2001 / 113 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

What were you doing five minutes ago? Do you remember? Honestly. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, do you remember what you were doing a mere five minutes ago? Chances are, you do. Let’s take a step further back in time. Do you remember what you were doing an hour ago? If so, do you remember why you were doing it. Chances are you don’t. Memory can be a funny thing. It helps us remember the most trivial of moments from years long since past, but evades when we attempt to remember moments of the same significance from mere hours before. Memory is the subject matter of “Memento”. It makes memory it’s tool, blurring the lines between fabrication and reality until we can no longer discern one from the other.

I asked a lot of questions to open this review, because that is all that “Memento” is: One long string of questions that are eventually answered whether you knew enough to ask the questions in the first place or not. No stone is left unturned. Scenes end where the previous one began. You have never, ever seen anything like “Memento” before and chances are you never will again.

The best way one could describe “Memento” is to describe it in nothing more than one simple, yet complex, phrase: The beginning is the end is the beginning. To explain. The film begins with what we all would suspect, from our years of movie viewing experience, is the end, hence the beginning is the end. But it is also the beginning of the film and it will lead us to the end of the film as we traditionally think of it, hence the end is the beginning. Confused yet? Intrigued? Confusion and intrigue are ingredients that become staples of your viewing diet as the story gives you answers that lead to more questions and so on and so forth. Don’t blink or you may miss something. This is definitely not a film to take a bathroom break during. You will return even more disoriented than those who have remained immersed in the film while you have been answering the call of your bladder.

A word of advice. If nature calls….. Put it on hold, because you don’t want to miss any of this richly told story.

The story revolves around a man named Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce). Leonard has a problem. He has no short term memory. This may not sound like much of anything, but think about this. Pretend for a moment that you can’t remember anything that happened more than five minutes ago. Now let’s say we’re at the grocery store for fifteen minutes. You come outside only to find that you don’t know which car is yours. Sucks, huh? How would you solve this problem? After a lot of head scratching and spoiled milk you would probably come across the idea of taking a picture of your car, so that you will remember it the next time you go shopping. This is what Leonard does. Only he doesn’t just take pictures of his car, but rather everything that is of any importance to his life, as he sees it, at that given moment. People he meets, the place he stays at and yes, the car fall prey to the gaze of his trusty Polaroid camera.

For details of his life that are far to important to risk being lost, he inscribes them on the only thing he knows he won’t lose: his skin. But would anyone really go to all this trouble just to make it through a normal purposeless life? Surely there is a method to his madness? There most certainly is and it is definitely a reason to go to all this trouble.

Something terrible happened to Leonard to make him this way. To make him lose his memory. As a curious side effect of his condition, he can remember everything about his life before the incident, but he has no memories of anything that happened afterwards, hence the Polaroids and tattoos. The last thing he can remember is finding his wife raped and murdered on the floor of their bathroom. This is what drives him. He has to find the man who is responsible for this terrible act and arrange for his one way trip from this world. Maybe then he can have his memory back and maybe not. That is the driving force in his life. To rectify the two most important parts of his life that were so viciously taken from him. He can’t bring his wife back, but he surely can avenge her death and through this vengeance he may be able to avenge the death of his memory.

“Memento” is a film that could very easily have fallen on it’s face. It doesn’t for one very important reason. It remains devoted to it’s premise at all times. The premise being that it’s lead actor can’t remember anything. The film has given itself some strict rules and it abides by them dutifully without fail (Well maybe it slips once, but it’s so miniscule that it borders on being overly nitpicky to fault the film for it). The film tells it’s story in an amazingly creative way. It begins and ends at the same time and ends and begins at the same time. How the hell is this possible you ask? Without giving to much away I will only say that there are two parallel stories about the same man that are interwoven throughout the film that culminate in the middle, or as traditional films would describe it: the end.

That’s all I’m telling you, for to say anymore would be immoral and damnable on my part. This film is complex beyond complexity’s wildest dreams. If you thought “The Sixth Sense”, “The Usual Suspects”, or “Fight Club” were complex in design and resolution, think again. Those films are all child’s play compared to “Memento”.

“Memento” is anchored by a brilliant performance from Guy Pearce (”L.A. Confidential”) in the role of Leonard Shelby, as well as by the brilliant direction of Christopher Nolan and let us not forget the magic that took place in the editing room. All of these factors combine in ways you cannot possibly imagine a result for when, in the opening minutes, you see a Polaroid go from being exposed to unexposed and a murder going from committed to unthought of. You are immediately immersed and will remain that way for nearly two hours. All the while asking questions like: Who is Dodd? Why is that gun there? Who is Natalie? Who beat her up? Why is the car window broken? Who is Teddy? Why is he always around? The answers will come, but you will never know the difference between the right and wrong answers until the very end, no matter how astute one thinks they are.

I still have goosebumps……Incredible.

What are you doing right now? I know you’re reading my review. Let me rephrase that.

What are you doing after you’re done reading this review? Does it really matter? Will you really remember whatever it is you choose to do tomorrow, or the next day? Whatever you had planned next no longer has any meaning. It is just the beginning of another lost memory. If you want to begin something that you will remember years from now, you will stop what you’re doing, you will get in your car and you will drive to a theater that is showing “Memento” right this moment. You will do this for one simple reason.

You will do this, because you will want to remember when it was that you saw the best film released in the United States in the year 2001 and why it was that you went in the first place.

2001 / 120 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

A few years ago John Herzfeld made his directorial debut with the film “2 Days In The Valley”. It was an interesting experiment in the world of post-”Pulp Fiction” filmmaking. There was a lot of camp, but it managed to entertain and hold my interest for the most part. There were flashes of brilliance and a much renowned scene of intimacy involving Charlize Theron. Now, with his second feature film, Herzfeld has evolved into a director willing to take risks and tackle the subjects of his film without mercy. It is the merciless nature of his direction coupled with these risks that make “15 Minutes” a bold and brash movie the likes of which are not often seen anymore.

“15 Minutes” is a study of the dangers of mass media and the loopholes that exist in the American judicial system. To tell it’s tale the film centers on two Eastern European immigrants, Emil and Oleg, who have come to collect on money owed to them. Along their way to the pickup Oleg manages to lift a video camera from an electronics store. Being a self-professed fan of Frank Capra he begins filming… Everything! When they arrive to make the pickup they find out that their former partner has spent their money. Not being amused, Emil stabs the bejesus out of the man and his wife while Oleg captures it all on camera. Just as they are about to leave they realize that somebody saw them killing these people. Unable to catch her they burn the place to cover up the murders.

Enter arson investigator Jordy Warsaw (Edward Burns). He arrives at the scene only to find that publicity hound homicide detective Eddie Flemming (Robert Deniro) is already bumbling around in the apartment looking for clues. Jordy is irritated by this, but still manages to do his job and discern that it is a crime scene, because the fire was set deliberately. He also determines that the people were dead before the fire started. Having a homicide on their hands, the reins of the case are turned over to Flemming. He begins checking on leads and eventually Burns, wanting to be involved, comes along for the ride.

Our Eastern European friends have realized that they can get away with their killings through the “double jeopardy” law. All they have to do is get off the hook by reason of insanity and then, while in the loony bin, have a shrink say that they are sane. Book deals and movie rights dance in their heads along with the millions of dollars that will inevitably follow. They figure it’s foolproof. One would have to be insane to film the murders they commit, right? So they kill again and now Flemming and Burns are hot on their trail. This continues until they finally decide to see their tapes to a greedy news anchor who figures the grisly murders, captured by the video tapes, will send his ratings through the roof. This all leads to an ending that would make Clint Eastwood proud.

Sure this is a Deniro film, but it is really carried by the performances of Karel Roden and Oleg Taktarov as the immigrants. They are at times campy and at others chilling, but they are always driven by their unrealistic wants and desires. They are what makes the film work so well, because it relies so heavily on these two characters to sell the message that underlies the film.

Don’t get me wrong though. Deniro is great in a fairly thin and lightly used role. He could have played it straight as the hot shot media darling homicide detective, but that wouldn’t be Deniro. In his usual way, Deniro sinks his teeth into the role and adds levels of complexity that flesh out his character, making events that occur later on that much more difficult to take. There is a great scene that has Deniro trying to work out how he is going to propose to his girlfriend. He is talking into a mirror and using a crib sheet, so that he can speak these most heartfelt of words in her native language. This scene is beautifully done and made me smile and laugh in ways that scenes like this are supposed to, but often fail to. The scene is important, because it shows that Flemming is a human being with a soft side and not just a hard-nosed homicide detective that we have seen so many times before.

The other performance worth noting is that of Edward Burns. He usually seems to fall into pretty boy roles, but here he is rugged and unhinged. He feeds off of Deniro and turns in a stellar performance. His character transforms from being a headstrong arson investigator to a “Dirty Harry”-esque character during the final moments. He becomes wrath, so to speak, due to his being deterred at every attempt he has made to apprehend these men. It is a transformation that is very important to the heart and soul of the film and Burns pulls it off to perfection.

“15 Minutes” tackles difficult issues with a visual style that can’t help but be admired. During practically every scene involving Oleg and Emil we see the world through Oleg’s camera. This adds an air of uneasiness during the various murders that take place throughout the film, as we are forced to watch them in the first person through the ever watchful eye of Oleg’s camera. Along with this technique, Herzfeld spices up the film with some nicely done action set pieces that never feel forced. One of these scenes involves an apartment that has been rigged with gasoline that is set to explode if an escape is attempted. Tension is understandably high during this scene, as well as all the others with the final scene being the most noteworthy of all due to it’s masterful composition and execution.

The only real problem I had with this movie was the incorporation of an amateurish love story between Burns’ character and the witness to the first murders. There is no place for this sort of foolishness in a movie like this and thankfully Herzfeld must have realized this while editing, because he just kind of leaves it after awhile and never returns to it. I thank him for this because I would rather not see how a lame and misplaced love story turns out than have to sit through it’s resolution at the end of the film, which is one of the most tired cliches of all.

This will undoubtedly be a difficult film for many people to watch. Many of it’s more violent scenes come off much more disturbing than anything seen in “Hannibal”, which was, for reasons unbeknownst to me, villified for it’s violent nature. Maybe it’s because the violence didn’t seem warranted in that film whereas here it fits with the story’s nature. It exists to help prove the point the film is trying to make. It is a point that the film might go overboard on to some extent, but overall it has good intentions and never really gets preachy.

Okay. You’ve got Deniro giving his usual rock solid performance. You’ve got Burns delivering the performance of his life. As a bonus you even get a cameo performance by Charlize Theron as a “Hollywood Madam” wannabe. These performances are all compiled into one of the gutsiest movies I have seen in some time. I can’t really say why it is that I describe it this way, but when you see it you’ll know exactly what I mean.

If that isn’t enough to get you to the theater then nothing will.

2000 / 108 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Every so often there comes a time when a person is in severe need of a pick-me-up. For me that day was Monday February 19, 2001. Less than 24 hours had passed since the passing of a man who means more to me, and my family, than I could ever relate to you through words. That man was Dale Earnhardt and his passing had left me fighting a battle with tears all day long. It was a battle that I would lose on numerous occasions throughout the day.

That night (in need of something to take my mind off of the previous days events) a friend suggested that we go and see “Meet The Parents”. She figured it would be just the thing to put my mind at ease. Who was I to argue? You’ve got Robert DeNiro in the role of Ben Stiller’s potential stepfather. I couldn’t see how there could not be laughs to be found with a combination like that.

Greg (Ben Stiller) wants to ask his girlfriend Pam (Teri Polo) to marry him, but when he tries problems arise and the question is never asked. Before he can find an appropriate time to attempt to pop the question again, he and Pam are on their way to meet her parents. Upon arrival one quickly senses that Greg is going to be on thin ice. Her parents are the combination of a wonderfully naive mother (Blythe Danner) and a domineering father Jack (Robert DeNiro).

Jack is very protective of his eldest daughter and wants to make sure that Greg is up to his high standards before allowing things to proceed any further. Greg doesn’t help his cause at all, as he lies at about every opportunity. He even goes so far as to claim that he once milked a cat and that it’s not out of the question, because “you can milk anything that has nipples”. Jack, obviously taken aback by Greg’s stupidity, responds “I’ve got nipples Greg. Would you milk me?” Needless to say I laughed very hard during that scene. Eventually Greg gets caught in his lies and needs to find a way to redeem himself. These attempts at redemption inevitably meet with failure at every turn.

This film works, because of DeNiro more than anything else. Stiller does his usual stupidity leaking throughout the film, which provides it’s fair share of laughs. These laughs would not work if not for the presence of DeNiro, who plays his character straight enough to garner laughs on the basis of his fairly serious take on the character alone. Plus it’s just funny to see Robert DeNiro playing around with a cat in a way that makes it appear that the cat is his salvation in life. DeNiro has proven to be a fine comedic talent of late with roles in films such as “Wag The Dog” and “Analyze This” showcasing his abilities. It’s great to see a fine actor extend his boundaries, as DeNiro has of late. Let’s hope he keeps the laughs coming in the future.

The faults of this film are minimal. There are a few too many things that remind me of the Farrelly brothers here. Granted, I love the Farrelly brothers, but they aren’t the ones who made this movie. I guess director Jay Roach (”Austin Powers” and “Austin Powers 2″) has finally harvested Mike Myers for all he’s worth, and moved on to borrowing from other creative talents. Still, it would have been nice to see Roach demonstrate a little creativity with regards to something such as the lost luggage. There was a whole subplot there that could have taken the story in a fresh new direction that was sadly left unexplored. Also the film seemed a little long, but not unbearably long. It probably could have used another pass through the editing room to tighten things up.

All things said, “Meet The Parents” did it’s job. It made me laugh more often than not. It appears my friend was right, because after seeing the film I was definitely looking at things in a more positive light. I was thinking of all of the great memories I have of Dale Earnhardt and that maybe his untimely demise happened for a reason. In fact I know it happened for a reason. It cannot possibly be just one of those things.

So if you’re ever in need of a pick-me-up you could do a lot worse than “Meet The Parents”.

2001 / 131 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I wanted to love this film. I really did. After ten years of waiting since we were given the cinematic gem that is “The Silence Of The Lambs” and fifteen years since the film world was introduced to Hannibal Lecter in “Manhunter”. Having seen the former long ago (and loving every minute of it) and the latter just a week ago for the first time (and loving practically the entirety of it) hopes were high for “Hannibal”.

Perhaps to high in fact. In retrospect, I think this film suffers from the same sort of heightened expectations that “The Phantom Menace” suffered from. The sort of high hopes that it is unlikely any film could manage to satisfy.

All of the elements were in place. Anthony Hopkins is back to reprise his role as Dr. Hannibal Lecter. Julianne Moore is here in place of Jodie Foster in the role of Clarice Starling. I love Jodie, but I think that this was an inspired casting move by the powers that be. I would have accepted no one other than Julianne in this role, because she is good enough to make the world forget all about Jodie Foster. Which is exactly what she ends up doing. David Mamet (”The Untouchables”) is also involved, adding his considerable talents to the screenplay. Director Ridley Scott (”Blade Runner”) brings his “Gladiator” team with him in editor Pietro Scalia and composer Hans Zimmer. In other words, the prevailing opinion would be that only good things could come from this film.

For the most part, that is the case, but it also has it’s fair share of faults that could have been shored up quite easily. Before we get to that, let’s delve into the story.

Dr. Lecter has been loose in Europe for eight years, since he escaped from that cell in Memphis, Tennessee. Clarice Starling has continued with her career in the FBI. The big things that were expected of her have never really materialized over the time since she tracked down Buffalo Bill all those years ago.

Lecter has taken to the idea of becoming a professor at a major university in Italy. Perhaps trying to lead a normal life for a change? Clarice is helping track down HIV positive drug merchants. Neither is as we remember them.

Enter Mason Verger (Gary Oldman). Mason was Lecter’s fourth victim, and the only one who managed to survive. That survival has left him relegated to a wheelchair and horribly disfigured. So horrible is his disfigurement that one cannot tell that Oldman is lurking beneath the flesh. It is hard not to cringe when seeing his wretched state. I know I winced when I first caught a glimpse. I think that director Ridley Scott succeeded in his goal to make this character look truly horrid.

So what does this horrid looking creature have to do with the plot? Well, Verger is understandably pissed that the man that is responsible for his current condition is roaming about free in the world. He is a rich man and has put out a reward for any information that can lead him to Lecter. Revenge is the only thing that is on this man’s mind.

He manages to get his lead from an Italian policeman named Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini). Pazzi has decided to withhold information from the FBI, so that he can capture Lecter on his own and claim the reward. This takes shape through an, at times, interesting game of cat and mouse between he and Lecter. I felt that this portion of the film was where it began to lose it’s focus. During the segment involving Pazzi and Lecter, Clarice is all but forgotten. We see her, every so often, in a basement going over Lecter’s files. She is not a key part of the story at this juncture of the film. This is a problem. The thing that made “Silence Of The Lambs” work as well as it did was the interplay between Clarice and Lecter. That key detail is barely even broached until the final forty-five minutes of the film.

With the exception of the film’s abrupt ending, these final forty-five minutes are nearly flawless in design and execution. Unspeakable things will happen in these final moments. These are things that are not as god-awful horrible as they have been made out to be. Crotches are stabbed, entrails spilt upon the ground and a scalp is peeled. I found myself laughing during the majority of these moments, because I thought they were humorous in a very dark way. I think that is what the filmmakers were trying to do in these scenes and, for the most part, managed to pull off.

Don’t get me wrong. I did like like this movie, but not in the way I had hoped to. It has many great moments to speak of. The opening battle at the fish market, which introduces us to Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling. As I said earlier, she will make you completely forget Jodie Foster. This happens, because Julianne doesn’t try to be Jodie. She, instead, chooses to become Clarice Starling and she does a fine job when she is given the chance. There is a great moment after the fish market battle. Clarice has been very strong-willed at the market, but when she gets home she breaks down in tears at the thought of what she has just been through. This was an amazing moment. In that moment Clarice became more than a beloved part of the film experience. In that moment she became human. An amazing transformation that took about five seconds of screen time to accomplish.

The film also has a wonderfully dark sense of humor. While Hopkins is inhabiting the role of Lecter he manages to deliver another highly quotable line of dialogue: “I’m seriously considering having your wife for dinner.” Sadly, I think I was one of about fifteen people who laughed. Can laughs only be elicited through the use of dick and fart jokes anymore? I’m really beginning to wonder. Other great moments of laughter are delivered, such as when it is divulged that Lecter once claimed one of his victims in order to better a symphony that he thought highly of. This dark humor runs rampant throughout the course of the film. I felt this was a nice touch for the film. It brought out a side of Hannibal that we caught a couple of glimpses of in “The Silence Of The Lambs”.

Ridley Scott’s direction is, at times, at it’s high level of quality and, at others, decidedly misguided. His visual style is one that has been proven to have few equals and, in this respect, he delivers. The visuals are beautiful with the location work in Italy being the highlight of the completed work. There is one shot, along a river, in Italy that made me want to get on a plane immediately and make my way overseas. The downside of his work, which I referred to as misguided, could have been amended by cleaving about twenty minutes from the run time. The majority of the cutting would have been done during the segments involving Pazzi and Lecter. A great deal of it was interesting, but there is also a lot of fat here that is completely unnecessary to the furthering of the plot. There are a couple of times where the film nearly comes to a standstill when dealing with this subplot. Verger’s character wasn’t fleshed out very well either. We are given a sick, twisted, horribly disfigured man and not much else. It would have been nice to get a little deeper into this character, as he ended up feeling like little more than a plot device to bring about the inevitable confrontation between Starling and Lecter.

On the bright side, Hans Zimmer’s score is a definite highlight of the film. Throughout the film’s first half you feel as if you have barely acknowledged it’s existence, but by the time you are deep into the second half of the film you realize that it has done it’s job. It has worked it’s way under your skin. It has gotten into your head, and it doesn’t have any intention of leaving any time soon. Zimmer truly is a force of late. His work here and his masterful score for “Gladiator” stand as two of the better ones that I have heard in years. Bravo Hans.

I know it doesn’t sound like it, but I really did enjoy this film. I just feel like it left a lot to be desired. With a little liposuction on the fatty run time and an enhanced amount of screen time for Julianne Moore this film could have realized the greatness that it so desperately hoped to attain.

Unfortunately that greatness is only intermittently realized and in the end the film is just left wanting that greatness which it could not attain.

2000 / 92 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

It’s been well over a year since I first saw the trailer for this film. It was at that time that I heard the immortal words: “I’ll eat her later.” spoken by Willem Dafoe. In that instant an obsession was born. In the time since I saw the trailer, I became consumed with the idea of seeing this film. Months went by and the film did not present itself before me. I began to wonder if it had fallen through the cracks into “direct-to-video” land. Then, late in 2000, I began to hear a great deal of buzz about the film. It was then that I knew the dream that was “Shadow of the Vampire” was to be realized.

After well over a year of waiting I finally found myself in a theater, on Super Bowl Sunday of all days, wriggling in anticipation of this long awaited moment finally revealing itself.

An hour and a half later I left the theater feeling relieved that the film hadn’t let me down. Problem is. That’s not exactly the feeling I want from a film that I have waited such a long time to see. I want to be reveling in glee over what I have just seen. Don’t get me wrong. The film is still very good, but it didn’t ascend into the level of greatness that I had reserved for it.

“Shadow of the Vampire” is a film with a delightful premise. Imagine for a minute that the film “Nosferatu” had been filmed with a real vampire in the lead role. That is exactly what the filmmakers have in store for you in “Shadow of the Vampire”. Famed German filmmaker F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich) has attempted to get the film rights to “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and failed. Instead of abandoning the project he takes Stoker’s story, changes a couple of names and venues and……… Voila! He has just laid the groundwork for his film “Nosferatu”. While scouting locations for the film Murnau managed to sign Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe) on in the lead role. Conditions of his deal to play “Nosferatu” are that he will always be in full makeup, should be addressed as Count Orlock and that all of his scenes be filmed at night. With his lead actor in place Murnau commences shooting his would-be masterpiece. This gives us, the viewers, a rarely seen look into the world of silent filmmaking. This was a time in film when directors truly did direct their actors in every sense of the word. It is just a great deal of fun to sit back and take these scenes in, because it is something that you have never really had the chance to see done before.

After the early scenes of the film are shot, the crew heads to Czechoslovakia to film the scenes with the Count. This is when the film really shifts into high gear, because Willem Dafoe steps in and pretty much dominates the remainder of the film in the role of Schreck/Orlock. Much like a kid in a candy store I had a big goofy grin on my face watching Dafoe work. All he has to do is raise an eyebrow, or look about with a devilish look in his eye to get me laughing. Dafoe’s performance is one that is very worthy of a Best Supporting Actor award. I will definitely be on his side come Oscar night.

The film continues it’s progress with great difficulty. The write has fallen ill and eventually dies from his affliction, which stems from a run in with Schreck. Murnau doesn’t appreciate this and confronts him. It is during this confrontation that those immortal words that I mentioned earlier are spoken. It felt so good to finally hear those words within the context of the film. I must that I laughed quite heartily, as did my fellow filmgoers.

Things continue to go wrong during the production, but Murnau is dead set on finishing his film no matter the costs. Despite the rising mortality rate on the set the show must go on. It makes it’s way all the way to a rather jarring conclusion. Not jarring in the sense that it is difficult to watch, but jarring in that the film just ends. Boom! Done. It doesn’t really give you a chance to soak up what has just happened. In that respect I was a little disappointed.

Otherwise the film has few faults other than a propensity for feeling a little out of control at times. It manages to reign itself in before things can get too far out of hand though. The performances are all good with Dafoe’s performance being the cream of the crop. Malkovich also gives a rock solid performance as Murnau. He is given a wonderful role and he shines in it. Aside from “Being John Malkovich” he hasn’t been this good in years. It was also nice to see Cary Elwes (What is it with him and vampire movies? ) in a fun role once again. He plays a slightly unhinged cameraman whose first appearance in the film had me laughing in an obscene manner. Cheers to the cast. They are what makes this film as good as it is.

I only wish that the rest of the crew could have given the same level of performance as the cast. Then maybe this film would have been capable to live up to the hopes I had for it.

Regardless it is a fun ride that contains one of the best performances of the year. If you want to see a film that is unlike any other you have ever seen in both concept and composition, then “Shadow of the Vampire” is just the ride you’ve been looking for.

2000 / 133 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

“Before Night Falls” is the story of a man who overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds only to find the life he has found may not have been worth the effort it took to get there.

Reinaldo Arenas (Javier Bardem) was born in Cuba in 1943 to a single mother and a fatherless existence. The home of his youth was overrun with women and a single man, who served only to uproot Reinaldo’s life when it was discovered that the young boy had a gift for the written word, by moving them all far away and choosing to no longer to speak to any of them. As he grew older Reinaldo began to experiment in finding his place in life, whether it be his sexuality (homosexual), or his occupation (writer). Before long he gains a job at the National Library and takes honorable mention in a writing contest.

Just when everything looks to be going well for Reinaldo, Castro’s regime takes power and puts measures into place designed to snuff out the undesirable elements of society, as seen through their eyes. This meant that homosexuals, writers of propaganda, the mentally retarded, and anyone else who didn’t fall into line with Castro’s ideology were to be sent to concentration camps to be sequestered from society. This would make for a life of exile for the talented young Cuban novelist, both because of his sexual persuasion and his manipulation of the written word.

The journey of Reinaldo Arenas is a difficult and powerful film to watch for reasons of subject matter and presentation. The subject matter (particularly the homosexual aspects of Reinaldo’s life) is dealt with in such an unflinching manner that it is hard not to feel uncomfortable at first. For many of us, it is a world we have not seen and quite likely would never see if it were not for films like this.

To add to the discomfort is the manner in which the film is photographed. It has the feel of a documentary, as it looks at the periods of Reinaldo’s life in the form of chapters. There is a rugged feel to the presentation that makes the world come alive and makes the drama being witnessed on the screen all the more impactful.

The true force that guides this film is the powerhouse performance by Javier Bardem in the role of Reinaldo Arenas. To say that the man is mesmerizing is to make a great understatement. He masters a complex role and makes it his own. I had never known of Reinaldo Arenas before watching this film, but after spending two hours with Javier Bardem’s interpretation of his life, I feel as if I have known the man for many years. Definitely one of the most powerful performances I have seen in recent years and most assuredly among the best performances of 2000 by a male lead.

As I have outlined above, “Before Night Falls” is not an easy film to watch, but it has its rewards to offer. Julian Schnabel’s steady direction, meaningful cameo appearances by Johnny Depp (Not one, but two roles!), Sean Penn (hard to spot), and Michael “Guy of Gisborne” Wincott, and last but not least, Javier Bardem’s painstakingly haunting performance as Reinaldo Arenas are all worthy reasons to make this film part of your viewing diet if you can stomach it.

2000 / 147 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

There is an unseen war fought every day on the streets of America. It’s not a war that grabs all of the headlines. Especially not when there is some little Cuban boy in a closet in Florida that can be talked about for months on end. May I ask a question? I guess I just did, but I want to ask another one. What the Hell is going on in this country?!? I know it’s going down the proverbial tubes, but…..Why?!? It’s because we spend three months, or more, of our lives worrying about some little kid in a closet who has no right to be here anyway. That’s why. Anyway. To get back on subject. The war I speak of is the war on drugs. It is an important battle that this film chooses to shed some light. It is a battle that will likely never be won (a point made by some of the film’s characters), but it is most definitely a battle worth fighting regardless of the likelihood of victory.

If there ever could be such a thing as an “epic” drug film, this is it. Through a fairly straightforward story driven by a large number of characters (Ala “Magnolia”) director Steven Soderbergh has put together a film with a strong message while not being alltogether heavy-handed in delivering that message.

“Traffic” is about the war on drugs and how it is handled here in the United States, as well as across the border in Mexico. It is told through the actions and reactions of an incredible ensemble cast. This film shows just how different our world is from a life on the streets. Although that’s not to say that the rich and powerful are exempt from their share of problems either. Drugs creep into the unlikeliest (or the most likely depending on one’s viewpoint) of places.

I won’t get into much detail about the story, because it is a fairly simple one. You’ve got a drug dealer who gets thrown in jail. His wife is then faced with his enormous debts and has to take matters into her own hands if her and her children are to survive. Then there are the cops who are staking out her house. Elsewhere there are a couple of cops in Mexico who are taking matters into their own hands in order to get to the bottom of who is really in charge in Mexico. There is also the freshly appointed drug czar who is trying to get his agenda in order while his honor student daughter is doing less than honorable things behind his back. There are others involved, but these are the ones who are the main focus of the film. Along the way you will run across the inevitable crooked cops and protected witnesses, which feel fresh and reasonable in this film whereas they oftentimes feel forced into most movies of this nature.

The performances are all top shelf. With the most notable of them coming from Benicio Del Toro as one of the Mexican cops and Erika Christensen as the drug czar’s daughter. I have always felt that Benicio Del Toro has been a major talent. In films like “Excess Baggage” and “The Usual Suspects” he proved his merits both in comedic and serious roles. He overshadows anyone and everyone that he appears onscreen with in this film. He brings a great amount of depth to a character we have seen many a time over the years. Erika Christensen is nothing short of amazing in, what I’m told, is her first feature film role. I hope she is remembered at Oscar time for her brilliant turn in a role that many have dubbed cliché. One has to remember that there are reasons that things are considered cliché. Her role is a cliché, because it’s something that happens. I think everyone has known someone like her at one time or another in their lives.

Other notable performances are turned in by Michael Douglas, his wife Catherine Zeta-Jones, Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman. Guzman and Cheadle do a fine job together as a the cops staking out Catherine’s house. They are the brunt of the comic relief in the film and at times reminded me of John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson in “Pulp Fiction”. Catherine Zeta-Jones finally proves that she is more than a pretty face with her performance. She does a great job of playing a mother who has been pushed a little too far. Douglas delivers the strongest performance of this group. He is a man who is oblivious to reality early in the film, but, by the end, has become so immersed in the brutal truth that it seems unlikely that he will ever look at things the same way again. There is one particular scene between him and his daughter that stands out for me. It is the scene where he catches his daughter free-basing in the bathroom. You can actually see Douglas deteriorate before your very eyes when he is finally confronted by his daughter’s other life. Gripping and emotionally powerful, this is a scene that will not soon be forgotten.

Soderbergh’s direction is also top notch. He filmed the whole thing, himself, hand-held so that it would make the viewer feel like they are more involved in the film. Let me tell you this much: It worked! During everything from car chases to shootouts you feel like you are right there alongside Benicio and company. Another cool idea Soderbergh implemented was to make all of the shots in Mexico look very gritty and grainy, whereas the shots in the United States looked very clear and polished. By doing this the viewer automatically knows where they are after seeing one frame of film go by, which is very cool to say the least. This helps to contrast the war on both sides of the border in that it shows that things are handled in a very blunt, straightforward manner south of the border and north of the border things are handled in a professional political fashion. Hence, nothing gets done north of the border and progress is made south of the border. There is one great segment of the film that illustrates this point beautifully. In Mexico a prisoner is being tortured to give up information that can lead the police officers to some of the higher-ups in the drug cartel. Meanwhile Douglas and a bunch of other rich people in their $1500 suits are on a private plane discussing how they should fight a battle that they can’t even begin to comprehend. It is a beautiful moment in the film and a beautiful moment in cinema this year.

“Traffic” is definitely one of the best pictures of the year. It is one of those rarest of films that actually has a point to it. It carries a strong message that demands, and deserves, to be heard. If you can handle a good dose of reality in your viewing diet I strongly urge you to see this film. You will see a side of reality that you quite likely have never seen before.

2000 / 121 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Over the past year or so I have made no secret about my admiration of director Lasse Hallstrom’s breathtaking “The Cider House Rules”. The visual splendor coupled with the immeasurable talents of the cast made it one of those rare films that is unforgettable for all the right reasons.

So why am I only getting around to reviewing his most recent film, “Chocolat”, now? I suppose there are a number of reasons for my insolence. First of all, there is no Charlize Theron. Secondly there is no Tobey Maguire. Thirdly, after hearing the basics of the plot, I just didn’t care. Then, a week ago, I met a man who spoke very passionately about the film. He told me of the little details of the film. The things that would make me want to see it, so to speak. So now I sit here, having seen it, and I can most definitely say that it did not deserve all of those nominations and it is nowhere near being in the same league as “The Cider House Rules”, but it is a delicious little entertainment that deserves to be thought of as a good movie and not some overdone Oscar hopeful.

Life is nothing but routine and monotony for the residents of the small French town that is the focus of the film. Everyone goes to church, women obey their husbands, and the sun rises and sets on their gloomy world. Then one day a woman named Vianne (Juliette Binoche) and her confused daughter Anouk (Victoire Thivisol) come to town and life will never be the same for the residents of the town. She seems harmless enough, but then she opens a chocolaterie during Lent, which the town’s sanctimonious mayor (Alfred Molina) views as a form of sacrilege. When he finds out that she will not be attending Church, he decrees the pleasures that her chocolate provides to be the work of the devil himself.

It seems she is fighting a losing battle against the stuffy “status quo” mentality that pervades the town when her service begins to find an audience. It is the finding of this audience that provides a great deal of the film’s humor. Long dormant passions are re-ignited for one couple. A shy man is given the resolve to ask a woman he has long admired to go out with him. A bitter old woman (Judi Dench) is given the chance to enjoy life once again. And, on the more serious side, a woman finds the will to leave her abusive husband. All of these wonderful moments are provided by Vianne’s chocolates, which makes her the talk of the town and helps to create a division in the town between the purists and those who long for a little more out of life.

I know it all sounds quite cheesy, but it is done with enough flair and validity to make it as plausible as most anything else one ever sees in the cinema. The film has the same lush visual stylings of its predecessor “The Cider House Rules”. Colors are used with great effect throughout the course of the film, as the tiny little town transforms from a dank, dreary burg to the sort of place you might expect to see in a Norman Rockwell painting. The cinematography captures all of this by merely taking it all in, rather than using flashy gimmicks and trickery to get its points across. Vianne’s concoctions come alive through the lens in such a manner that one cannot help, but salivate if they happen to be a chocolate lover. It’s probably a good thing that I know of no chocolateries in my area, otherwise I imagine I would be quite broke if I had the means to sample the exquisite delights brought to mouthwatering fruition by Vianne.

As would be expected from the fine ensemble cast, the performances are all delectable as well. Above all Juliette Binoche and Alfred Molina in the roles of Vianne and the mayor respectively are especially noteworthy. Juliette shows that she didn’t become an Academy darling for no good reason. She takes what on paper surely looked to be a rather thin role and made it quite complex. The layers that lurk beneath the surface of her strong-willed character’s thick skin are slowly peeled away over the course of the film to reveal a vulnerable, yet motivated, woman with more knowledge than her years should allow. In comparison, Molina (“Magnolia”) was dealt an incredibly complex hand as well. His character has morals that would make Christ proud, but that is the only reason he has them. This is not him and you see it in Molina’s eyes and actions. His wife is on an extended vacation that it quickly becomes apparent, will never end and he is unable to come to grips with this. It is for this reason that he forces his blindly chosen ideology upon the hapless residents of his town. It is for this reason that Vianne could not have come along at a better time.

In addition to the two top shelf performances are a number of well-rounded supporting roles. Judi Dench (“Goldeneye”) delivers her typical fine performance as the bitter old woman given a new lease on life. I still am unsure of how she got nominated, but then some things are better left unresolved. Peter Stormare (“Fargo”) turns in another solid performance to add to his repertoire as the abusive husband who pushes his wife too far. It’s good to see this man getting more and more quality roles, because he is as dependable as it comes in Hollywood. Lastly, Johnny Depp (“Ed Wood”) gives an assured performance as a social outcast, who makes his home on a boat and travels the waterways of France with his fellow outcasts (referred to as the “river rats” by the townspeople). His is the role that is able to unlock the doors within Vianne, so that she might be able to find what she truly desires from life, since that is what she helps others do all day long. One cannot help but respect Depp. He has been a heartthrob ever since the days of “21 Jumpstreet” over a decade ago, but he has never chosen to take the easy path throughout his career. He has consistently taken difficult and obscure roles throughout his career. The sort of roles that, I imagine, would make it difficult for anyone who doesn’t keep up on their movies to name anymore than three movies that he has been involved in.

Thanks to its exquisite visual style and fine performances, “Chocolat” is a film worthy of anyone’s time who is willing to give it. It does go a little overboard at times in getting the points it wishes to deliver across to the viewer, as well as possibly being a wee bit too long, but overall it has a good message and does a fine enough job in delivering it.

“Chocolat” is a deliciously surprising entertainment that offers a lot more food for thought than what would normally be expected of what passes for comedy these days. Recommended to those who expect a little more for their comedic dollar.

2000 / 103 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Most people know the Coen brothers for their look at life in the Midwest that is the film “Fargo”. Unlike most people that film didn’t set particularly well with me. When I think of the Coens I immediately think of “The Big Lebowski”. A film that I would consider to be one of the finest comedies ever put together. Given the fact that, that was their most recently made film, I had high hopes for their newest work “O Brother Where Art Thou?”. Unfortunately the film could not manage to come anywhere near the fun that films such as “State and Main” provide let alone the greatness of “The Big Lebowski”.

“O Brother Where Art Thou?” is a story loosely based on Homer’s story “The Odyssey”, that involves three escaped cons and their quest for freedom, amongst other things. On their journey they run across a blind prophet, three sirens, a cyclops wannabe bible-salesman amidst a myriad of trials and tribulations. This is pretty much the extent of the content of the film.

This is a film that relies heavily upon a series of loosely connected stories to get it’s point across much the same as “Monty Python and The Holy Grail”. Much like the “Holy Grail” it has a mixed bag of hits and misses that result in a fairly benign filmgoing experience. It is a film that contains a number of great moments, although far to few in number to take it anywhere near the heights of greatness that one would expect of the film.

The opening scene when our heroes escape the chain gang is definitely a memorable one. Any scene involving Clooney and his hair gel fetish got a laugh from me. Clooney getting piss pounded by a campaign advisor was also good for many laughs. The Klan rally was interesting, but also felt a bit drawn out. The best scene in the movie involved a car chase, our heroes, “Babyface” Nelson and cattle. Believe me, it is every bit as entertaining as it sounds.

Then there are the bad moments. Our heroes getting involved in bank robberies, getting sold out by one of their relatives, etc. The part with the sirens was marginal at best. I must say I expected a little more out of that scene. Worst of all was the shameless waste of John Goodman’s talents as the cyclops- inspired bible salesman. When he first appeared I had to laugh, because I expected a great many laughs to come with his presence on the screen. Unfortunately, I never laughed again during his segment of the film. A man who made greatness out of roles in “The Big Lebowski” and “Raising Arizona” does little more than fade with a whimper from this film. This is by no fault of his own mind you. He tries. Oh how he tries. There is just nothing there for him to work with. I think I have probably made the point by now that I was disappointed by his part in the film. Tim Blake Nelson is given little more to do than mug for the camera and say something about a toad every so often during his first major screen role. John Turturro does a fair job of bringing his void of a character to life in at least a minimal way. He doesn’t have to do much more than Nelson with the exception of getting a little animated with Clooney every now and then. Speaking of Clooney. He is definitely the high water mark of the film. He brings an exuberance and charm to his role that is sorely lacking in the rest of the film. There are many scenes where he need not do anymore than raise an eyebrow to get laughs from me. Part of the problem with that is that many of the things I laughed at were probably just because it was Clooney doing these ridiculous things that you never would have previously envisioned him doing. Never the less he did make it much easier for me to obtain laughs from this movie.

In the end, this film is a couple of notches above average based solely on Clooney’s performance. Most everything else just hangs there, including the film itself, which felt like it was about 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. With that said I would only give this film a marginal endorsement. If you are a fan of the Coens or George Clooney then by all means see it. Otherwise, everyone else need not apply.

2000 / 98 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

While watching “Loser” I couldn’t help but get the feeling that the film was nothing more than some Gen-X loser’s sorry attempt at cross-breeding “Animal House” and “American Pie” with the plot-lines of the most contrived of romantic comedies.

Let’s just say the results are less than ideal.

The story of “Loser” is one that we’ve heard and seen many times before. Small town kid (Jason Biggs) graduates from high school and decides to go to the big city to further his education. If you look up “fish out of water” in Webster’s Dictionary you should find this plot listed, as it is essentially the textbook scenario. Once the kid makes his way to the big city he manages to screw everything up with his roommates. He is a square peg in a round hole world. His roommates are all stoners who have no ambition while our friend (we’ll start referring to him as Paul since that’s what he’s called in the movie) studies during every waking moment of every day. One good thing in his life is that he has met a “Florence Nightingale” type in Mena Suvari’s character Dora. Problem is she has been getting tutored in the ways of the Kama Sutra by her teacher Edward Alcott (the seemingly perpetually lecherous Greg Kinnear). Things will get worse before they get better, of course. That’s just how things work in movies like this. Eventually it will get better. That is expected of these sorts of movies. We wouldn’t have it any way now would we.

This film suffers from the “been there done that” syndrome that plagues so many films nowadays. This is especially surprising given the fact that Amy Heckerling was helming this ship. Given the brilliance of her past work which includes such screen gems as “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” and (I know I’m alone on this one) “Clueless”. I was expecting a certain amount of creativity and depth out of this film. Unfortunately I received little to none of either.

There is very little that one can say that hadn’t seen before watching this movie. Perhaps a guy getting booted from his dorm room and having to take up residence in a veterinary clinic.

That was mildly interesting, but it seemed only to exist to make Paul a more sympathetic character to both Dora and the audience. “Oh, he loves animals! How cute.” Now before PETA gets on my case, I would like to say that I love animals (some of them anyway) as well. I just don’t think it’s necessary to inform us of it in such a contrived way as this film manages to do.

There is also too much convenience. Early in the movie Paul notices that Dora has a fondness for the band Everclear. He immediately logs this in the “potential smooth move” file of his brain and lo and behold mere weeks later guess who’s in town!?!? That’s right, our old friends Everclear. It’s almost as if it was meant to happen isn’t it? Now I can speak from experience on this one. That sort of nonsense does not happen in the real world. Now, I am perfectly willing to suspend my disbelief for a film, but there has to be a point where one draws the line and for me that is with overly coincidental concert scheduling.

The beneficiary of this mystical concert scheduling is Paul, played by Jason Biggs (”American Pie”). Biggs tries a bit of a change of pace from his character in “American Pie”. In that movie he was a naive young punk who in the end wanted nothing more to bed just about anything that moved. This time out he is once again naive, but he is a well intended soul who seems to be looking more for Miss Right than Miss Chokesondick. He sells this fairly well, although the film may have been better off with him reprising the same characteristics that made his “American Pie” alter ego so endearing. Regardless, he manages to sell his character with at least minimal success, because we want to like him and we eventually will come around whether or not the film warrants it.

Joining Biggs, as his love interest, is fellow “American Pie” alumnus Mena Suvari, who is best known for lying naked in a bed of flower petals in “American Beauty”. If you’ve seen her in anything before then you’ve seen her in this. She plays the same character that we’ve seen in her previous work. Perhaps a mish-mash of the downy innocent from “American Pie” with the know-it-all from “American Beauty” but the same for better or worse. I must add that she does look quite smashing as a brunette, rather than a blonde as we’ve seen her before. Also I would like to add that it would be nice if she could find a way to be in something, anything that doesn’t include American in the title. I’m all about patriotism, but Mena, this is ridiculous.

The shortcomings of “Loser” far outweigh the positives. It appears as if Heckerling mailed it in on this one by merely attempting to mine well trodden territory with nothing but a poorly done “American Pie” spinoff to show for her efforts.