2001 / 135 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I find it interesting that Cameron Crowe chose to start his mind-bending thriller “Vanilla Sky” with Tom Cruise awakening to the Radiohead song “Everything In It’s Right Place”. It seems to me that this is the subject at the heart of the film. When do we really know that everything is in it’s right place? Is it ever possible for everything to be in it’s right place? These questions may have never crossed your mind before, but they most certainly will weigh heavily on your thoughts after viewing this challenging masterpiece of a film.

Cruise is David Aames. The head of a publishing firm that he inherited from his father. For David, the publishing firm is more of a diversion than a real passion in his life. What he truly wants from life is true love, although he doesn’t mind sleeping with a friend (Cameron Diaz) to release his sexual frustrations while looking for Miss Right. Then one night David’s best friend (Jason Lee) brings a date (Penelope Cruz) to a party that he’s hosting. He is immediately intrigued by her and follows her around like a puppy dog for the entire evening. All the while falling in love with her. He eventually takes her home and spends all night talking to her. It appears all will be right as rain, as he walks to his car the next morning. It is at this moment that he makes a decision that will alter his life forever. It leads to a tragic car accident that leaves David disfigured and emotionally scarred. He attempts to overcome his misfortune, but will eventually find himself in jail on the charge of murder, discussing his life with Kurt Russell.

So how did he go from having the time of his life to a murder rap? That is the intellectual side of the coin that Cameron Crowe brilliantly unravels in his own unconventional yet admirably appropriate manner. The use of the device of the jail to tell the story in pseudo-retrospect, with Kurt Russell in the role of interrogator and captive audience, does a great deal for the story. It delivers many questions to the viewer that will slowly be answered as the film plays itself out while, at the same time, answering questions you didn’t even know you had. This becomes readily apparent upon multiple viewings.

There hasn’t been a film that played with one’s mind with such fervor and delight, since “Total Recall”. A film that shares a great deal with “Vanilla Sky”. The parallels are there for you to discover on your own if you choose to do so. The film never ever cheats the viewer. I was concerned about this going into my second viewing, but quickly realized that I had nothing to worry about. All of the clues are there to be found. You just have to look in the right places. The film is so masterfully done that it doesn’t allow the viewer to realize they are in for a journey of true awakening until it abandons it’s fairly linear story after the first hour and changes course into a mind-bending world of lost dreams and displacement of reality.

Tom is in top form in the role of David Aames. This may be the most challenging role he has ever had to tackle and he nails it. For the first time in his career, he is unable to rely on his looks to fill screen time. This is due to the aforementioned disfigurement, which is quite a site to endure. I’ve considered Tom to be a talented actor for years, but it seems that he is unable to shake the stigma of merely being a pretty face despite the many brilliant performances he has turned in. Here he runs the emotional gauntlet. He is playfully disturbed when singing a Joan Osborne song while riding on a gurney. He is charming while wearing a dopey looking hat and hanging out with Jason Lee. He is unrelentingly tormented while losing hope in the aftermath of the accident. He delivers on all counts and he is to be commended for this performance.

Amazingly enough, Penelope Cruz actually turns in a solid performance here. She doesn’t do anything groundbreaking, but she does add some subtle layers to a fairly one-dimensional role due to her being viewed through the eyes of David as a goddess. Cameron Diaz turns in a terrific role as the obsessive bed buddy of David’s. She tells us a great deal about her character’s intensions with very little screen time. It is the things she says that tells us that she truly means what she leaves unsaid. It is a brief, yet captivating performance that deserves every bit of critical acclaim it has received. Lastly, Kurt Russell turns in a poignant performance in his dealings with David. He acts as a surrogate father to David in these scenes. He wants to believe David and, most importantly, he makes the audience want to believe David as well. Why Kurt doesn’t get more work is beyond me. Although he was in “3000 Miles To Graceland” which did rule I might add.

Crowe and Cruise both took a big riskwith this movie. It’s not like we expect a mind-bender from the team that brought us “Jerry Maguire” which, by the way, is also an amazing film. It paid off in spades, however, as it ranks alongside the best work that either of them has done. I can only hope that they both choose to take more chances like this in the future.

The film has been faulted for having an ending that gives everything away at the end. This I don’t understand, since many of the people who say this admit that they don’t “get” the film. So I think it is more along the lines of finding fault for the sake of finding fault. I usually don’t care for movies that tie up the loose ends either, but in the case of “Vanilla Sky” the informative ending adds new layers to characters that otherwise would not have been realized and makes the film a completely captivating experience on all levels.

One can take many haunting images away from this film, but the one that stands out for me is at the very beginning. It is the Times Square scene that much has been made of. The streets are barren and David is running scared through the lifeless void at the heart of the Big Apple, which is typically it’s most lively. This is representative of David’s dilemma. Is there a discernible line between reality and disillusionment, or is everything truly in it’s right place?

That is the question at the heart of “Vanilla Sky” and a question that you will have to search your own heart and soul to find the answer to. For I do not have the answers. Although I can tell you that it does indeed piss on the ridiculously overrated “Mulholland Drive”.

That bit of nonsense can only be described as “Vanilla Sky” done wrong.

2001 / 87 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Would you believe it if I told you I’ve seen worse?

“Freddy Got Fingered” is easily the most pointless film I have ever laid eyes on. It serves only as a construct for Tom Green to operate within to take his distinct brand of “comedy” to a new level.

After reading that, you’re probably puzzled by the fact that I am giving this film a “D” rather than an “F”. The reason for that, my friends, is a man by the name of Rip Torn. I have always appreciated this fine actor in films such as “Men In Black” and “Wonder Boys”. He is an intensely quotable actor with lines such as “We’re not hosting an intergalactic kegger down here!” and “I am a writer!” forever burned in my mind. In this film he is given the unenviable task of having to portray Tom Green’s father. Quite possibly the most difficult role of his career. A lesser actor would have drowned in the role, but Rip makes the most of it. For the most part, his character loathes his son and Rip is delightful as he berates Tom at practically every opportunity. Why is he berating him you ask? Well, other than the fact that it’s Tom Green, the film’s, ahem, “plot” attempts to sort some of this out for us.

Gord (Tom Green) is a 28 year old loser who dreams of one day hitting the big time in Hollywood with his very own animated show. So he goes to Hollywood and gets his dreams shot down, thus sending him, with his tail between his legs, back to his parents’ house. This is where Rip becomes involved. He is not pleased with the fact that Gord has come back home. For a short time he thought he was rid of the fool and then he shows back up on the doorstep. Rip’s other son, Freddy (Eddie Kaye Thomas), has carved out a nice living for himself in the banking industry and Rip doesn’t understand why Gord can’t make anything of himself. From here the film essentially does nothing more than display Gord trying to irritate his father while also still attempting to realize his dreams. This might not be so terrible if not for Tom Green’s influence over the movie.

Did you see the possibility, anywhere in the above plot synopsis, of the following occurring? Tom Green becoming all wild eyed at the sight of a horse penis and, as a result of this, leaping over a fence and chanting “I’m a farmer” while dutifully jerking the horse off. Tom Green caning a disabled woman’s legs so that she can receive sexual gratification. Tom Green delivering a baby, biting through the umbilical cord, and then, as if that wasn’t enough already, twirling the baby about the room by it’s umbilical cord. This is by far the most obscene thing I have ever seen in any film… Ever! Anybody who sees any humor in that needs to be put under supervision immediately. Let’s see. What else was there? Tom Green licking a friend’s open wound with delight. The neighbor kid being repeatedly injured in decidedly non-humorous ways. Tom running around in a deer skin, although he does get hit by a semi at this part, which was rather funny. It’s just a shame he didn’t step in front of the semi in reality. Our lives would be much better for it. Lastly, as if jacking the horse off wasn’t enough, Tom decided to jack off an elephant as well. I’m sure I’m forgetting some, but I have a feeling you get the idea.

All of the actors, with the exception of Tom Green, are slumming here. Eddie Kaye Thomas (better known as Finch in the “American Pie” movies) has the disastrous role of portraying Tom’s brother Freddy. Thankfully he doesn’t have much screen time so, with any luck, this role will register as merely a speed bump in his career, rather than an abyss from which it may never return. Julie Hagerty of “Airplane!” fame has little screen time as well, although it was nice to see her working if for no other reason than to know that she still has a pulse. I have already praised Rip Torn for his resolve under rather unpleasant circumstances. Lastly, I must make note of the performance of Marisa Coughlan who plays the aforementioned caning recipient. She doesn’t have much to work with, but she seemed to be a very genuine, good-natured person. I have a feeling that she’s a struggling young actress, who was about to be evicted from her home and so had to become involved in this doomed enterprise in order to fulfill her financial obligations. Hopefully she finds something a little worthier of her talents in her future endeavors.

Basically all that Tom Green proves with this film is that he has a great deal of disdain for small children, the disabled, any species of animal in existence, and last, but not least, the filmgoing public. The only reason that the film works on the lowest level that a film can work is due to the efforts of Rip Torn and the fact that virtually every character in the film has a dislike for Tom Green’s character.

This is not recommended viewing in any way, shape, or form. The only reason for watching this would be to see what a truly terrible film looks like, or to watch Rip Torn spew profanity liberally. This film plays like a course in how not to make a major motion picture. So, if you’re in the mood for that, then by all means check it out.

If you’re in the mood for Rip Torn, on the other hand, I would recommend films such as the two I mentioned earlier (”Men In Black” and “Wonder Boys”). They are infinitely better films and I think Rip and myself would sleep much easier at night knowing that people were getting their “Rip fix” in the form of those films rather than the hopeless enterprise that is “Freddy Got Fingered”.

2001 / 145 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

After watching “Mulholland Drive” I was left with nothing but questions. This is often the case with exceptionally well constructed films such as “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Unfortunately, more often than not, this turns out to be the case with films that lack a sense of direction or purpose. In the case of “Mulholland Drive” it quickly becomes obvious that it belongs with the constituents of the latter, rather than the former.

“Mulholland Drive” has to be one of the strangest beasts of a movie that I have ever seen, and I don’t mean that in a good way. The first half hour borders on being laughably bad with dialogue that sounds as if it was lifted from the most hapless of soap operas. The next hour is what truly troubled me about the film. Not because it was bad, but because it was so good.

Within that hour it became a richly compelling experience that rivals the best the year 2001 has had to offer. You’ve got a woman with amnesia and her culture shocked roommate of sorts, attempting to piece together the amnesiac’s past, which apparently involves a purse full of money, a wheelchair bound dwarf (No, his name isn’t Gimli.), and a car accident. This is intriguing subject matter that does not disappoint. That is, until the final hour when, in typical Lynch fashion, it turns into a none to subtle mindfuck with absolutely no purpose other than to confuse and alienate its audience. At first it’s not so bad. It makes the viewer question whether what they just saw was a dream sequence, or possibly what they are currently viewing is the inner workings of a jilted lover. This would be all fine and good, but Lynch can’t leave it alone. He has to add a bunch of pomp and circumstance to the proceedings, which does nothing more than distort an already muddy picture.

In writing this review I think I have figured out the meaning behind this film, but I won’t share it so as not to spoil a possible viewing you might choose to undertake in the future. The problem with the meaning that I have interpreted, which I’m sure is incorrect, is that I only used about 80% of the film, whereas for any true meaning to be derived it should be supported 100% by the film’s content. The reason this happens is due to something called David Lynch. He is easily the most pretentious director I have ever come across in my time watching film. Just when things seem to be coming together he throws in a bunch of flashy non-related nonsense that pisses me off when it should be challenging me. This, by the way, is coming from someone who enjoys both flashy filmmaking and mindfuck movies as much as any other form of cinema. I site my love of “Vanilla Sky” as well as all things Brian De Palma as prime examples of this.

It’s a shame that the film was lacking any sense of direction, because the actors truly seemed to be giving it their all. Despite some incredibly flimsy dialogue at the film’s outset Naomi Watts still managed to turn in one of the years more memorable female performances in the role of the culture shocked roommate Betty Elms. She makes every moment come off as being so natural that you even manage to buy some of the ham fisted dialogue, she is forced to utter, as the sort of stuff that a naïve acting hopeful, arriving in Los Angeles for the first time, would say. The other performance of note is that of Lara Harring as the amnesiac woman Rita. She doesn’t manage to offer up the same level of genuineness that her costar does, but she still manages to turn in a finely crafted performance in what is definitely a difficult role to portray.

Now for those questions I mentioned earlier. These really gnawed at me and I feel I should lay them out for you so you know what you will be faced with if you choose to watch this movie despite my reservations about you spending your money in such a silly manner. What now follows is the questions followed by what I last saw regarding it during the film.

1. What was up with the wheelchair bound dwarf?

? All I knew about this guy was that he sat in the middle of a room with, I believe, green carpet, and a glass wall that people, who seemed to have a great deal of respect from him, could speak to him through. Sounds like the sort of thing you’d like to know more about doesn’t it? Well tough, because that’s all the more you ever get to find out.

2. What happened to Robert Forster?

? He shows up as a police investigator at the car crash that opens the movie, utters some awful dialogue and then leaves a minute later and is never seen or heard from again. I think his disappearance supports my theory about the film’s meaning, but still it pissed me off because I wanted to see more of this guy.

3. What was the deal with Dan Hedaya’s eyes?

? A short ways into the movie he shows up as a lawyer/agent of some sort that has a deal to make that apparently cannot be refused. I think it was on behalf of the dwarf, but I can’t be sure. The thing is, for his whopping five minutes of screen time, we get Dan Hedaya staring downward at a table that he pushes papers across. I wanted to know what that was all about, but that was left unresolved as well.

4. Is there something important about espresso that I don’t know about?

? During the same meeting that Hedaya was busy blindly passing offers out at, there is a dude who apparently enjoys a fine espresso. So much so that the people he is meeting with have it made special for him whenever he is around. Problem is, he spits the stuff out on a napkin when he drinks it, which is never a good sign. The film dwells on this long enough that I am forced to ponder the intricacies of a fine espresso. I don’t think there is, but if I’m missing something be sure and let me know.

5. We’ve got lesbians!!! But why?

? I am not complaining about the simultaneous nakedness of two of the most gorgeous creatures to share the screen in some time, but where were the clues, that should have been laced throughout the film, to at least hint that things were going to head in this direction at some point. Two hot chicks are trying to solve a mystery and then all of a sudden they hop in the sack together. Once again, nothing wrong with the nakedness, but it would be nice if it was at least hinted at.

6. What was the significance of the spontaneous Spanish speaking by a lesbian and blue haired gypsy wannabe near the end of the film?

? Out of nowhere we suddenly have “silencio” becoming the word of choice for people far and near, whether they be slumbering lesbians or balcony inhabiting blue haired gypsy wannabes. I am still uncertain of what this nonsense was all about. More than likely it was just Lynch being a megalomaniacal retard again, but I guess that’s open to interpretation.

I’m sure I had other questions after watching this film, but I can’t remember what they were, nor do I care to.

For the majority of its runtime “Mulholland Drive” suffers from ridiculous dialogue and the self righteous meddling of its director. Unfortunately, the film is not a complete piece of crap due to the middle hour that borders on brilliance before falling prey to the convoluted happenstance that plagues the film during its final hour. Lynch is a good director with good ideas. It’s just a shame that he seems to be inept when it comes to bringing a good idea to fruition.

“Mulholland Drive” leaves the viewer with many unresolved questions that frustrate, rather than inspire making it yet another in a long line of films that demonstrate the ineptitude of David Lynch as a filmmaker.

1990 / 169 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I am handing this film the best grade of all three Godfather films, because it takes what made the first “Godfather” film so good and expands on it in ways that make it the most enjoyable, thrilling, and engaging of the three films.

“The Godfather Part III” is essentially the first installment set thirty years later. Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is in the role of Godfather, which was occupied by his father Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) in the first film. Both of these men had sons who wanted nothing to to do with the family business. Both of them had a hot-headed relative whose lack of thought before action threatens to ruin all that the family has achieved. Both films have their respective Godfathers being hospitalized after the the first hour of each film. Both have finales that have the Godfather attending an event while a series of orchestrated hits are put into action against those who have acted against the family. I’m sure there are similarities that I am failing to mention, but these are the key ones that need to be noted.

The main difference between this film and the first is that this time around the Godfather is trying to do things legitimately. Although I guess it can be said that even Brando’s Godfather was a man of principal since he would not allow the family to enter into the business of narcotics, despite the obvious financial advantages, because it was not the sort of business the he did. Pacino’s Godfather wants to set the record straight and restore dignity and honor to his family’s name. He does this by making a sizable donation to the impoverished people of Sicily and angling towards a stake in a large European organization called Immobiliare. He finds that these attempts are futile as, just as he thinks he’s out, he gets pulled back into the mob game.

Other storylines are interweaved with Pacino’s such as the budding romance between Pacino’s daughter (Sofia Coppola) and his nephew (Andy Garcia). This is an interesting plotline that the Godfather does not want to see develop any further. He attempts, on numerous occasions, to persuade his hot-headed nephew, who is the son of James Caan’s Sonny from the first movie, to stay away from his daughter. He gets little in the line of results from his pleas. There are also threads involving a dying Pope, a local thug who bites off a little more than he can chew, and the Godfather’s entertainer son.

These various plots are all weaved together flawlessly by Francis Ford Coppola, who displays some of his well renowned visual flair in this film, whereas it seemed to be fairly lacking in the first two parts. This film has a very nice flow to it that carries it from beginning to end with a grace and beauty that have come to expect from Coppola after seeing films such as “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and “Apocalypse Now”. He has a knack for finding beauty in the most obscene of stories and unlikeliest of places. He finds the beauty in death and inner turmoil and manages to explore it to it’s fullest extent. This film definitely stands as one of his finest works.

This film manages such lofty praise due to it’s strong performances from the two male leads. Al Pacino delivers one of the best, if not the best, performances of his career. He takes the man he made decidedly one-dimensional in the second installment and makes him as human as it is possible to make a mob boss. The range he demonstrates in this film is exceptional. He is man who loves a family that barely even exists anymore. His brothers are all dead and his sister is little more than a sheep following the herd. His wife is gone. Both of his children reject the lives he wants them to have. Despite all this he thinks he can make right out of his life by making the family business legit. He finds this to be a difficult proposition and will find himself overwhelmed in more ways than one before the film comes to it’s thrilling conclusion.

The other notable performance I alluded to is that of Andy Garcia (”The Untouchables”). He is a live-wire ready to shock the shit out of anything that comes near him. Much like his father, he is quick to seek out violence as the answer to the family’s problems. He resorts to his whims against the wishes of the Godfather, which never results in good things for anyone involved. Garcia has to deal with the restraints of his position in the family, as well as the mixed feelings of forbidden love that he has for the Godfather’s daughter. Garcia delivers a very well restrained performance that walks the tightrope of control, or lack thereof, with a steady brilliance.

The only real blight on this film is the much-maligned performance of Sofia Coppola. She proves, with this performance, that she is a much better director (”The Virgin Suicides”) than actress. In all fairness I can’t say that it’s all her fault. I think her father and Mario Puzo fell asleep at the wheel while writing the lines for her character. They wrote her lines, as if they were for a twelve year old girl, rather than for a woman in her early twenties. Even Meryl Streep would have a hard time digesting these lines if she were handed them. Thankfully Sofia’s character pays off, as she delivers one of the films more poignant scenes at the height of the film’s emotional arc.

Until the final twenty minutes, this film was in a dead heat with the first installment for the honor of best of the trilogy. It was at this point that it raised the bar and pulled ahead of the first two with relative ease. This is a direct result of the way Coppola constructs the brilliant conclusion to this epic saga of a trilogy that spans some nine hours of film time in total. He does so by taking the same elements that made the conclusion of the first film so gripping and adding in a fairly large helping of emotion to the mix. By doing this he maximizes the viewer’s attachment to the film at the very end of the entire trilogy’s arc, which makes for a wonderfully satisfying conclusion that I wouldn’t dare spoil for anyone.

The hardcore “Godfather” fans of the world don’t seem to care too much for this film. I can’t say I know why. To me “The Godfather Part III” takes the best elements of the previous two films and refines them to create a better crafted and smoother paced film that should keep the most militant of filmgoers planted in their seats from beginning to end.

Plus it’s a hell of a lot better sequel than “The Godfather Part II”.

1974 / 200 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

When one brings up the subject of the greatest sequels ever made, it seems that this film’s name is always mentioned. Granted the ingredients are there for something great to happen. You take the majority of the cast from “The Godfather” and add Robert Deniro (”Taxi Driver”) into the mix. One would think that only great things could come from a collaboration such as this.

The only problem is that Al Pacino (”The Insider”) doesn’t hold up his end of the show. This movie is nearly three and a half hours long and as a result feels like two movies. The beauty is that, that’s the intention. You have Michael Corleone’s (Al Pacino) attempts to maintain control over the family’s affairs and assert himself as the new “Godfather” comprising one of the film’s threads. The other is a look back to Vito Corleone’s (Robert Deniro) rise from an orphaned childhood to a man known simply as “The Godfather”.

Michael’s thread is easily the downfall of the film. It has some interesting ideas behind it. I like the fact that you get to see what the Corleone family’s operations are like in Las Vegas, Miami and even Havana. I like the idea that you see Michael having to deal with the concept of betrayal by those closest to him. What I don’t like is Pacino’s performance here. He didn’t blow me away in “The Godfather” either, but I thought he did a good job. Here he becomes incredibly one-dimensional, as he seemingly attempts to become Brando’s version of the “Godfather” rather than his own. He doesn’t even do a good job of trying to be Brando. I’m not saying the man is horrible here, but I’ve seen him do much better.

The other part of the movie, involving Vito Corleone, is riveting. You first see him as a boy in a harrowing scene that leaves him orphaned. He makes the exodus to New York and manages to meet a woman, have children and lead a fairly normal life. Then he runs into some smug prick who goes around the neighborhood collecting tributes from the local shopkeepers to keep them out of trouble. Deniro takes care of this situation in his own way. He opens his own store, which will become the front for his underhanded dealings that lead to the life that we saw Marlon Brando live in “The Godfather”.

I don’t think Deniro can deliver a poor performance. When I was younger I never understood what all the fuss was about with him. Having since seen him in a great deal of his work I now understand. This man is a force of nature. He takes the role and treats it as if it is the life he has always lived. He does with every role what Anthony Hopkins has done in his two stints as Hannibal Lecter. He inhabits the character and makes him come alive in ways that few actors have the ability to do.

The difference between the two storylines is that Vito’s is full of interest, whereas Michael’s is disturbingly non-compelling. Michael’s storyline does have some stirring scenes, such as the one when he has an argument with his wife and she discloses a truth about their relationship that must have been quite a jarring moment back in 1974 when this film was released. The attempt on his life was pretty cool as well.

But you see. That’s the problem. With Michael’s story I have to pick out the things I liked. With Vito’s that is not the case. His story paints a beautiful picture that fascinates every step of the way. It’s too bad the other story couldn’t have held up as well as this one.

Director Francis Ford Coppola tries to rekindle some of the magic that was present in the first film, but comes up empty-handed for the most part. He constructs some of the most beautiful transitions when going from Michael’s story to Vito’s. It never seemed that these great transitions ever went the other way though. I can’t remember anything spectacular, in this respect, when going from Vito’s story back to Michael’s. Maybe this tells us that even Coppola himself cared more about getting to Vito’s story than getting back to telling Michael’s. I doubt it, but I’d like to think that was the case.

This whole time travel concept in relation to the goings on of the mob was done much better in Sergio Leone’s “Once Upon a Time in America” a decade after this film’s release. That film effortlessly glides between different periods of time with an ease and grace that “The Godfather Part II” should have had. Maybe it would have, had Sergio not turned down directing “The Godfather”, because he had plans of making his own mob epic, which he eventually did with “Once Upon a Time in America”.

I started this review by talking about sequels that are considered to be great. Despite Deniro’s efforts this film will not be seen in any sort of great sequels list coming from me.

I save that realm for films the likes of “The Silence of the Lambs”, “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Back To The Future II”.

1972 / 175 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

What a difference a second viewing makes!

When I first saw this film, I thought it was heavy-handed, manipulative and about as appealing as a plague victim in heat. That was about a year ago. Now, for whatever reason, I have chosen to revisit it and I must say that I am glad I did. Virtually all of the flaws I saw the first time around were erased with this second viewing. It still has that uneasy tendency to put the mob on a pedestal that I find decidedly inflammatory and it does lose itself momentarily in the final half hour, but, regardless, I must admit that I find it to be quite compelling overall.

What was so much different this time around you ask? I can quite honestly say that I do not have the answer to that question. Maybe I wanted to hate it. Maybe I didn’t read the label properly and drank the mouthwash rather than gargling it. Maybe I watched the almighty “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” earlier in the day and was shocked and damaged by the fact that many people in the world consider the pathetic weasel of a film that is “The Godfather” to be a finer film. Maybe… Maybe… Maybe. I’m sure I had reasons. Valid or not. I had them.

Now that I have mined my well of ineptitude for a substantial period of time, let’s take a look at the movie itself for a change. After all, I am supposed to be reviewing it.

We begin with a wedding. Not just any wedding, mind you. It is the wedding of the Godfather’s daughter to some schmuck who will inevitably get on the bad side of his new family, as is the case with most of the people in this film. It should be a day of rejoicing and celebration, but for the Godfather it means taking requests and seeing them through. He is Sicilian (Of course!) and cannot turn down a request on the wedding day of his daughter. Some goofy tradition or something I guess. Regardless, it sets up the key ingredients of the film. Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone AKA “The Godfather”, James Caan as his son Sonny, Robert Duvall as Vito’s adopted son and lawyer Tom, and Al Pacino as his war hero son Michael.

These are the people who mean something in the world of the Godfather. He is a man who will dispatch his men to carry out a hit while bouncing a grandchild on his knee. He is a man who loves his family more than anything and will do anything to ensure their livelihood. He doesn’t consider one to be a true man unless he spends time with his family whenever possible.

It doesn’t take long to realize that it is not wise to piss this man off. Animals are beheaded, muggers killed, and struggling entertainers are given jobs thanks to this man. All is going well in his world until a hit is carried out, due to his lack of interest in the drug trade, that leaves the family in the hands of his eldest son Sonny.

Sonny has a fiery temper and is not fit to lead. He knows how to be on the physical end of things, but he doesn’t know when to pull his punches. Tom attempts to guide him with limited results. Meanwhile, Michael has never been one to be tempted to take part in the family business, but, with the tension increasing after the assault on his father and Sonny’s halfwit decision-making, it becomes more and more apparent that he will have to step in if there is to be anything left of the family.

Director Francis Ford Coppola has made better films than this, but that is no slight when you consider the fact that he is responsible for films like “Apocalypse Now”, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and “The Conversation” to name a few. He manages to helm the ship fairly well here keeping the down time to a minimum. Most of the down time that does occur happens with about half an hour left, which is unfortunate, because it bogs the film down slightly when it should be building towards it’s stunning finish. Overall though, a fine job by a man who had many great things ahead of him after this film.

It used to be that when people talked about this film they spoke of Marlon Brando. Recently, however, it seems people have brushed him aside and cast their attention towards Pacino’s performance, which is completely without merit. Brando is the lifeforce of this film. Without him, this film would fall back into the average bin where I had once placed it. His is easily (and surpisingly) the most developed character in the film, even though the film’s focus shifts strongly towards Michael after the first hour. The layers that Brando brings to this man, who could have very easily played as a hollow caricature, are extraordinary. When I think of this film, I think of him as a grandfather playing “monster” with his grandson. I think of him gaining and maintaining the respect of his friends through words first, and then actions if necessary. Beautifully done. Marlon Brando, I salute you.

Pacino does a good enough job with the role of Michael. The son of a mob boss who wants nothing to do with the “business”. Now that has possibilities. Possibilities that are explored with a great deal of care and attention by Coppola and Pacino, for the most part. Something I didn’t care for is how quick Michael is to change colors when his father has been attacked. Granted that would piss me off too, but he suddenly goes gangster with the blood in his veins suddenly turning to ice and him knowing exactly how things should be handled even though he has been away during wartime and never wanted to have anything to with the “business” in the first place. I guess I’ll let it slide though. Desperate times, desperate measures and all that nonsense.

The rest of the cast fills their roles nicely. James Caan as the hot-headed (Can he play anything else?) Sonny. The scenes that show him becoming enraged by his brother-in-law’s actions towards his sister are very well done. Speaking of his sister, Talia Shire (YO ADRIENNE!!! herself) does some solid work here in a role that doesn’t give her much more to do than get pissed and cry. Robert Duvall turns in his usual awe-inspiring performance as the adopted son turned family lawyer, Tom. He has many great moments, and he makes the most of them as always.

Anything else notable about this film? Let’s see. I can’t think of much else other than the infamous scene involving the horse and the “baptism in fire” ending (Which is one of the more masterfully done conclusions to a film that I have seen.). The only other thing worth mentioning is this film’s subtle pretentiousness that only irked me a couple of times. Every so often, when watching this film, I get the unsettling feeling that I am being preached to. “Jason bow down and kiss my big-bloated Grand Canyon of an ass.” At that moment, I tell the movie to piss off and the preaching diminishes. If I wanted to bow down and worship I would put in an Eastwood movie, and be on my knees with lips puckered. But guess what. This isn’t an Eastwood movie and inevitably that means that I’m not in my pew on Sunday kissing this film’s celluloid ass.

Now then. Sorry for the tirade, but I don’t need to be sermonized by a bunch of pretentious fools in suits that have speech patterns that have speech therapists, the world over, wincing in pain.

Despite that little diatribe at the end, I did find “The Godfather” to be a surprisingly entertaining film. While not being the greatest film ever made, as some would have you believe, it is a film that can rest on it’s own laurels and be assured of it’s status as a finely crafted film that even I couldn’t bring down from it’s pedestal.

Although, if it starts getting overly preachy again (Like it did the first viewing.), I may be forced to revise this review as I see fit.

Godfather….. You’ve been warned.

1990 / 113 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

If there is one thing that an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie is supposed to provide it is an escape from reality that allows your brain a much needed two hour rest. This, friends, is what makes “Total Recall” such an enigma. It actually challenges the mind to unravel the complexities of it’s plot in a manner similar to what one does when watching films like “Memento” or “Vanilla Sky”.

Have no fear though. Arnold still delivers a nice pile of dead bodies through the use of practically every method at his disposal. Unlike most lame action heroes, Arnold is wise enough to shoot no less than three of his enemies in the head. That’s right. The head! As an added bonus he also drives a spike into a guy’s neck, uses a civilian as a shield, and drills another guy to death. Much the same as in “Commando”, only with more gore, Arnold has instituted a Zero Tolerance policy for taking shit from people. It’s pretty simple. You annoy Arnold. You die. And you know what? I loved every minute of it.

This film challenges the viewer by way of it’s deceptively complex plotting. It all starts with Doug Quaid (Arnold) being decidedly bored with his life (despite the fact that he wakes up next to Sharon Stone every morning), which leads to him going to a place that specializes in delivering people’s dreams as true memories. He has been having these nagging dreams of Mars and wants to act upon them, so he signs up for the “Ego Trip” which provides the customer with a two week secret agent fantasy. The only trouble is… Problems arise during the procedure, Quaid goes nuts, and all hell breaks lose. But were there problems during the procedure, or is everything that happens from that point on merely a dream? That’s for you, the viewer, to decide.

That’s a pretty thinly veiled plot outline, but I feel it would be a disservice to those who have not yet seen the film to divulge any of the details of the plot. All I will say is that Arnold goes to Mars, bumps into a bunch of mutants, and kills practically everybody on the planet before all is said and done. He does this because he is pissed. He is pissed because everybody is trying to kill him. I don’t know about you, but that works for me.

Not only do you get the aforementioned body count, but you also get some of Arnold’s most memorable one liners. During the drilling the guy to death sequence I mentioned earlier, Arnold grabs a drill and uses it to kill a guy in some sort of excavating machine while yelling “Screw you!” at the guy. Tell me that doesn’t rock. You can’t! Another great one is the “Consider that a divorce” line that you will learn to love if you watch the film some day.

Aside from Arnold delivering on his promise of dead bodies and one liners, you also get director Paul Verhoeven (”Basic Instinct”, “Robocop”) delivering on his signature self indulgent need to film gore and tits at every opportunity. Unlike some of his other movies, it works here, because it never takes itself too seriously. I mean come on! You’ve got a Martian Sex Club loaded with interesting specimens such as a three titted woman and a midget whore as one of the principal venues! It’s played chiefly for laughs and I enjoyed every minute of it. This film is one of the rare instances where Verhoeven’s involvement in a film actually paid off by making it better.

This may not be the best of Arnold’s films, but it’s defnitely the most challenging. Valid arguments can be made on either side of the dream or reality debate with no real resolution available. I side with reality, but you can come to your own conclusion if you’d just go and watch the movie already!

If the challenges of the plot aren’t enough for you, just keep in mind that there is an action sequence that involves the midget whore stabbing a guy in the crotch and then, shortly thereafter, laying waste to a group of henchmen with a machine gun.

Now go and watch it already! You know you want to.

P.S. - I know all the guys out there are sold on this one. But a word to the wise. If you watch this one guys, be sure to pull the cup out of the sock drawer because this movie is tough on the business. Not only does the midget whore stab a guy in the crotch, but Arnold even gets kneed in the crotch. Twice! Thus proving that nothing is sacred in action films anymore.

2000 / 109 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

So there I was. Sunday night and there’s nothing better to do than watch “The Princess Bride”. Not that, that’s a bad thing. In fact, it’s a very good thing. So much so, that after I watched it for the first time, I watched it again. Only this time with the William Goldman commentary track on the DVD turned on. I had to do this, because Goldman rules. He’s a cranky yet humorous veteran of the Hollywood trenches. He pulls no punches and, for this reason, I listen when the man speaks.

What does all this have to do with “You Can Count On Me” you ask? Well, we all have our motivations when it comes to making the ultimate decision of choosing a movie to watch. For me, it can often be a simple thing like seeing a picture of Kevin Costner, walking away from a flaming building, with a pissed off expression on his face that gets me to watch a movie (For those interested, this image resides on the back of the DVD for “3000 Miles to Graceland”).

Usually I say something along the lines of: “Look at him! He’s pissed!!” and moments later I can be found at the checkout with the film in hand. This same concept applies to Goldman as you soon shall see. During the aforementioned commentary track he discusses the benefits of “word of mouth” advertising in relation to the success of “The Princess Bride” once it reached video store shelves. In doing so he mentions the fact that he felt “You Can Count On Me” was the best film of 2000 and that he would tell this to anyone who would listen. When this film was in theaters, I wanted to see it, but never managed to find my way into a seat. Now with Goldman making this grand statement, I felt it would be idiotic of me to put off the viewing any longer.

So here I am. Fresh off the viewing and I can safely say that Goldman’s reputation is intact. It is a great film. Not quite “best of the year” material, but most definitely “top ten” material.

It is a great film, because it is driven by it’s characters rather than it’s plot, which is no small feat in this day and age of the contrived nonsensical plots that populate the majority of the screens at your local multiplex. It is the story of a sister Sammy (Laura Linney), her son Rudy (Rory Culkin) and her brother Terry (Mark Ruffalo). Sammy likes to think that her life is pretty well ordered. She goes to church, maintains a steady job, and tries to always be there for her son. Terry drifts through life, from town to town, with little to show for his efforts. They were orphaned at an early age and these are the paths they have chosen to take in their parentless lives.

It has been ages since Sammy has heard from her brother, when one day he writes her and shortly thereafter returns to his hometown. The reunion between brother and sister is a heart wrenching one that shows that these two have shared a lot of difficult times together. Sammy quickly realizes that Terry has only come back to borrow money from her, which infuriates her because she wants nothing more than to have him stay at the house for awhile. She gets her wish eventually, but, as the old saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.”

Before long Sammy finds that Terry is inadvertently placing her son in undesirable circumstances, which makes her realize that she has to decide between rehabilitating her brother and the welfare of her son. As all this is going on, she strings along a potential fiancée, while having an affair with her boss (Matthew Broderick). Proving that she is hardly a model of decency for her son or brother.

“You Can Count On Me” proves to be a mesmerizing character study. The relationship between Sammy and Terry is the heart and soul of the film. Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo both deliver powerhouse performances of admirable intensity and emotional fragility in the lead roles. Linney garnered an Oscar nomination for her performance and it’s not hard to see why. Pick just about any scene from the film and you can see this incredible actress take you on an emotional roller coaster in a matter of a few moments. I noticed many times that actor/writer/director Kenneth Lonergan just allowed the camera to rest upon her performance by allowing her reactions to her brother’s words tell the story. The lunchroom scene, early in the film, is just one of a number of perfect demonstrations of what I am talking about. Watch the film and you’ll see what I mean.

For Linney’s performance to work, she had to have an equally strong lead to feed off of and she got that in the form of Mark Ruffalo. I don’t know what this guy has done in the past, but I know you’ll be hearing a lot about him in the future. Just as Linney feeds off of his character, he feeds off of hers. This is one of those wonderful cases where two great performers get on the same wavelength and make one another better in each and every scene. They are so good together that it’s actually hard to believe that they aren’t brother and sister in real life. I’ve heard Ruffalo compared to Marlon Brando by some reviewers for this performance. Personally, I’ve never seen Brando as good as Ruffalo is here. He goes from laughter to tears in mere seconds. This is powerful stuff.

I started this review by discussing how one goes about being motivated to watch a particular film. Sometimes it’s Costner laying waste to gas stations, Dennis Farina uttering a stream of profanity, or William Goldman stating that a film was the best in any given year. In the case of “You Can Count On Me” it was the latter for me. I can only hope the kind words I have given the film will be the motivation you need to discover this wonderful little gem of a film.

1987 / 98 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Jason Jones

It is a rare moment when one can say that a film has something for everyone. It is even rarer when that film is a fairy tale, but in the case of “The Princess Bride” it is an accurate description on all levels.

The beautiful thing about it is that it is not your typical fairy tale. Sure it’s got the princess, the peasant who loves her, a giant, a tyrannical prince and many of the other things one would expect to find in a film of this nature. What it has that almost all others do not is a zany sense of the humor that is inherent in films of the fairy tale sort. Instead of the typical swamp that one would expect to find, here you get a fire swamp. That’s right! A swamp that shoots bursts of fire into the air! That’s not all though. It also has lightning quick sand and rodents of unusual size for our heroes to contend with. Now, if you think the phrase “rodents of unusual size” sounds funny now, wait until you seem them in action in the movie. There are other fun things to be found here such as a six fingered villain (Christopher Guest) and swordplay, but the real fun results from the great cast that we have the pleasure of spending an hour and a half of our lives with.

Westley (Cary Elwes) is a lowly peasant who loves Buttercup (Robin Wright) very much and one day she realizes that she loves him as well. Problem is that he’s broke, so that puts a wrench in the wedding plans. He decides to go off in search of prosperity, pledging that he will come back for Buttercup when he finds what he is after. Five years pass and in that time Buttercup hears of her true love’s demise. Eventually the prince of the kingdom chooses her to be his bride. In the month before they are to be married, she is kidnapped by a band of three men of differing size. The leader (Wallace Shawn) has his eyes on starting a war by killing the princess. His two cohorts in crime, Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) and Fezzik (Andre the Giant) are in it only for the money and want nothing to do with murdering an innocent girl. They are followed to their destination by a mysterious black clad swordsman, who confronts each of the three in situations that quickly lead to a number of laughs. The black clad swordsman eventually takes the princess from the three men and his identity is revealed to her at last.

Inevitably the princess will fall into the hands of the evil prince and will, of course, be in need of rescuing. How the rescuing is done is what makes this film such a wonderful treat to enjoy. Inigo, Fezzik and the swordsman all team up to get the job, but each role has it’s own quirks as the story reaches it’s climax. The swordsman is in a humorous state that requires Fezzik to drag him around like a rag doll, which I must say is quite hilarious. Inigo’s story is a passionate one that provides a great deal of the enjoyment derived from the film. He has been searching for the man who murdered his father twenty years earlier. He knows the man has six fingers on his right hand and he knows exactly what he will say to him when he finally confronts him. “Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.”

Believe me. When you hear him say this you want nothing more than for the man to get his wish.

“The Princess Bride” works for many reasons. It is marvelously written by William Goldman, brilliantly acted by one of the best ensemble casts imaginable, and told with an impeccable tone of humor and emotion. At it’s heart it is a story about “true love”, but it is smart enough to know that this is not enough to be high spirited entertainment. To bolster the love story it takes a mostly satirical look at the genre by cracking jokes at every opportunity yet managing not to go to the well too enough. It is rare that a film hits on all cylinders like this one, but it makes me very happy that it does.

One thing that I have yet to touch on is the brilliant contrivance of having the story told to us by a grandfather (Peter Falk) who is reading it to his sick grandson (Fred Savage). Director Rob Reiner uses this concept masterfully to break moments of tension, such as those spent with the shrieking eels, by cutting to the storyteller in order to turn the moment into a laugh. It’s an interesting idea that has been done before, but I don’t know if it has ever been done this well.

Fun rarely comes in such an enchanting package. This is the sort of film that the whole family can enjoy without trepidation. The more I think about it the more I laugh. It’s one of those magical films that gets better and better with each viewing.

It was said on one of the “making of” documentaries I watched, that this film is this generation’s “Wizard of Oz”. I guess the two films are pretty much formed out of similar molds, but with much different results. In my opinion, of the two, one would be much better off going with “The Princess Bride”. It is a smarter film in that it knows enough to have fun with the genre in which it exists, while still remaining true to the natural boundaries of that genre.

Fantasy doesn’t get much better than this. Swordplay, a giant, pirates, rodents of unusual size, revenge, six fingered villains and so much more await you.

So what are you waiting for?

2001 / 123 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I have never considered myself to be a fan of Julia Roberts or Brad Pitt. I believe both of them to be highly overrated actors, who just so happen to be able to get people to fork out astronomical fees just to see their movies. Between the two of them, I have only seen one of their movies in the theater (Pitt’s “Fight Club” for those of you scoring at home) Oddly enough though, over the past couple of years, the two of them have started to endear themselves to me. First it was Brad with a couple of his older films that I had overlooked, “12 Monkeys” and “Seven”, and then it was Julia with “Notting Hill” and “Erin Brockovich”. Now I have actually grown to tolerate them, which explains why I actually gave a film involving the two of them a chance. While “The Mexican” is not as good as the aforementioned endearing films, it is a lot more fun than any of them, with the exception of “Notting Hill” that is.

Pitt plays a born screwup, named Jerry, who, after an unfortunate lapse in judgment behind the wheel, finds himself pulling jobs for some rather seedy individuals. Just when he thinks he can get out of this situation, he is sent on one last errand, which will take him to Mexico in search of an antique gun. As if this wasn’t bad enough he has to come home to his girlfriend Samantha (Julia Roberts), who does nothing but bitch and moan about her needs not being met. In the words of the esteemed George Carlin: “Drop some of your needs!!!” Instead of uttering these immortal words Jerry heads for Mexico and Samantha heads for Las Vegas where she gets abducted by a gay hitman by the name of Leroy (James Gandolfini). The gayness alone should tell you that this is not your typical hitman, but there is a lot more to him. He lends a sympathetic ear to Samantha, gives her relationship advice, and wears his emotions on his sleeve no matter what they may be.

While Leroy and Samantha pal around Nevada, Jerry continuously finds new ways to get himself into trouble south of the border. Eventually his bad luck coupled with his innate ability to screws things up leads his employers back home to believe he might have designs on selling the gun and making off with the loot. Somehow he has to get the gun, the girl, and most importantly, save his own ass before it’s too late.

There are a few reasons why I enjoyed this film so much. First of all was the freshness of the story and how well it all fit together. You don’t hear about antique guns, gay hitmen, crazy girlfriends, and incompetent heroes making up the substance of a major motion picture every day, now do you? It’s also one of those nicely crafted movies where, what seems like a small event in one scene, ends up playing a key role in a later scene.

Another great thing about “The Mexican” is that it knows enough not to take itself to seriously. It’s a rare film that balances all emotional elements very well, even at their extremes.

There’s a scene that is powerful enough to upset one enough to have the urge to cry and it is followed by a scene that makes the blood boil to the point that you are emotionally spent after the film finally gives you what you want. Now I know that all sounds pretty serious, but the film supplements these turbulent scenes with a clever wit to lighten the mood the rest of the time.

The majority of the aforementioned key points of enjoyment are made possible by the brilliant performance of James Gandolfini as the incredibly sympathetic hitman, Leroy. He sheds tears, becomes enraged, and just falt out exudes life so convincingly that it is difficult to think that the man is acting. One minute he’s killing people, or threatening lives and the next he’s crying over his inability to maintain relationships. I realize this stuff is shot over the course of months, but I don’t think that takes anything anyway from the incredible emotional arc that is on display here. Definitely one of the finest performances of the year from a fine character actor, who is finally beginning to get his due.

Speaking of people getting their due. I’ve got to give it up to Brad Pitt. He really impressed me here. I thoroughly enjoyed his performance and I think it’s a performance that he enjoyed giving. The futility of the whole situation plays through him in many scenes. His laughter and ingenuity under harsh circumstances feel very genuine. It’s almost as if someone forget to tell him that he’s not supposed to enjoy being kicked when he’s down. A few more performances like this and he may make a fan of me yet.

Oh and Julia you ask? Well she doesn’t really add anything to the film. Mainly she just bitches a lot and makes a sappy little puppy dog face. That’s the performance in a nutshell. Sorry Julia. Thanks for calling! Unfortunately it takes a little more than you just showing up and collecting your paycheck to make me care about whatever it is that you’re trying to say.

My only real complaints with the film are Julia’s lack of a performance, the somewhat intrusive score, and the fact that the film goes from “A” material to life support for a large portion of the final half hour. When I say “somewhat intrusive score” I mean that there were a few times where it was playing in spots where it shouldn’t have been. There was even one time when I was so perplexed by it’s placement and composition that I had to pause the film to make sure that the disruptive noise wasn’t coming from elsewhere. Unfortunately it was emanating from the film itself, which troubled me on more than one occasion. This is one of the few times when a film score bothered me like that. In fact it may be the only time. Crazy as it may sound, it stands as a fault in the film by my standards.

The final half hour, on the other hand, could have been really good. It has a great cameo appearance by a two-time Academy Award winner whose appearance in the film I had forgotten about, thus making for a pleasant surprise when he/she turned up. Inspired cameo aside though, this last portion of the film needed to have some serious fat trimmed. If I had to make an estimate I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of ten minutes could have been eliminated, which would have made it a much tighter and more satisfying conclusion.

The film does a nice job of resolving things, tying up loose ends and all of that nonsense, but it just keeps going. Hey Verbinski! You don’t need it. The film ends when it decides to end, not when you choose to have it end. To flub up such a well crafted film in the late innings is simply unacceptable. Make a mental note not to make the same mistake twice please.

Misguided conclusion aside, “The Mexican” is a fun little film that knows it’s place in the grand scheme of things. It doesn’t have any grand aspirations. It merely exists to entertain which is something it does on practically every level. Thus making it a little bit of fun for everyone.