’s visions are a precursor of things to come and help to provide a great deal of the tension that the audience must deal with throughout the duration of the film.

Abberline’s investigation begins after the grisly death of a prostitute is brought to his attention. Shortly thereafter another prostitute is killed in a similarly grotesque manner. It soon becomes evident that someone is targeting a particular group of prostitutes who all, it turns out, happen to be friends. He notes the fact that the killer has to be an eduacted man due to his knowledge of anatomy. So he enlists the aid of an area medical professor (Ian Holm) whose knowledge, Abberline Hopes, will be of use to his investigation.

Holm is really a delight to behold in this film. I have enjoyed his work in the past in films such as “The Fellowship of the Ring” and “The Fifth Element” although I don’t think I have ever seen him as good as he is here. The moment Abberline enlists his aid is when the film really sucks the viewer in as the detective work truly begins. I really enjoyed his first scene with Depp when he is racking his brain to try to unravel clues as to the possibility identity of Jack the Ripper. This is some great stuff that I didn’t really want to see end.

“From Hell” even manages to provide something for the ladies as an unlikely romance develops between the prostitute Mary Kelly (Heather Graham) and Abberline. I must admit that I had my reservations about this plot point, but the Hughes brothers are wise enough not to dwell on it and allow to remain in the background for the audience to chew on if they choose to do so. It works for this reason and it is fairly believable due to the arduous circumstances under which they have met. Quite likely they are drawn together by their need to feel something other than fear moreso than an actual attraction developing between them.

Graham gives a fairly solid performance opposite Depp who delivers his usual memorable performance, although he is thankfully more restrained than he was in films such as “Sleepy Hollow”. I thought Graham had difficulty displaying emotion on a number of occasions throughout the film. Perhaps, this could be attributed to her character’s profession which requires a certain emotional detachment in order to survive. Despite that though it seems that her level of fear rarely wavers throughout the film. Even as the bodies of her friends pile up and she realizes that she is marked for death, she never seems to become anymore afraid than she was early in the film. I’d think that as it becomes more and more apparent that she could be next on the chopping block, her level of fear would inevitably rise, but I could be wrong.

One thing is for certain. The direction of the Hughes brothers is nothing short of intoxicating. They employ a number of camera tricks that always keep the film fresh and inviting. From the tracking shot at the beginning of the film that takes us on a stroll through the sinister streets of London we are immediately informed that we are not watching a run of the mill slasher flick. No, this is something much more. I really loved the scene when the second murder victim is found, because it employs a time elapse shot that brings back memories of the scene in “Requiem For a Dream” when Ellen Burstyn is frantically cleaning her apartment at high speed. It is effective, because it shows us the same crime as we saw earlier but in a very different manner, thus constantly keeping the experience fresh and exciting to the viewer.

The Hughes brothers must also be commended for their exercising of considerable restraint with regard to the amount of gore that is shown on screen. In a movie about Jack the Ripper, one would expect to see a nearly intolerable amount of gore, but that is not the case here. They are smart enough to use character reactions to impart the horror that has taken place to the audience. We see doctors gag at the sight of the bodies of the victims. Even hardened detecives can barely stand to look more than once. Only when it is necessary do we ever see any of the violence that has taken place. “From Hell” is one of those movies that makes you think you saw much more than you really did. You may have thought you saw a woman being hacked to bits, but all you really saw was the gleam of a blade being stained with blood as it was thrust into its victim off screen.

About my only gripe with the film is that once the identity of the Ripper is revealed to us the film seems to lose its edge. To me it wasn’t quite as interesting as it was when I still wasn’t 100% positive of the killer’s identity. To be honest though this isn’t much of a flaw when one considers how engrossing the rest of the film is. I say engrossing because once you, along with Abberline, begin to realize the motivation behind the killings you won’t want to divert your eyes from the screen. Not for one second.

“From Hell” is an incredibly satisfying thriller that mixes style and substance in a way that is rarely seen in this day and age of mindless slasher flicks and the incredibly overdone “twist” ending. “From Hell” is a film that respects your intelligence so much that it actually enables you to figure it out before its over if you choose to pay close enough attention. That is something truly rare indeed, in this time of loosely connected plots and hokey gimmickry. For these reasons, and many more, you owe it to yourself to make “From Hell” your destination of choice the next time you make the trip to the video store.

2002 / 116 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Each year there is that one big movie that kicks off the summer movie season. Some years are more in need of a jump start than others. 2002 just so happens to be one of those years.

Thankfully it got it in the form of “Spider-Man” a film that is a fitting beginning to what is undoubtedly going to be a memorable time in film. It was better than I expected it to be, but not the starry eyed spectacle that many would have you believe it is. It is a fun film that, like most fun films, has its fair share of flaws.

“Spider-Man” is the story of Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), a senior in high school who only has eyes for his scientific endeavors, oh, and the girl of his dreams Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). He is the guy who we all knew at one time or another in our teenage years. You know. The guy who got picked on constantly and tripped over his own shoelaces on a daily basis. One day everything changes for him when, on a field trip, he is bitten by a genetically enhanced spider. The next morning he wakes up a muscular young man capable of ejecting a web-like substance from his wrists. As we find out throughout the course of the film, however, his life doesn’t exactly change for the better which I thought was a nice angle that is rarely explored in films of this nature.

Shortly after he begins to understand his new powers his Uncle is killed by a person he could have stopped had he not been so selfish. It is at this point that he heeds his uncle’s advice and acknowledges the responsibility that comes with his new abilities. He begins to fight crime and, in the process, slowly begins to win the heart of Mary Jane. Just when he thought life was good, however, he is confronted with a scientist gone mad in the form of the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe). Dafoe makes no bones about chewing the scenery whenever possible in this role, but the film is the better for it.

Once the Green Goblin makes his first public appearance at some sort of festival in Times Square the film descends into a much appreciated series of one on one confrontations for the remainder of the show. I was disappointed that the Goblin couldn’t find it in his corrupted soul to snuff out Macy Gray when he had the chance at that festival. I consider it a missed opportunity. For the most part I did enjoy the festival fight sequence with a couple of notable exceptions. Something that rears its head here and continues for the rest of the film is the Green Goblin’s bombs doing whatever the plot needs them to do at any given time. He throws one and it blows the side out of a building. He throws another and it disintegrates the people he wanted it to disintegrate and no one else. Later in the film, one of them rips off part of Spider-Man’s suit! What is up with that crap! This really annoyed me. To me it is an example of sloppy writing by the screenwriter David Koepp. He just thought stuff would look cool, so he put it in there, without any regard for whether or not it made any sense. Had there been a scene earlier where we see some sort of bomb making going on then I would have no problem with it, but this does not happen and thusly it bothers me.

I was also bothered by the ledge that Mary Jane was on. The thing takes somewhere in the neighborhood of an eternity to fall of the building. Basically just long enough for Spider-Man to kick some ass and still have time to save the damsel in distress. Troublesome yes, but thankfully it did not kill the moment for me. For the most part, the scene was well handled with a great amount of activity going on to keep the energy level high throughout.

Now that I’ve aired the majority of my grievances with the film what was good about it you ask? Plenty. The character development was top notch. It’s not often that you see character development like this in a drama let alone a superhero movie! Both Spider-Man and the Green Goblin are given plenty of motivation for their actions. Spider-Man is influenced by his uncle’s words and death amongst a number of other factors. In the Goblin’s case, he starts out as a scientist with good intentions. He has a government contract that he doesn’t want to lose, so in a twist reminiscent of “Hollow Man” he decides to test his experimental formula on himself with disastrous results. Even once he has snapped and become the Goblin he still acts out of a rational thought process that revolves around the well being of his family. This was very cool indeed and definitely a benefit to the film.

Another key factor in the film’s success is the sheer level of fun. The fun starts with Spidey discovering his new powers by giddily bounding about New York City with the use of web slinging prowess. He has a lot of fun doing this, which is great because anyone who is honest with themselves would do exactly what he does in this scene. We would swing all around the city screaming “Woohoo!!” at the top of our lungs and we would love every minute of it. Just like we do here. There are other great moments of fun including a wrestling match against Randy “Macho Man” Savage at an event hosted by Bruce “B Movie God” Campbell and, one of my favorite scenes, that involves the Green Goblin attempting to woo a drugged Spidey over to his side by discussing his plans as if they were old drinking buddies. Trust me. It’s hilarious. Words can’t describe it. It has to be seen to be believed.

The actors all do great work here, although the best of the bunch has to be Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane. She makes this character exist on so many levels that it’s hard to pick out what I liked best. She has a great deal of inner conflict, which shows itself when it is as natural as possible. Her warm, assuring smiles to Peter. The way she shows her embarrassment when Peter realizes what she does for a living. She hits every note perfectly. It is a performance that will definitely solidify her as an “A-list” star, as all of us who have watched her all of these years knew she was capable of from the very beginning.

Tobey Maguire and Willem Dafoe also bring a lot to their characters. Tobey invests the proper amount of geekiness in his character, but he augments that with his newfound confidence in himself given his new abilities. He makes the character very likable and endears the viewer to him quite easily. At one time or another the majority of us have walked in this guy’s shoes during our lives, which makes it all the easier to cheer for him as the film moves into its final act. As I said before Dafoe chews the scenery to nearly outrageous levels, but it works in the context of this film because his character is larger than life on all accounts. Even in his normal life he is a leading scientist, which is not exactly normal to those of us who punch a time clock every day. Then when he transforms into the Green Goblin it is all the more necessary for him to be over the top much the same as Jack Nicholson’s interpretation of The Joker in “Batman”. There is always a certain amount of menace about his character even before he undergoes the transformation which I interpreted as being due to the strain he was under at work and I thought that it worked quite well.

The other element of note is the direction of Sam Raimi. As you watch this film unfold you can still see his underlying love for film in every frame much the same as in his low budget cult classic “The Evil Dead”. The style of this film makes it a lot of fun in and of itself. Raimi has managed to capture what I imagine it would be like if a comic book came to life on the silver screen. The vibrant colors and lively action are all here for the viewer to revel in to their heart’s content. One scene in particular that I loved was the scene when Peter designs the Spider-Man suit. It feels like page after page of a comic book passing by as we see Peter’s influences passing behind him as he gleefully brings the design of the suit to fruition. It takes what could have been a very bland, lifeless scene and injects it with enthusiasm and vitality that many of today’s action films fail to capture in any given scene.

I also really enjoyed Danny Elfman’s score. Overall it was rather subtle, but it sprang to life when necessary. Such as in the scene when Spidey hunts down the man who killed his uncle. The music and visuals meld together to really get the blood flowing. I really hope they bring this score out on CD, because I will be compelled to buy it immediately.

A couple other quibbles I had with the film are more personal than anything, although I must say Spidey being able to hold a trolley car in the air with one arm was ridiculous even by superhero standards. Something that bugged me to no end was the insistence of all the characters in the film to refer to Mary Jane as “M.J.” all the bloody time unless they were introducing her to someone for the first time. Then they were kind enough to call her Mary Jane. Perhaps, this has something to do with my deep rooted hatred for Michael Jordan, who also carries the initials M.J. I don’t really think this is a flaw of the movie, but it did get under my skin, so I felt the need to mention it.

The other thing that rubbed me the wrong way was the shameless patriotism at the end of the movie. I almost felt like puking when I saw this nonsense transpire in front of me. I am sick of this ham fisted flag waving nonsense that goes on simply to give the impression of patriotic when one is merely trying to do what is politically correct. Had the filmmakers truly wanted to be patriotic they would have cut this crap out of the film and left the World Trade Center footage in place that was originally supposed to be in the film prior to September 11. Anyone who saw that footage in the original teaser trailer knows that every audience in America would have cheered when the World Trade Center took up the heroic role it originally played in the film. That would have been a lot more patriotic than having Spidey hanging off of a god damn flag pole.

Ah. I feel better now. Despite what seems to be a largely negative review I did enjoy the film. It’s not the best superhero movie ever made. Not by a long shot. It isn’t as intelligent or witty as “X-Men” and it doesn’t have the atmosphere or presence of “Batman”. It is, however, a hell of a lot of fun and at this dismal time at the theaters it is easily the best option available. Just suspend your disbelief for two hours and you’ll enjoy it, flaws and all.

2002 / 118 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Well, it only took three months for the year 2002 to have it’s first must see movie. Pretty pathetic actually. That, however, is not the phrase I would use to describe “Panic Room”. This is the best thriller to come out in years and it is such due to the mastery that David Fincher and Jodie Foster bring to their roles as Director and Actress, respectively.

It all begins with one of the coolest credit sequences I have ever seen. The skyscrapers of New York City provide the backdrop for ominously rendered 3-D credits, as Howard Shore’s haunting score looms in the background. It is a sobering method of bringing the audience into the world and mindset of the recently divorced Meg Altman (Foster).

Meg’s husband was wealthy and, as a means to get back at him, she chooses to buy a ridiculously oversized townhouse to get back at him. It is even outfitted with (I know you didn’t see this coming) a panic room. This is a room that is used by homeowners to seal themselves off from would-be intruders. Despite Meg’s reservations about a house with a panic room, her and her daughter move in. Little do they know that they will need the panic room much sooner than they could ever have imagined.

On their first night in the house, three intruders break into their home in one of the film’s more memorable sequences. Fincher’s self indulgence (Which I must admit I admire him for) leads him to show the break-in in one long visual effects laden shot that takes the viewer into keyholes, through coffee pot handles, and through ceilings and floors. As this goes on it continues to build the tension until we finally cut back to see Meg awaken and, after some time, both her and the intruders realize they are not alone in the house.

This leads to the harrowing race to the panic room that we all know is coming. The thing that really made me realize just how good this movie was when this scene played itself out, because I still found myself on the edge of my seat despite the fact that I knew that Meg and her daughter had to get into the panic room. Otherwise, why make the movie? The suspense of this sequence can be attributed to the masterful editing, which is something that can be said for the entire movie in fact, of James Haygood and Angus Wall.

Now all is well and good right? The intruders can take whatever they want and leave right? In theory that would be the way things would work out, but then there would be no reason for the movie. Ahhhhhhh, but this is David Fincher we’re talking about and you don’t expect anything typical from him. In this case we have a movie because what the intruders want is IN the panic room. As if you can’t tell, this is where things become truly interesting. It quickly delves into the world of a cat and mouse game between Jodie and the intruders.

But why does she have to come out of the room you ask? If her and her daughter are in there, they’re safe aren’t they? Once again, typically this would be the case, but there is a reason that she has to come out, but I’m not going to divulge that because I think it’s more fun to discover it on your own. Let’s just say she has good reason to come out and leave it at that.

Like any good thriller, “Panic Room” is a film with memorable scenes. What separates it from about 99% of the other thrillers out there is that it builds it’s tension for the duration of the film. I liken it to “The Exorcist” in this regard. They both have ominous credit sequences. They both have an introductory period that lulls the viewer into a false sense of security. They both have titles that represent sanctuary and hope for the viewer as well as the characters in the film. Most of all, they both consistently raise the tension throughout.

When watching this film I thought of Hitchcock and De Palma a lot. Perhaps, Fincher is on the threshold of being the next master of suspense. His breakout film “Seven” is one of the best thrillers I have ever seen and now he has “Panic Room” to add to his resume. Shyamalan (”The Sixth Sense”, “Unbreakable”) may pull the rug out on the viewer a little better a la Hitchcock, but Fincher exhibits much of the same visual flair that one would expect to find in a De Palma film. The long takes, elaborate shots, and propensity to take the camera anywhere and everywhere one chooses to do so are all trademarks of De Palma and now Fincher as well.

In terms of the tension that this film builds. I already mentioned the incredible sustained shot for the break-in and the race to the panic room sequences. The other one I would like to mention is the cell phone search. The three intruders argue with one another downstairs while Meg escapes from the panic room and searches her bedroom for her cell phone. What makes this scene pump the blood at interminable levels is that it is done in slow motion with no audible dialogue, as the audience agonizes over whether or not Meg will find the phone and make it back to the panic room before the intruders come back. As she frantically searches for the phone Shore’s Herrmann-esque score lurks in the background adding more and more desperation to the scene.

Now that’s just a taste. I wouldn’t want to go any further for fear of harming anyone’s viewing experience. Let’s just say that I have a feeling that Fincher is a De Palma fan who celebrates his entire catalog frequently. I say this, because no one other than De Palma ever turns the screws like this.

As I said earlier, this film succeeds for two reasons. Fincher has already been lauded, but now there is the case of Miss Foster. No one puts a face to fear like Jodie Foster. No one! Remember the end of “The Silence of the Lambs” in that basement when she can’t see anything, but Buffal Bill can? Now, remember the horror in her eyes, in every fiber of her being as you sat there in sheer terror of what was about to happen to her. That is the sort of fear and terror that she brings to the role of Meg Altman. Much the same as her character in “Silence” she manages to hold her fears inside and eventually manages to overcome them. I mean Jesus! The scream she lets out, as she sits powerless in the panic room while a loved one is being beaten in the next room, still sends paralyzing shivers up and down my spine as I think about it now.

Some would argue that she turns into Macgyver halfway through the film, but I don’t think she does anything that any other rational human being wouldn’t at least attempt to do. Sure, at first, it appears that her daughter might know a little too much to be reasonable. But when one thinks about it, usually children are more knowledgeable about technology than the average adult. Honestly. How many of you had to program the VCR for your parents, or show them how to change the clock in their car? I’m willing to bet the majority of you. So, I see these as pretty pointless accusations being levied at the film from most critics.

The other performances are all well done. Kristen Stewart as Meg’s daughter, Sarah, gives an excellent performance. Much of the film’s peril rides off of her performance and she doesn’t let the film down by any means. The intruders are made up of some fairly stereotypical characters. There’s the sympathetic nice guy, the in over his head numbskull, and the homicidal maniac. Thankfully, Fincher allows the actors room to breathe which enables them to add depth to each of the characters. Forest Whitaker (Nice to see him in something that isn’t a complete waste of his time) is the sympathetic nice guy. He attempts to maintain balance between his cohorts in crime while also attempting to look out for the well being of Meg and her daughter. Jared Leto is the in over his head numbskull who originally hatched the plan, but now that things aren’t going smoothly has begun to lose it. Finally, Dwight Yoakam is the homicidal maniac who will stop at nothing to get what they came for. They are an interesting group that has a great deal of tension within it to add to the tension that the audience already feels with relation to the situation that Meg and Sarah find themselves in.

All of these elements come together to create a sort of “Rear Window” for the new millennium. It deals in limitation much the same as the Hitchcock classic did. The whole movie with the exception of less than five minutes of screen time takes place in the house and it deals with very limited lighting as well. In both films the directors force the audience to become voyeurs. Taking us deeper into the film than we rarely ever have the opportunity to go otherwise.

It even has a subtle sense of humor to it with nods to “Titanic” and Joe Pesci coming to mind. Plus, the scene when Meg first communicates to the intruders is priceless to say the least. This humor helps to lighten the tension ever so slightly before Fincher chooses to once again turn the screws, pull the strings, or whatever you want to call it. This technique is culled from the Hitchcock playbook and it is put to use masterfully.

To the cinematic world, Hitchcock has always been the master of suspense. He was a one trick pony, but he was damn good at that one trick. After Hitchcock began to pass his prime, De Palma took over and raised the bar on what terror and tension could be in cinema to levels that Hitchcock couldn’t even muster. Now, we are confronted with another changing of the guard. Fincher hasn’t bested De Palma by any means, but he has pushed the limits further with his merging of visual effects, imagination, and camera wizardry. I look forward to what the future has in store for him.

I’m sure whatever it is, it’s going to be a hell of a lot of fun to watch! But for now all of you should make it a point to see “Panic Room” as soon as possible at your local cinema.

It may not be “The Exorcist”, but it’s damn close.

1950 / 88 Minutes / Not Rated
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Akira Kurosawa’s films have influenced filmmakers for the last 50 years. From the acknowledgement of George Lucas of the influence of Kurosawa’s “The Hidden Fortress” on Lucas’s “Star Wars” films to his “Yojimbo” and “The Seven Samurai” being remade by Italian and American filmmakers alike. Although not his finest hour “Rashomon” is an interesting experiment that has had its fair share of influence over the years.

“Rashomon” has a story to tell, but Kurosawa chooses to tell it to us in a very unique manner. It is the story of the rape of a woman and the death of her husband. It’s a story that’s probably been told a thousand times, but never like this. Kurosawa takes a voyeuristic view of the film and shows us the story four times over from the points of view of the woman, her husband, a bandit, and a curious onlooker. These stories are all told to a curious man through flashbacks by two men who were present at an inquiry to determine what exactly happened to the husband and wife. The two men relay the stories to the audience through the device of the curious man. Each story has a certain amount of truth to it, it would seem, but just how much is up to the viewer to decide. The film never tells us which story is the right one and it would have been wrong to do so.

What makes this film work so well is Kurosawa’s yearning to deliver the story to us in as visual a way as possible. There is a minimal amount of dialogue, as a great deal of the story is told through the expressions of the actors as well as the ever moving camera. Shots flow gracefully together to create a near dreamlike state, which presents the stories to us as vivid hallucinations of the men telling them. The scenes at the inquiry enable the viewer to be further drawn into this world of deception by placing the viewer in the position of the interrogator. It appears as if we, the audience, are asking the questions and that the characters are answering directly to us. Once all of the testimony has been delivered it becomes clear that there are only two things that remain consistent throughout the four stories: the rape of the woman and the death of the husband. Everything else is open to interpretation, which makes for a very rewarding viewing experience.

My only misgiving about this near masterpiece is the performances. Toshiro Mifune’s performance as the bandit is exemplary with the exception of the incessant exaggeration of his character. Every time he laughs it is in a maniacal fashion that begins to grate on the nerves after awhile. He also runs around like he’s got a firecracker shoved up his ass. There shouldn’t be any problem with this, but something just seemed off about it. Otherwise, he delivers a fierce performance that is, for the most part, what one would expect of Mifune. The other performance that bothered me slightly was that of the woman. For the majority of the film she delivers a passionate performance that is full of sympathy, but during the last iteration of the story she catches the Mifune laughing flu and starts cackling like a bloody hyena. Granted she is under a great deal of strain at that particular moment, but it didn’t prevent me from being bothered by the fact that it seemed to go on and on for minutes of screen time.

The slightly skewed performances aside, “Rashomon” remains highly recommended viewing. There are two great swordfights that are an early indication of what Kurosawa had up his sleeve for his masterpiece “The Seven Samurai”. There are some great moments of tension on display here in the form of a scene between the woman and her husband, as well as a scene in which Mifune has been displaced from his sword and must reclaim it before being turned into a shish-ka-bob by his attacker.

For all the aforementioned reasons, you owe it to yourself to make “Rashomon” a part of your viewing diet. It’s not often you get to see a truly groundbreaking film such as this. If you are a fan of the ever so popular twist films that populate films nowadays, or just want to see what exactly it was that undoubtedly influenced filmmakers like Tom Tykwer (”Run Lola Run”) and Christopher Nolan (”Memento”) then you should see the film that most assuredly started it all: “Rashomon”.

2001 / 120 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Well Denzel, it’s about damn time! I’ve been waiting for this performance for years. I keep hearing about your greatness and yet never see it realized. That is until now. Russell Crowe be damned. Washington gives the year’s finest lead performance. Hands down. It was such a great performance that I didn’t once think of my, now legendary, “I’m fifty years old!…” Ruben “Hurricane” Carter diatribe. That is rather extraordinary, since it used to be that whenever I thought of Denzel I would think of that tirade of mine. From now on, however, when I think of Denzel it will be for his performance as Alonzo Harris in “Training Day”.

“Training Day” is the story of a rookie cop Jake Hoyt (Ethan Hawke), who has an idealistic view of law enforcement based on his time at the police academy. This ideology lies in stark contrast to that of his traing officer who is, of course, Alonzo Harris (Washington). Alonzo’s methods of law enforcement make Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry look like a “by the book” peace officer in comparison. He doesn’t mind enforcing the law, but only when it is in his best interests. He lures Hoyt into the seedy world of the narcotics detective by taking him to the streets. He gets Hoyt high. He takes him on illegal searches. He even rigs crime scenes to protect his men. He does whatever it takes to save his skin while also being profitable. He is a difficult character to get a grasp on and Denzel fleshes out every single aspect of this man to perfection.

“Training Day” isn’t the greatest movie, although it is very good until it’s final act when it becomes a routine, predictable police thriller. What the movie is really about is the performances. Principally Denzel’s, but Hawke is very impressive in the role of the rookie cop as well. His role is actually quite difficult, because he has to co-exist with Washington’s charismatic lead. He could have mailed it in, but instead he chooses to stand toe to toe with him and, for the most part, he does. I never much cared for either of these guys before, hence I chose not to see this movie in the theater. But, after seeing this film, I have newfound respect for the two of them.

Hawke conveys all of the subtle nuances one would expect of someone in his position. He has a wife and baby at home and he is looking to start work on his career when he gets a strong dose of reality from Harris. He reacts to life on the street with timidness, yet he still manages to muster the strength to do the right thing despite the direness of the circumstances. I shy away from saying that he is the equal of Washington in this movie, but he is probably the closest that anyone could hope to get.

Washington, on the other hand, is unhinged. I have never seen him in this light before. If there is a law to bend, or rule to break, he’s gonna do whatever it takes. Whether it’s the right thing to do or not rarely plays a factor in his decision-making process. At least right or wrong in the way we see it anyway. He plays by his own rules and he’s been doing it for long enough that it’s like second nature to him. He no longer knows where the line is between right and wrong. He crossed it a long time ago and never looked back. He even has a great introduction in a coffee house when Hawke’s character first meets him. He has some great rapid fire dialogue that makes the whole film worthwhile. Washington is clearly reveling in this role as well he should. It’s, quite likely, the sort of role he has long dreamed of portraying, but never had the opportunity to until now.

Washington has long been lusting after a Best Actor Oscar. Oftentimes, openly campaigning for the little gold guy. This has always annoyed me and I have gleefully watched as he has been denied year after year. This year, however, things are different. He has not campaigned. He has allowed the performance to speak for itself. Perhaps this shows his confidence in the performance, whereas in past years maybe he was a little uncertain of the quality of the performance, thus he felt the need to campaign. Only Denzel knows that for certain.

All I know is that, come this Sunday, I will be applauding Denzel as he makes his way to the stage to finally accept the award he has long coveted. He finally deserves it and, for once, I think the Academy’s going to get it right this time.

Even if they don’t. I know I saw the best performance of 2001 when I realized a day later that I thought of Denzel Washington as Alonzo Harris and not as a man on a fictional rant about being fifty years old in a prison not of his making.

2001 / 111 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

If there is one thing that we can be thankful for in this deplorable year for film, it is that as 2001 came to a close, we were not flooded with the “Oscar-bait” films that only rear their heads as Santa is hitching up the reindeer and getting down to business. I can only think of about three films that I would classify as “Oscar-bait” from this past year, although I’m sure a case could be made for a couple of others. They are “Ali”, “A Beautiful Mind”, and the unforgivable piece of pretentiousness that is the basis of this review: “The Shipping News”.

I believe that this movie really could have been quite good. All of the elements are in place. Just look at the cast for Clint’s sake! Kevin Spacey, Julianne Moore, Cate Blanchett, and Judi Dench aren’t exactly known for making crap like this. There is even a great supporting cast in place comprised of Scott Glenn, Pete Postlethwaite (“The total man of a bounty hunter from “The Lost World”.), and Rhys Ifans (Best known for portraying Hugh Grant’s eccentric roommate in “Notting Hill”. Add to the cast the talents of Lasse Hallstrom, director of films such as “Chocolat” and “The Cider House Rules”, and you’ve got the makings of something truly special. Right?

Wrong.

Unfortunately the film doesn’t have a bloody clue about what it wants to do or where it wants to go. It starts with the incredibly timid Quoyle (Spacey) picking up Petal (Blanchett) at a gas station, taking her home and bumbling his way into what Petal intends to be a one night stand, but instead turns into a daughter and a boyfriend she doesn’t want. Fast forward a few years and Petal gets killed in a car crash, which results in Quoyle going to Newfoundland, to find his way in life, with his daughter and aunt (Dench) in tow. Once in Newfoundland, Quoyle finds a job with the local newspaper and the three of them take up residence in his aunt’s childhood home. While he blunders his way around town he bumps into Wavey (Moore), who has a past that is just as confused as Quoyle’s, and a relationship inevitably forms between the two of them.

That is the film in a nutshell. I’m sorry I couldn’t sum it up any better, but the film lacks direction in so many ways that it’s hard to tell what exactly is going on the majority of the time. In the end it suffers from making a lot of promises and delivering on none of them. Just when the film feels like it’s going to find its course something would happen to detach the plot from the possibility of having any sense of order. Things such as ghosts and Quoyle’s daughter saying that the house is alive and should be set free, troubled me greatly. Simply due to the fact that they have no place in the story, so far as I can tell anyway.

The film never knows what it wants to be. One minute it’s a quirky comedy about a bunch of cool dudes working at a newspaper in a small town where the only thing people truly seem to care about is car accidents. The next minute it goes the road of heavy-handedness in dealing with themes such as incest, mental retardation, and pasts that should be left alone. Then it goes off in the direction of ghosts and houses wanting to be set free, before it gets back to the good stuff at the newspaper. I feel if the film had focused on the goings on at the newspaper it would have been the film it hoped to be, because that stuff was actually fun and interesting. The rest of the film just hangs there, serves no purpose, and essentially does nothing.

It’s a shame that this film didn’t make its way into the hands of someone such as Lawrence Kasdan. If he had made this film it would have been great. He would have been able to meld these elements together to make the cohesive and rewarding film that Lasse Hallstrom was clearly incapable of making of the source material. Kasdan has proven time and again with films such as “Mumford” and “The Big Chill” that he can meld comedy and drama together seamlessly to produce a rich and rewarding cinematic experience.

The performances are all what one would expect of all the actors involved. None of them falter. None of them drop the ball. No, I place the full blame for this film’s failure on the shoulders of Hallstrom and screenwriter Robert Nelson Jacobs for being able to make such a contrived and pointless film despite the level of talent they were given.

Oscar-bait is something we’re all going to have to deal with for as long as the Academy chooses to continue handing out statues each March. What we shouldn’t have to deal with is bad Oscar-bait. I can handle films like “A Beautiful Mind” and “American Beauty” because they are actually well crafted, enjoyable cinematic experiences. Good Oscar-bait is forgivable and even allowable in my book, but I have no place in my heart for bad Oscar-bait, unless it is so pathetic that it becomes laughable, but I don’t see that happening.

“The Shipping News” commits the ultimate celluloid sin of becoming bad Oscar-bait. Avoid this one like the plague. Despite the fact that you get to see a wake live up to its name, it’s still not worth the price of admission. If, for some otherworldly reason, you absolutely must see some variation of Oscar-bait, then you would be much better off with “A Beautiful Mind”, rather than this hapless bit of nonsense.

1975 / 123 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

The best way to look at “The Eiger Sanction” is to think of it as a James Bond movie with Clint Eastwood inserted into the mix in place of Bond. And hey, let’s be honest. If anyone could replace Bond it would be Clint. The reason I make the comparison is that minus the gadgets this film has much the same ingredients as many a Bond film has contained over the years. You’ve got women all wanting a piece of Clint (in one form or another), you’ve got treachery and above all else there is the close friend who finds a way to get killed. It is the death of this friend that leads to art collecting college professor Dr. Jonathan Hemlock (Eastwood) to get involved in the world of intrigue that is “The Eiger Sanction”.

After sending an attractive young student (who wanted to perform sexual favors to improve her grade) on her way Hemlock bumps into an old acquaintance of his named Pope. It quickly becomes apparent that these men have never gotten along. Despite that fact, Pope has come to arrange a meeting between Hemlock and a Mr. Dragon to discuss certain actions that need to be taken. The meeting is arranged and Hemlock is blackmailed into performing a sanction (a hit) on a man who killed one of Dragon’s agents. Hemlock himself used to be one of these agents and, having no choice, performs the sanction with relative ease.

Thinking his life can return to normal now that he has delivered, Hemlock returns home beds a stewardess and wakes up to find his payment for the sanction missing. It turns out Dragon needs him to perform one more sanction: The Eiger Sanction. Dragon informs Hemlock that the agent who was killed was an old friend of Hemlock’s, who had actually saved his life once. The second of the two killers can be found taking part in a international climbing expedition on a mountain known as The Eiger, but it is unknown which of the climbers he is. Hemlock, who happens to be an accomplished climber, has fallen victim to the mounatin twice before, but knowing he owes it to his old friend takes the sanction on his own terms.

That is just act one. After this Hemlock goes into training with his old buddy, and fellow climber, Ben Bowman (George Kennedy). This is the best part of the film, as it has laughs, intrigue and naked Indian women. Hemlock manages to even run across an old enemy who the good doctor would like nothing more than to kill at the first opportunity. After the training segment of the film we move into the third and final act, which is the climb itself. Amazingly enough, this is the part of the film that I liked the least. It has it’s moments, but for the most part has difficulty holding one’s attention. I guess it’s just not that exciting watching a bunch of guys climbing a mountain, although the cuts to Bowman watching from the hotel with a telescope were a great deal of fun. Eventually the events of the third act will lead to the inevitable unveiling of who the second killer is. To me this wasn’t much of a payoff as I found it to be rather predictable and uninspired.

The performances are fairly average overall, aside from the top-shelf performances one would expect from the likes of Eastwood and Kennedy. These two are at their best when they are together, which is for a great deal of the movie since the training sequence lasts for roughly a third of the movie. It is during this time that I found myself enjoying the film the most. From Kennedy’s unwanted wake up calls to Eastwood’s handling of his old nemesis these two esteemed gentlemen are at their best during this part of the film. The supporting actors fill their roles and do little more with them. They don’t really add anything to the film, but they don’t detract from it either. The same cannot be said for some of the one or two line extras used at the hotel while the climb is taking place. They are given some rather weak dialogue and make it even worse than it already was when they choose to speak it. Thankfully Kennedy runs these people off rather quickly so they don’t have to be dealt with for too long.

“The Eiger Sanction” is one of Eastwood’s earlier directorial efforts and, at times, it shows. For the most part, he does a fine job with, once again, the training portion of the film being the high water mark of the film. His pacing is excellent during this part, as he never allows anything to go on longer than it has to, although the same cannot be said of portions of the first and last acts, which had a way of feeling overdone and decidedly lacking in interest a great deal of the time.

All things said and done this is a good enough movie. I am critical of it, because I expect a little more from an Eastwood movie than I do of others. Maybe that’s selfish, but he is Clint Eastwood and we all know what he is capable of when he sets his mind to it. But then again he is Clint Eastwood and who am I to judge. This film does display the Eastwood of the 70’s that we know and love. The razor sharp wit. The take-no-shit attitude. It’s all there. So, if you’re looking for Eastwood, and his more esteemed works are not available, “The Eiger Sanction” is more than capable of suitably filling the void in your viewing diet.