2005 / 164 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

In my “King Kong” review, I mentioned that Peter Jackson had filled the gap that filmmakers like Spielberg and, despite one great film in his recent resume, George Lucas had long left vacant: making the sort of big, imaginative entertainment that makes you forget everything outside the borders of the screen for a little while. Well, while Peter is doing the sorts of movies that Lucas and Spielberg used to make with such regularity, Spielberg is busy doing something new, something completely different. There is a reason that Steve isn’t making those sorts of movies anymore. Steve has more important things on his mind.

With all its flaws, “War of the Worlds” had more intensity and went to darker places than any movie of its kind ever had. And, while that movie no longer rocks me the way it did early last summer, it’s still a potent, intense film with interesting notions that disguises itself as a Hollywood blockbuster. The difference between that and a movies like “Close Encounters” is what makes Steve such a continually amazing filmmaker. His sensibilities seem to have drastically changed. And while he still works a little sentimentality into each film (like the ending of “War of the Worlds”, the part that works the least) he has been making some of the darkest Hollywood fare in recent memory. There is a grit and muscle to his recent work that is only occasionally evident in his early stuff. “Minority Report” isn’t as good as “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, but it has a dark thread running through it that the earlier film did not. There is a grit and menace to “Minority Report”, “A.I.” and, most of all, “Munich”. That darkness has always lurked beneath the surface in Spielberg’s work, even his most cheerful. Remember that menacing image of the “astronauts” invading a suburban home in “E.T.”? That image still holds the power of a potent nightmare. But in his recent crop of films, Steve has brought that facet of his talent to the forefront. It’s the reason his recent films live and breathe, and the reason I’m so glad he stopped trying to suppress that instinct as he seems to have done in the “Jurassic Park” films. The reason the “Jurassic Parks” don’t work as well as most of his other work was that his heart didn’t seem to be in it. He seemed to be going through the motions. Starting with “Schindler’s List” Steve has turned into a more mature, thoughtful filmmaker, doing only the movies he feels truly called upon to make…and I love him for it. Had he kept making hollow spectacles like “Jurassic Park”, he would have remained a technically proficient filmmaker, but his films would have been lifeless. The difference between Spielberg and other filmmakers working in the fantasy realm is the difference between “War of the Worlds” and a movie like “Independence Day”. Technically, “Independence Day” works, but it doesn’t speak to the real world, it doesn’t really matter. “War of the Worlds” is challenging and thought-provoking and, above all, it matters. His movies still have the spark and energy of the old Spielberg. It’s just that, now, he puts his imagination and technical artistry to the service of more challenging fare. The more he challenges himself, the more he challenges us in the audience, and the more I, for one, love him for it. He’ll never be the guy who made “Raiders of the Lost Ark” again, but at least he won’t be the guy trying to make “Raiders of the Lost Ark” again. He’s not a formerly great filmmaker struggling to regain his touch by making clones of his greatest achievement (which is sort of how Lucas’s recent work seems to be…except for “Sith” which finally beats with the vitality of his early imaginative work). And, as much as I love the current work of Peter Jackson, I wonder if he will have the ability to put his tools and talents to such daring work and keep reinventing himself the way that Steven Spielberg has.

I set out to write a review of Steven’s latest film and, instead, I have written an essay on why Spielberg (whose biggest recent flaw is that he does not quite know when to bring a movie to its end) remains such a vibrant force in the world of cinema. Well, the reason I felt motivated to do that is simple: “Munich” is just that damned good. And the reason it’s so damned good is the reason that a movie like “Syriana” isn’t. “Munich” is about politics and terrorism and the geo-political landscape. And yet it is a decidedly human epic. “Syriana” used its characters as mouthpieces for the political points it was trying to make, as puppets to move along a complex narrative of greed and global corruption. “Munich” is, first and foremost, about the people involved in such global actions, the foot soldiers called upon to carry out the agendas of governments and entire peoples. It deals with politics and issues like morality, cultural identity and the spider web effects of revenge, but it gives those issues a face. It makes those traits identifiable by giving us characters to which we can relate. And it does so often in little moments that carry the weight that an hour of film could: the opening scene of “Munich” illustrates geo-political politics in a way most movies only dream about, simply by showing a terrorist attack and the reactions of a diverse group of people watching that attack progress on television.

“Munich” is tangentially about the 1972 terrorist attack by Palestinians on Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Munich, Germany. But it is mostly about the aftermath of that attack. It is the story of a small group of Israeli agents (led by the magnetic Eric Bana) assigned to track down and kill those most directly responsible for the Munich attack. It is fitting that the film is called “Munich”, though very little of it is actually about the Munich attacks. The events of “Munich” are the catalyst for everything else that happens, and they are the ghosts haunting each man involved in this story.

First of all, “Munich” is surprisingly entertaining. The acts of revenge brought about by the men at the center of this film are staged with the flavor and taut efficiency of such great 1970’s thrillers as “The Parallax View” and “Black Sunday”. As a simple thriller, the film works amazingly well and beats with the distinct flavor of those 70’s thrillers, right down to the costumes and the camera work. The killings are incredibly tense and powerful, the suspense here is palpable as the men hunt down and destroy each man on their list. Particularly strong is a sequence near the beginning of the film when the Israeli assassins plant a bomb to kill one of their targets, only to have his young daughter get in the way. Their efforts to stop the bomb in time had me perched on the very edge of my seat.

Within the framework of this effective, absorbing thriller, Steve explores the personal aspects of the assassins and their mission. Are they really doing the right thing? Are they doing it for the right reasons? Are they being set up? Are they, themselves, being hunted? Can they even live with what they are doing? The external conflict is fascinating enough, but Spielberg heightens it and enhances the tension of it by getting inside the assassins’ heads and showing us the conflict raging there as well. Eric Bana, Cieran Hinds, Daniel Craig, Hanns Zischler, and Matthieu Kassovitz all do excellent jobs of humanizing these hunters. They are not cold, efficient killing machines. Instead, they are surprisingly common men doing the job that their country has called them to do, and trying to retain their innate humanity in the process. Their performances combine with Tony Kushner’s screenplay to riveting effect.

As if those two factors weren’t enough, the film also operates on the political level. It explores the motivations behind the initial Munich attack, the murky quagmire that is Middle Eastern relations, the motives behind the retaliations and the part that this small drama plays in the overall structure of the Middle East, not to mention the rest of the planet…up to this very day. And it does all this in a manner that is never anything less than fascinating. The filmmakers have done an excellent job of integrating these ideas and facts effortlessly into the narrative structure of the film so that the entire movie does not collapse under the weight of them, nor does the film grind to a halt to illustrate these observations. All of this is just brilliantly done, and brings the movie to yet another level of artistry and greatness.

Not only does it balance these ideas, characters and plot threads so nimbly, but the movie does so with entertainment, flair and panache. There are moments of simple beauty here, moments of non-sugary sentimentality, moments of nearly unbearable suspense, moments of simple humanity, moments of heartache and loss, and moments of true relevance. No other movie I’ve seen this year balances this much content with such simple dexterity. No other movie I’ve seen this year has this much story to tell or tells it so easily and effectively. And Steven Spielberg has assembled this film, covering all this content and territory, and with all this emotional resonance, in a mere six months. And that is yet another testament to the power of Spielberg as a filmmaker. It is the reason he continues to enlighten, entertain and challenge us with each new film. It is the reason he still matters, and matters perhaps more than any filmmaker before or since. Scorsese and De Palma have some of his technical flair, but they (arguably) take fewer chances than him and their films are far less captivating. Not only that, but they are nowhere near as efficient.

Steven Spielberg doesn’t make movies like he used to. But, unlike most filmmakers, I get the feeling that he chooses not to. He keeps pushing himself, and his audience, in new and exciting directions. He’s never made a film like “Munich”. In fact, I would argue that nobody has.

2005 / 126 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Syriana” is about oil, international politics, terrorism, law, and greed. It tackles big subjects without flinching from the unsettling aspects of each subject. It is well acted and extremely ambitious.

It is also, without a doubt, one of the most boring films in recent memory. If you compare watching a movie to reading a book then movies like the recent “King Kong” are like reading a great Stephen King or John Irving novel: big, messy, full of emotion, ultimately riveting page turners. “Syriana” is like reading through a spreadsheet of facts. Its interesting, at first, but after while your eyes start to glaze over.

“Syriana” has multiple stories to tell. One is the story of a government operative and his operations in Beirut (George Clooney, with a beard). One is the story of two Middle Eastern boys who eventually become suicide bombers. One is the story of a businessman (Matt Damon) who becomes the financial advisor for a Middle Eastern prince (Alexander Siddig). One is the story of a lawyer (Jeffrey Wright) who represents an oil company and is called upon by a government official to expose shady dealings within that company. These stories are all about global politics in relation to the Middle East and they all expose different facets of that larger theme…at least, in theory.

The actors all do a commendable job. Siddig and Damon, in particular, are excellent. Thanks to their fine work, their story is the most compelling of the entire film. Chris Cooper and Tim Blake Nelson are also quite good, adding much needed flair to tales they are in. I also admire the ambition of the film and its scope. It wants to explore all the problems and moral quagmires involved in the Middle East and its dealings. The film is at its best in several speeches and monologues peppered throughout the film that cut right to the heart of the matter and deliver excellent summations and analysis of events and situations we see in the news every day. Some of this dialogue was stimulating and enlightening.

It’s a pity we couldn’t have had more of that because, for the majority of its running length, this film is about as much fun as a night of watching C-SPAN. I wanted to like this film. Really, I did. It’s got potentially fascinating subject matter, and it is subject matter that is overdue for the hard-hitting treatment that a film like “Traffic” could offer into this matter. It’s by the writer of “Traffic” and produced by Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney, so comparisons to that earlier film are perhaps inevitable. However, such comparisons are bound to illustrate what is wrong with this film. Like “Traffic”, this movie does not compromise what it has to say in order to provide flashy, crowd-pleasing entertainment. Nor do I ask it to do so. That’s not the problem. The problem with “Syriana” is that it is murky. To be fascinating and interesting, we must truly understand what is going on and the motivations behind it. It’s not surprising that the story of oil company malfeasance is a bit confusing. After all, we are dealing with legal factors here, and legalese is a language all its own. But, in the story of the two teens who become suicide bombers, we never get a good grasp on why they make such a choice. Sure, the oil company they work for fires them, but I wish the movie had given us more emotional investment in this pair and more information at how they arrived at this choice. They are so blandly sketched and so poorly developed that, though we know from the beginning how their plot will turn out, we don’t understand much about them or their situation. We’re given a thimble of time to spend with them, and that time isn’t even all that interesting. It tells us of their desperation, but it never makes us feel it.

That’s the main problem here. The film has no flair, no spark. If this movie were directed by a guy like Martin Scorsese or Steven Soderbergh, I have no doubt that it would have suspense and momentum, two qualities it desperately requires but is lacking. Most scenes in this movie consist of two people talking about things we get little information about. Most of the time we, as an audience, must struggle to determine what, precisely, they are talking about. And even then, the movie has no creative thrust to make this as fascinating as it should be. It doesn’t flesh out its characters very well (the only plot that is shaded with the detail and nuance it requires is that of Damon and the Arabian prince, that material is quite well done) and it doesn’t provide a grasp on the material that is required if we are really to understand and care about it. And, yet, it seems like a lot of this material is being stretched out simply to beef up the length. Late in the film, it finally develops a rhythm, a propulsive pulse. But it’s too late. The separate threads of the film never gel as they should either. Characters appear with little purpose and disappear again without having added anything to the narrative. Moments of the movie are powerful, but the film is so dry and blandly rendered that these nuggets of power ultimately wilt like flowers stranded in the desert that dominates the film.

I admire what director and screenwriter Stephen Gaghan was attempting to do here. I just can’t help thinking what a better filmmaker would have done with this material, how powerful this material might have been in the hands of a director like Scorsese or Soderbergh or, particularly, P.T. Anderson: guys with the storytelling and technical prowess to tell a story with this weight without compromise while adding the momentum and flair necessary to keep us riveted. The editing should have been much tighter. The music could have added a bit more flavor (or, really, any at all). The cinematographer might have done something a bit more interesting with the camera. Any number of things would have enhanced this experience.

It’s not a terrible movie and, as I said, I appreciate its ambition. I just wish there was a little more to appreciate about “Syriana”.

2005 / 187 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed Ben Heckendorn

The 2005 remake of “King Kong” is a really good hour and a half long ape-meets-girl movie. Unfortunately since it’s 3 hours long the other 90 minutes is a very mundane (and in my opinion boring) wanna-be “Jurassic Park” flick. Giant CGI creature movies have become so commonplace it’s hard to find them special anymore. “Jurassic Park”, while not that great, was at least original in its day. But that was a zillion “attack of the rendered creature” movies ago. Simply put, there are only so many ways you can run away from a dinosaur.

Luckily the good parts of “King Kong” are indeed quite good. I didn’t mind the slow beginning of the film, the “Depression Montage” in the opening set up the time period quite well. Then Jack Black (playing a film director who seems to be a hybrid of Orson Welles and Ed Wood) having to basically “escape” New York before his latest film project can be shut down is interesting. But then it takes nearly an hour (I’m guessing) for them to even reach S! K! U! L! L! island (why I typed it like that will make sense once you’ve seen the film). Which is OK I guess, but reeks of padding. James Cameron can have a boat sail around for an hour with nothing happening and make it interesting. Here that’s not the case, because the film isn’t about the boat.

Reaching Skull Island and the subsequent scenes make up the bulk of the movie (I’m sure of this as the last segment in New York couldn’t have been much longer than 30 minutes) Of course the natives capture the girl and offer her to Kong, and the ship’s crew then sets out to rescue her. This is where the film really drags. The obligatory scenes with Kong and Naomi Watts “bonding” are really good, but then it always cuts away to “Jack Black’s Bumbling Dinosaur Island Adventures” It’s quite monotonous, an unrelenting barrage of “monster attacks”, the worst of which being a totally unbelievable Brontosaurus stampede through a canyon. Unbelievable because you’ve got 10 or so giant dinosaurs stomping down a canyon that can’t be but 30 feet wide, with all the crew members running below them as well, plus some Raptors thrown in (why not?), then at the end of the chase all the big dinosaurs crash and pile up like cars in a highway wreck and yet most of the crew survives. A really ridiculous bit is when the screenwriter character (Adrien Brody) leaps up and kicks a Raptor in the head as he’s running. Scenes like this do nothing for the film but make it longer.

I will give this movie points for one thing though – during this chase (or maybe it was the chase afterwards, or the chase after that, I don’t know) someone does plug several Raptors with their Tommy gun. FINALLY somebody shoots a dinosaur! Regardless of any refreshing dino-blasting these scenes go on forever. We cut back to Naomi Watts and Kong every so often and they’ve got lots of good stuff (like the sunset scene where she falls asleep in his hand) but then it’s back to the “Jungle Adventures” and yet more monsters, close calls and “saved at the last minute by other crew members” resolutions to impossible odds. It’s almost like Peter Jackson said to his art department “Draw every killer jungle creature you can think of and we’ll put them ALL in this movie!”

Finally Adrien Brody saves Naomi Watts, and of course Kong chases them back to shore. Here the movie becomes good again, with Kong’s sad capture, his pain and the human’s treatment of him. The movie continues to be good as we return to New York to show off Kong as “the 8th wonder of the world”, even if we all know how it ends. One of the scenes in particular is really touching as Kong, having recaptured the now-willing Naomi Watts, goes through Central Park with her and slides around on a frozen lake. Kong is having fun and loving life, after spending so much of his time fighting for survival. THIS is the story we need to see, not endless dinosaur attacks on nameless crew members.

Probably the reason the ending scenes are so good is because they’re very similar to the end scenes of “The Iron Giant”, a far superior (and shorter) film that’s obscure enough that not many people will notice. Granted there’s only so many ways a film like this can end, but regardless it all seems fairly predictable. But in a good way.

“King Kong” is worth seeing for the story of “an ape and his girl” but to me it dragged in a lot of places. Ironically this film was originally going to be shorter, but the studio (or Jackson, or somebody) wanted “an epic” so they increased the special FX budget in post production to allow about 30-40 more minutes of movie to be completed and added. That’s too bad because I think it was at least 40 minutes too long, and I bet most audiences (not critics) will feel the same way. “Lord of the Rings” didn’t seem long at 3 hours because for each movie they had WAY more story than they could possibly fit in 3 hours, so the story they did fit in moved quickly and efficiently. Here it’s the opposite, a 90 minute story stretched to 3 hours. It shows.

POSTSCRIPT:

It seems every movie these days has to have a twist, and I don’t see why “King Kong” had to be different. Yes, I am suggesting it – why can’t Kong win? He’s set up to be a sympathetic character so it’s sad when he dies, but it would have been even cooler to see him kick some ass. Why couldn’t he escape New York and run up to Canada, or the bayou, or Mexico? Really nobody could even stop Kong until he climbed up the Empire State Building (no spoiler there) and made himself a target.

We’ve already seen Kong die twice, once in 1933 and then again (cheesily) in 1976. How awesome would it be, instead of wasting all that time with the dinosaurs in this film, to instead make the second half about Kong escaping attack across America with Naomi Watts in tow? Then they could finally make it to the safety of some dense forest, or South American jungle. Free again, and King again. The final scene, they arrive, Naomi Watts looks up at Kong, music swells, cut to CLOSE UP of Kong, he looks at her, then CUT TO WIDE, music stops - and KONG does his triumphant yell, beats his chest, CUT TO BLACK, TITLE: “KING KONG” (and a final music beat).

THAT’S the kind of ending that gets applause and cheers.

2005 / 187 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Here’s the scene: a giant gorilla and a beautiful woman are gliding over the surface of a frozen pond surrounded by Christmas trees in the middle of Central Park. As I watch it, tears are streaming down my face. It’s a small moment, a simple moment, a tiny thing really. And yet it’s a scene of such stunning beauty I can’t think of anything in the history of cinema that’s quite like it.

I cried during this new “Kong”. Right there, you should know that this is a different film from the usual, big-budget, effects filled extravaganza that gets tossed into theaters. There is a soul behind the spectacle of “Kong”, more soul than any big film since “Titanic”, in fact. This is glorious, old-fashioned filmmaking. It’s a remake that’s on the same level as the original, despite the fact that it’s really a completely different sort of film.

Okay, it’s not COMPLETELY different. Both films tell the story of a ship full of adventurers who journey to an undiscovered island, a “lost world”, if you will, to make a movie the likes of which no one has ever seen. In both films, the film crew stumbles upon a world beyond their wildest dreams. In both films, a gorgeous young woman who is the star of this film is sacrificed to an enormous ape. And, in both films, his love for this woman is the big ape’s undoing.

The original was a glorious adventure story with amazing special effects (the effects in the original Kong are still great by any standard, mostly because there’s a handworn craftsmanship to them lacking in most other effects films from any period) and a unique story. This new film, for all its adventure and chases and narrow escapes is, at its heart, a romance between a woman and a giant ape. And as silly as that sounds, it’s one of the most heartbreaking romances of all time. The real discovery for me about this movie was how seriously I took this potentially silly world.

The film pounds with emotion from the very beginning. It sets up the world of Depression-era New York quickly and flawlessly. The film gives you an amazing feel for the time period, and for the poverty and desperation of everyone in this world. When the director of the film within this film and leader of the quest to Skull Island, Carl Denham (Jack Black), dangles money in front of these people, they can’t help but to take it. Even if they suspect the check they’re getting isn’t worth the paper on which it’s printed, they can’t pass up a chance at cash. It’s Desperation (with a capital “D”) that drives the opening hour of this film. Denham has to prove himself with this film he is making, otherwise not only is his career finished, but he even faces jail time. Jack Black is excellent as Denham, who bluffs his way through every situation and uses every ounce of charisma he has access to in his desperate grab for success. Denham has worn out his welcome in the film community as we first meet him, grabbing his film cans before they can get turned into stock footage and jumping on a ship one step ahead of the authorities. This all makes him a fascinating character, even if he is a bit of a shitheel. Thus, the first hour becomes a fascinating exploration of a huckster making a final grab at the success which has long eluded him.

Along for the ride is Adrien Brody as the screenwriter of Denham’s film. He’s a celebrated New York playwright who’s been practically kidnapped by Denham and hauled along on this journey. It’s his involvement that helps win the participation of Naomi Watts’ Ann Darrow, a starving actress who sticks by her principles despite her poverty. Hers is the best character in the story, even before she is handed over to the mighty Kong. Watts displays genuine pluck here (there’s really no better word for it) and she’s got the skill not only to make us believe that she’s really reacting to the giant ape (when we all know she’s probably standing in front of a green screen the majority of the time) but that she’s even coming to love the big galoot. This is, sincerely, the best female performance I expect to see this year. If she’s not nominated for Best Actress, then the Academy isn’t even trying.

Once the movie gets us on Skull Island, it becomes a second kind of movie: in short, it becomes the best damned “Jurassic Park” movie ever made. Spielberg probably wishes he could still stage action sequences this exciting (the closest he’s recently come was “Minority Report”). There may be some lapses in logic here, but the sheer momentum and inventiveness of scenes like the dinosaur stampede and the fight between Kong and the T-Rexes kept me from even considering them until long after I’d left the theater. This is the most excitement I’ve had at the cinema this year. I sometimes had to remind myself to breathe.

But the reason the film is so stunning is the last hour, when the film and Denham return to New York with Kong in tow. We all know how this is going to play out. We all know what’s going to happen here. And yet it all feels fresh and unexpected. I attribute that to the passion of Jackson’s filmmaking and the greatness of Watts’ performance. They give the film a heart lacking in most modern blockbusters (though this has been a damn good year for fantasy film, in my opinion: aside from this movie, the two best movies I’ve seen thus far were “Revenge of the Sith” and “Serenity”, they worked with more intriguing ideas and had more pathos in them than any of the so-called “respectable” movies I’ve seen this year). I wasn’t surprised to find myself on the edge of my seat for a lot of the film. After all, this is the guy who gave us the amazing “Lord of the Rings” films. I was, however, surprised to find myself gasping at the aching beauty of it all and openly weeping for the beautiful tragedy of the film’s finale. And it wasn’t just the tragic final third that brought tears to my eyes. I can’t ever remember crying simply because a movie was so damn beautiful or because a scene made me so utterly happy. I did at “Kong”.

It’s not quite perfect. The natives are a bit too much like the orcs in Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” flicks for my taste. The use of slow motion in this film is sometimes obnoxious. Some of the dialogue is best described as clunky. And where the original film had a love triangle, this one is all about the love of Kong for Ann Darrow which, this time, actually gets reciprocated (there’s no sex scene, don’t get nervous). Brody is good enough, but he can’t compete with Kong, who lives and breathes like no digital creation ever has. I don’t blame Watts’ Darrow for choosing Kong over the real man in her life. Andy Serkis’s behind the scenes work is, no doubt, a vital ingredient to making that work. After all, the only other special effect creation that felt so utterly alive in recent memory was his portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol. The effects teams have outdone themselves here. But I have no doubt that the script by Jackson, Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh provided the framework for this fine work. Effects films are only as good as their script, and this one is excellent.

So, no, it isn’t perfect. But I’m still giving it four fists, because it’s close enough. “King Kong” is every reason we go to the movies in the first place: to laugh, to cry, and to experience grand, creative thrills and excitement. Only the finest films provide these elements so splendidly that they are raised to the level of art. “Kong” is on that rarefied level, beating with a heart as large as that of its title character, but without sacrificing any element of quality in order to do so. With this and the “Lord of the Rings” films, Jackson has officially become this generation’s leading myth-maker, taking the place Spielberg and Lucas once occupied. Lucas has, for the most part, lost his touch and Spielberg has forgotten how to stage a great ending. And it’s been quite some time since either man brought as much sheer passion and love to any of their projects as Jackson infuses into his.

Until James Cameron decides to grace us with another narrative film, there’s simply no one out there making these big movies with the skill and grace of Peter Jackson.

2005 / 157 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Another year, another Harry Potter movie. Harry Potter is back and he’s facing his most fearsome opponent ever: Puberty. He’s starting to look meaningfully toward members of the opposite sex (enter Cho Chang, an Asian girl with a strange Scottish burr in her voice…who wouldn’t find that appealing?), he’s having a spat with his best friend, he’s dealing with the adverse effects of his own popularity…oh, and he’s in a contest that requires him to fight a dragon. And I thought MY puberty was tough.

You might wonder if this whole world is getting a little stale by now, what with us getting a new cinematic installment in Harry’s adventures every time we get a new calendar, but that’s the way it has to be. The kids in the lead roles of these films are simply superb, and they get a little more comfortable with their roles and a bit better with their performances in each film. In order to keep this same crop of kids (and, really, they should: in my mind’s eye these kids simply ARE these characters) they’ve got to churn a new movie out each year so that the actors grow at the same rate as the characters. And since each new movie is helmed by a new director, that gives us a fresh perspective and a fresh set of sensibilities for each movie. Each new Potter film explores different facets of this fantasy realm, meaning each movie in this “franchise” (like Ben I detest the use of that word in relation to movies, it makes them sound like fast food joints) follows the beat of its own creative drum. Chris Columbus chose to film every word of the books, hoping to lose nothing in translation. Alfonso Cuaron (the man behind the third flick) gave the enterprise a breezy energy, a magical feel, and kept the dark undercurrents of the story firmly in place.

I feel that the latest director, Mike Newell, does a decent job…but considering all the elements of this film and the way they must play out, I rather wish Cuaron had returned for this installment. The Dementors in “Prisoner of Azkaban” were creepier than anything in this movie (though I must admit the hedge maze in this film comes pretty close). “Goblet of Fire” was my favorite book of the series because it was action packed and, by far, the darkest story in the series up to this point. Newell does a great job with things like school dances, but he doesn’t have a grasp on the suspense necessary to make the more foreboding aspects of this tale work. Technically, the effects and the camera work are great. Truly great. It’s just that the events in this film should have more suspense behind them, more oomph. For that, I blame the rushed pacing. The movie breezes along so fast that the droll flavor of the Potter universe is sacrificed along the way. The movie doesn’t have time to dwell on the little nuances that give these stories such a special feel. It’s too busy getting Potter from one set piece to another. It’s quickly paced (it’s the shortest two and a half hour movie I’ve ever seen) but it’s somehow less fun than the others. There are a few, wonderful, small moments in the film (one of which is a wordless moment in a classroom involving Alan Rickman taking a scene by force) but not quite enough of them. There’s a reason that the original novel was seven hundred pages long: not because it has so many big things to cover, but because J.K. Rowling took care to include so many wondrous little touches to enhance this story. Without the little touches, it’s still a good flick…but it’s nowhere near as enchanting, pulse-pounding and sometimes nerve-wracking as the book. Rowling knows that the details are what sell the fantastic world she has created. Newell is so busy trying to cram all the major plot points in that he neglects all the little things that make this imaginative universe soar. So instead of the dark, daring story I loved in the novel…we get a sort of “Reader’s Digest Abridged” version of that story, with all the major points but little of the flavor that made it so delightful.

The effects and performances are great, particularly the work of Brendan Gleeson as “Mad-Eye” Moody; the new teacher at Hogwarts. Ralph Fiennes is also in the film, and he does well with what he can, but he’s hampered by the fact that the final portion of the film lacks the dark gravity that it should have. Miranda Richardson is pretty good as well, though the abridged version of the tale abandons the pay-off of her particular character. Still, the “Harry Potter” films seem to be fulfilling their obvious requirement to employ every single actor in Great Britain. (Michael Caine and Peter O’ Toole are the only people left for the Potter films to cast. But, in all fairness, Caine has been in every other movie made lately. He’s a machine, but even HE can’t be in literally everything. And as for O’Toole, I believe the filmmakers’ failure to cast him was sheer oversight. Perhaps they didn’t realize he was still alive.)

If the film had been another half hour longer (hell, another fifteen minutes might have done it) and had been blessed with a bit more weight and intensity, I would have liked it infinitely more. “Goblet of Fire” is my favorite of the Potter books, but it’s easily my least favorite of the movies. It’s not a bad movie, far from it, it’s just…well, the movie needs to slow down, breathe a little, take time for little details and to foster a bit more suspense. If Mike Newell had done that, he might really have had something here.

2005 / 93 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

This movie simply confirms something that has been on my mind for more than a year: replace “Communism” with “Terrorism” and we’re basically living in the 50’s. There will always be some senator or government official using people’s inherent fear of some alien and “evil” concept to make a name for themselves. Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter. Someone is always going to find a way to use fear and a bad situation to their own advantage.

In the ‘50’s, the main man doing this was Senator Joseph McCarthy, yet another lunatic from Wisconsin (man, we in America’s Dairyland have certainly produced our share of nutjobs). McCarthy claimed that there were Communists everywhere and that they had infiltrated the most important facets of American life: Hollywood, politics, the military, etc. Before he was exposed as an alcoholic, attention-grabbing loon, he inspired a witch-hunt atmosphere and ruined a couple of careers. One of the main men standing against McCarthy (and the hero of this film) was journalist Edward R. Murrow. Murrow risked his own reputation and engendered controversy by exposing McCarthy for the greedy, selfish jerk that he was. The how’s and why’s and what’s of this are explored in this film, George Clooney’s sophomore effort behind the camera.

I applaud Clooney in making this film, a film that is surprisingly timely and yet timeless all at once. As I said, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I believe our country will always be no more than a couple steps from making the same mistakes we nearly made in the era in which this film is set, and it’s always relevant to have a reminder of how things went, and how much worse they could have been if not for people willing to risk everything to tell the truth. Clooney makes bold points and powerful statements in this film, and he does so largely by sticking to the facts of the case and letting them speak for themselves. Murrow’s words are largely his own (so I’ve heard) and McCarthy is not being played by an actor, this is archive footage of the man himself. It’s a choice that works quite well.

The film rarely leaves the studio, showing us the claustrophobic, stressful, smoke-shrouded atmosphere of the CBS newsroom in all its fascinating glory. The subject matter is potent and the approach of the filmmakers is commendably straightforward. The actors are great as well. David Straithairn is perfect as Murrow. It’s definitely one of the best performances of the year, showing us that the man was brave but also illustrating that he was often pretty nervous about what he was doing. The man wasn’t, after all, Superman, just a journalist unwilling to compromise. (The awards speech which bookends this film hammers that point home quite eloquently.) The rest of the actors do a great job as well (from dependable players like Patricia Clarkson and Jeff Daniels to less dependable people like the leather-faced Frank Langella) but Straithairn is, rightfully, the standout here. Perhaps this is the performance that will make people finally remember him…but I’ve said that before about his fine work in things like “The Firm”, “The River Wild” and “Dolores Claiborne”. Maybe Straithairn will only ever be remembered by movie freaks like Jones and myself. Oh well. We still love you, Dave! The other real standout of the film is Ray Wise, as a beleaguered news anchor affected by this whole scandal. He’s another of those actors you’ve seen in tons of movies yet you’ve never really known his name. He’s good enough here that I’ll remember his name from now on.

Unfortunately, though it’s got an abundance of strengths, the movie isn’t without a couple flaws. For one thing, the film might be a bit too claustrophobic for its own good. The rest of the world seems not to exist here, which might be a mistake. Maybe it isn’t. I did find the movie a tad dry, however. It never seemed to breathe the way it should, and there is always a distance between this film and us in the audience. I felt the movie had a few too many jokes about the fact that everyone is smoking (it’s not THAT funny, guys). I also felt that the sporadic musical interludes throughout the film were a mistake. You see, every so often, the film grinds to a halt and allows us into the CBS recording studio in the same building. The woman singing in these segments is very good, but the movie still comes screeching to a stop whenever one of them dominates the screen. Another thing which distracted from the film was the sub-plot about Robert Downey Jr.’s character and his secret marriage to a co-worker (played by Patricia Clarkson, another great actor most people don’t know). This material wasn’t bad, not really, but it didn’t add anything to the movie.

My problems are largely nitpicks, sure. But a movie that’s only an hour and a half long and still feels overlong has got a couple of problems. I think everyone can agree on that. Still, the acting is great and the subject matter is compelling. The tale is relevant and I admire the straightforward manner in which it is told. Clooney has restrained himself from any showy theatrics and simply told a good story in a bare bones fashion. Still, I miss the technical finesse, quirky charm and bustling energy of his first film: “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”. There, I’m probably the only critic (ha, critics get paid) who prefers Clooney’s first turn behind the camera (most critics I’ve read are badmouthing that one in order to better heap praise on this one).

If a couple of things had been fine-tuned, this could be a great movie. As is, it’s simply a pretty good one.

2005 / 145 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I didn’t think he was still capable of it, but today Ridley Scott managed to blow me away.

I didn’t see “Kingdom of Heaven” in the theater. Judging by the film’s box office returns, I was not alone. People stayed away from this film in droves. It was yet another sword and sandal epic. It starred Orlando Bloom (like most of the other sword and sandal epics have lately). It looked long (really it’s not as long as “Batman Begins”, but for some reason it just looked like it was gonna suck away at least three hours of one’s life). It didn’t have any particular hook (from its lackluster ad campaign, anyway). It was directed by Ridley Scott, and we all assumed that, having already made “Gladiator”, he had already said everything interesting he had to say in this genre. And it came on the heels of “Alexander”, which was an absolutely terrible example of this kind of film. After sitting- no, agonizing- through “Alexander” I (for one) was done with this type of movie pretty much forever. Simply put: as a filmgoing public, we were tired of “Kingdom of Heaven” before it even came out. We hadn’t seen it, but it just felt like we had. Those are the reasons I stayed away, anyway.

But damn was I wrong. And so, probably, were you.

“Kingdom of Heaven” distinguishes itself from all the other sword and sandal flicks for one great reason: it’s the only one that’s truly relevant to events in the world today. Think about it: it’s about Christians fighting Muslims in the Middle East, in a war that is basically being fought to make rich people richer and bring more power to the people with power. If that doesn’t sound pertinent, then you haven’t been paying much attention to the news for the past decade or so.

For one thing, Ridley’s direction is great. He plays with some big themes here, and he emphasizes them just enough to make them interesting without getting preachy. His work with color and mood are as good as ever. He makes this time period rich and immediate and gorgeous to the eye. He stages the battles and fights with a clear eye and without muddying them up with the sort of incoherent choreography that undermines so many films of this type…including, I must say, “Gladiator”. I always knew what was going on at every moment in every one of these fights, though he still conveys it in frantic style that makes you feel like you’re actually there on the sidelines. It’s one of the few examples I can think of where this style of fight choreography actually works (“Saving Private Ryan” is another). The style of the film is totally Ridley’s and it works better than it has in years. Sure, I liked “Matchstick Men”, but that was a small, character-driven film. It wasn’t the sort of vast spectacle he’s conveying here. Ridley’s command of spectacle is better here than it has perhaps ever been. He creates all the spectacle and makes it truly spectacular without ever sacrificing the nuances of his characters or the points he is trying to make. He allows enough time for the political and religious machinations behind these events (and the ramifications of them) without sacrificing a moment of the glorious action. He devotes enough time to the characters but not so much that the film grinds to a halt while these characters are established. It’s not perfect (there are a few too many shots of large armies toting large banners that are waving in the wind in slow motion) but it’s astonishingly effective.

I love that the film actually has a lot to say about topics as large as War, Religion, personal morality, national morality, politics and even Love. Ridley takes the Crusades and uses the subject to explore issues that still drive men and nations to this very day. After all, as the film’s end credits say, “To this very day, peace in the kingdom of heaven remains elusive”. Ridley actually seems keen on exploring the sort of issues that have made the Middle East such a quagmire for centuries. He and screenwriter William Monahan treat both sides of this conflict with respect and illustrate the motivations driving men on either side. They delve deeply into characters that are surprisingly three dimensional for a big, summer war epic. Orlando Bloom’s character, for instance, is a meaty creation and Orlando does a damn good job of bringing him to life. At the beginning of the film, Orlando’s character has lost a wife and child to suicide. His father and a priest tell him that fighting against the heathens that have taken control of Jerusalem may be the only way that he can redeem himself and rescue his family from the torment of Hell. Orlando goes to war because there is nothing left for him at home, to rescue the soul of his dead wife, and to better understand God. These are fascinating motives, they’re certainly better than the usual Love or Revenge plot that fuels most of these films. Even as he gains respect on the battlefield and the love of a princess, his morals haunt him. His every choice is given an added weight as he grapples with doing the right thing, even when it may not be easy or even the best thing for everyone involved.

The rest of the cast deserves accolades as well. Liam Neeson is great as Orlando’s warrior father, who teaches him not only how to fight but something of the virtues that define nobility. David Thewlis lends great support in his small role and Jeremy Irons makes the most of one of the best roles he’s gotten in quite some time. After dreck like “Dungeons and Dragons”, I’m sure Irons was famished for something this meaty. Edward Norton is little more than a voice here, but he still fleshes out a character that is literally without a face. Marton Csokas and Brendan Gleeson are great as the sort of power-hungry bastards you just love to hate. Ghassan Massoud gives a great, charismatic performance as a Muslim warlord (a performance brimming with soul and humanity). And Eva Green, while not the most complex character of the piece, still makes her princess something more than just a pretty face or a damsel in distress. (And she shows that a female character can have strength without wielding a sword or a bow.)

If anything, the film moves a bit too briskly. I understand that Ridley was forced to make a lot of cuts and trim a lot to get the film short enough to appease the studio. While I really like this cut of the film, I am very interested in seeing Ridley’s original vision. So many moments of this film could use a little more fleshing out, a little more time to develop into something even deeper. Perhaps Ridley’s original cut allowed such fine developments. I don’t know. All I do know is that while the film is well and briskly paced, it could have used a little breathing room. But that’s a minor nitpick. It’s never a bad thing when a movie leaves you wanting more.

The acting is great, the story and dialogue are intriguing, the direction is steady and assured and the messages of the film are important ones. This movie is so much better than Scott’s previous sword and sandal foray: “Gladiator”. “Gladiator” could have made interesting points about how governments since the beginning of time have relied on spectacle and entertainment as a way to distract the masses, but instead it was nothing more than a bloody revenge drama with some good acting. “Kingdom of Heaven” is so much more than that. Those expecting bloody, violent battles will be satisfied. But they might end up with a few things to think about as well.

It’s not quite “Ben-Hur” or “Lawrence of Arabia”, but it’s closer than films like “Gladiator” and especially “Alexander”. And it’s the only movie in Ridley Scott’s recent filmography that deserves to stand on a plateau with “Alien” and “Blade Runner”.

2005 / 123 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Elizabethtown” is all about love and death and looking to the future. It’s about last looks and first kisses and funerals and unruly children. In short, it’s about Life, with a capital “L”. It may very well be director Cameron Crowe’s worst film, but it’s still worth three fists. If anything, that’s a testament to Crowe’s particular genius.

“Elizabethtown” is essentially the story of Drew Baylor. Drew has distanced himself from his family to concentrate on designing a sneaker. This sneaker has been released to great fanfare and hype and the movie begins with several semis filled with these shoes returning to the factory. Drew has orchestrated a massive, billion-dollar failure. Everyone in his office looks at him as though he is a leper. His boss Phil (Alec Baldwin, once again showing up to deliver a stunning cameo as he did in “Glengarry Glen Ross”) tries to be as gentle as possible, but the results are still devastating. The situation obviously demands someone’s head on a platter, and Drew’s head seems to be the perfect fit. Coming in the midst of all this, the death of Drew’s father in a small Kentucky town seems more like a mere annoyance than the life-shattering event it might otherwise have been. Drew has been nominated by his unstable, overcompensating mother (Susan Sarandon) and his insecure sister (Judy Greer) to make the trip to this town and bring his father’s ashes home. On the way, he meets an almost insufferably perky stewardess on a ridiculously empty red-eye flight (she’s played by Kirsten Dunst).

Just from that description, you might be able to see the film’s problem. It’s pulling itself in too many directions. Yet, even with all these threads competing for the viewer’s attention, Crowe has a tendency to make too many scenes wear out their welcome by going on entirely too long. Actually, as I think back on the film, I’d say that pretty much every scene goes on at least one minute too long. Crowe’s strengths have always been in dialogue and character. Admittedly, these are two of my favorite things about most of my favorite movies, and I’ve loved Crowe a long time simply for his craftsmanship with such things. He tends to make emotional, beautifully conceived movies about characters going through emotional crises, though when he brought his distinctive sensibilities to the sci-fi thriller genre with “Vanilla Sky”, I found the result to be an impressive achievement. Still, Cameron’s forte seems to be these nearly existential meditations on life and love. “Elizabethtown” has all the right ingredients to be a film on par with his great work on “Jerry Maguire” and “Almost Famous”, it just doesn’t seem to know exactly how to combine these ingredients, or in what proportions. Some of the dialogue is a bit too cute or schmaltzy (and some of it sounds like nothing an actual human being would ever say) and so are some of the situations. And the road trip at the end goes on too long, has too many points it’s trying to make, and seems a bit preposterous. Susan Sarandon’s big scene also works better in theory than it does in practice. I appreciate what Cameron was trying to convey there, I just don’t think a boner joke and some rambling anecdotes are the proper way to get it done.

“So why the hell are you giving this film such a high grade?” you’re probably wondering right about now. Because, though it is a largely unfocused mess, it’s a clearly heartfelt mess. Cameron makes a lot of good points and has a lot to say, even if he doesn’t say it perfectly (or even exceptionally well). He seems to be working his ass off to make a point here and, even though he isn’t all that successful, he exposes more human truths on accident than most filmmakers do on purpose. There are a lot of moments in this film that will have you nodding your head in emotional recognition. His choices of music for the background of the film aren’t as good as his usual choices (again, the use of a mostly forgotten Elton John tune has more emotional resonance than any of the others, and the choice of one particular U2 song feels just a tad too obvious) but they still fill in a few emotional gaps. He gets legitimately great performances out of Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst (I hadn’t held out much hope for either of them in this, but they won me over…especially Orlando, who finally uses those striking blue eyes as a window into the soul of his character) and uses supporting actors like Paul Schneider, Loudon Wainwright, Gailard Sartain and Bruce McGill to their fullest potential.

It’s sloppy and occasionally frustrating, but it’s still a Cameron Crowe film. I can’t explain exactly what it is about a Crowe film, but when you’re watching one you just get this feeling that you don’t get watching anyone else’s work. I can’t describe that feeling, but if you’re the sort of person who watches “Almost Famous” or “Jerry Maguire” or “Say Anything” with any regularity, I think you know what I’m talking about. The movie’s not great, but “Elizabethtown” is sincere and funny and emotionally honest.

2005 / 123 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

Short review: Watch Tim Burton’s “Big Fish” instead.

Slightly longer review:

I liked “Jerry Maguire” (only watched it once though), thought “Almost Famous” was pretty good. “Vanilla Sky” was cool and weird and somehow made over $100 million despite the fact it musta confused the hell outta most audiences. So yeah then I’d have to say “Elizabethtown” is the least of the Cameron Crowe films I’ve seen.

Here’s the plot: Legolas (I mean Orlando Bloom) loses his company a billion dollars and is about to kill himself when he gets a phone call from his sister saying his dad is dead. So he goes to – get this – ELIZABETHTOWN (we have a title!) to get his body and bring it back home to Oregon.

(Note: This movie does get points for having a “young hip designer” character but NOT having them live in New York like every other film)

So of course the big thing is a romance between him and flight attendant Kirsten Dunst, star of “Spider-man” and “JUMANJI”! (Must always be written in all caps) They get to “meet cute” on the emptiest airplane I have ever seen. Let me clarify. Just a couple days ago I was on a flight from Dallas to Madison that was maybe 1/3 full and I thought “This is the emptiest airplane I have ever seen” But that record was SHATTERED by this movie as Orlando Bloom is the only person in the entire coach section. So they give him a seat in First Class, which itself maybe contains 3 people.

See, this is the kind of hokey romance bullshit I don’t like. The only way to get a flight attendant to talk to a character long enough for them to connect is to have the plane completely empty. On top of that, even though she’s not the best looking actress out there Kirsten Dunst is still leagues prettier than 95% of flight attendants I’ve ever seen. Why not just have her character be sitting next to Bloom on a normally full flight? Wait, that happened in “Jerry Maguire”, didn’t it? Sigh..

Shit, I wasted 2 paragraphs complaining about an airplane – I’d better move on. OK so Bloom goes to “Elizabethtown” and hangs out with his extended family which consists entirely of old people. Then… eh. You know, he doesn’t really LEARN anything about his father; he just broods and argues about cremation versus burial. There is really no *point* to this movie. The superior “dealing with a dead dad” movie “Big Fish” was very focused – it was simply about man learning about his dad’s life.

“Elizabethtown”, I had no clue. Is it about connecting with his family? Falling in love in the girl from “JUMANJI”? Not committing suicide when he goes back home? This lack of focus is why I consider it a mess. A lot of characters are given a lot of screen time which certainly doesn’t help. Sure life is messy but a movie is about giving purpose to what we don’t usually understand and focusing it to a central theme we can relate to. Dale liked this film a lot more than I did but mentioned it should have been edited differently, perhaps in a non-linear fashion using flashbacks. I agree, I mean, it worked for “Big Fish” Having a “present day” story gives the movie a spine to branch off from. It could have helped a lot. Oh well..

Kirsten Dunst pops in and out of this movie every couple of scenes to hang out with Bloom and make him feel better. Then she leaves for a couple scenes, wash rinse repeat. I guess she’s leading him on, teasing him, by leaving all the time, but it just seemed like pointless “extending” especially since they hit it off so well at first (during an all-night phone call, which is probably the best scene in the film) Then of course there’s the usual “end of Act 2 fight” where Bloom all of sudden gets mad at her, saying “All I want to do is go back home [and kill myself].”

This is why I rarely watch movies these days – they’re all structured the same. ESPECIALLY romantic comedies. No matter how well a couple is getting along it always happens - at the end of Act 2 (usually around the 1 hour 10 minute mark) one of them, usually the guy, has to get mad and tell his dark “secret” which either makes the woman run away or he distances himself from her. Then he realizes he’s wrong and there’s the inevitable mad dash to the airport to get her back. EVERY FUCKING TIME!

Elizabethtown doesn’t have the mad dash to the airport though. Instead they have the fight, and then Bloom goes to his father’s dedication ceremony. His mom tap-dances, his cousin’s band plays, all is well. A fire starts, no big deal. Dunst shows up of course and they smile at each other through the sprinklers. This could be the end of the movie BUT..

Bloom has to drive back home to Oregon! (No empty planes this time!) See Dunst has assembled this “Super-Map” for him which requires an entire briefcase. It also includes CD’s to listen to along the way so Cameron Crowe can fulfill his mission of actually using every song every recorded in his library of films. The map is full of hand-written notes, photos of her and magazine clippings. Upon seeing it you realize why her character always was running off – it seriously must have taken WEEKS to assemble the god damn thing.

I guess this trip through “Americana” is supposed to mean something, with Bloom visiting famous places and scattering his father’s ashes at them. But it’s just boring and tacked-on, making the movie a good 20 minutes longer than it should be in a way Spielberg would be envious of.

Ok here’s the zinger. If you think about it it’s REALLY stupid. Halfway through his journey I’m thinking “Jesus Christ he’s only in KANSAS and it’s already been 20 minutes of this crap? Is this movie gonna be another 30 minutes long??” but then I’m saved! Kirsten’s “Super-Map” - which by this point has basically become the Marlon Brando “Memory Crystals” in “Superman” – directs him to a farmer’s market in, hell, Oklahoma I guess. And it says “You can do 2 things: Keep going home using the rest of this map or look for a girl in a red hat.”

Of course he looks around and wow, Kirsten has followed him there! Happy happy smile, hug hug, blah blah, the end. Now think about this. Why did she even make the rest of the map? Considering the detail in the thing it must have been a shitload of work for nothing. So what does she think, “Well if he doesn’t meet me here he can use the map to get home anyway and I’ll be alone” How could she make the second half of the map without crying all over the thing? It doesn’t make sense to me. The whole end sequence doesn’t make sense – it’s just an excuse for a music and scenery montage. Ug.

This movie, despite being a mess, is well-intentioned with good performances so I’ll it give 2 fists for effort. I didn’t stick through the credits but I’d imagine half their length was song credits. Crowe, please make movies or music videos, not both.

2005 / 119 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Right off the bat let me confess something: I am a browncoat. For those of you who are uninitiated, that means I’m a fan of the television series “Firefly”, which is the series this film has sprung from. I’ve been a fan since, oh, July. So in the grand scheme of things, I’m a Johnny Come Lately to this TV series, which had a brief run on the Fox network in the late months of 2002. I remember watching one episode while unpacking boxes after I first moved to Madison (and, yes, most of those boxes did contain DVDs). I liked that episode, and then promptly forgot about it till hearing that they were making a show that lasted only fourteen episodes (only eleven of which were actually televised) into a major motion picture. The only other times a cancelled TV show has made the leap to the big screen were a) “Star Trek” and b) “Police Squad”, which became the movie “The Naked Gun”. So this whole phenomenon is not unprecedented, but it is rare. I guess that has something to do with the pedigree of the man who created the series, and wrote and directed this film: Joss Whedon. Joss made the “Buffy” and “Angel” shows (which you probably already know) and I was not a gigantic fan of either of those series. But when I started watching “Firefly”, I really loved it. I connected instantly with the characters and I really dug the whole universe that Whedon created for the show (and this movie). Also, unlike “Buffy” and “Angel”, this show had barely any cheese in it.

Why do I mention all this? Two reasons. First of all, I would just like to reiterate what a geek I truly am. I waited in line for a midnight screening of a film based on a sci-fi series that only lasted eleven televised episodes and I didn’t get into that show until buying it (having only seen one episode) on DVD. (I think we can all agree that’s pretty geeky, and not very logical.) Second of all, I already liked the “Firefly/ Serenity” universe. I already cared about these characters and dug these fictional stomping grounds. I guess what I’m trying to say is this: I’m probably not the least biased of reviewers.

For all the non-browncoats out there, here’s the basic idea of “Serenity”. It’s five hundred years in the future and the human race has outgrown Earth. We’ve moved on to a completely different galaxy, terra-formed the planets and moons therein, and established a new solar system and a new government known as The Alliance, which controls and regulates pretty much everything on these planets. On the edge of this solar system, roving like a pack of hungry wolves, are a race of bloodthirsty cannibals known as Reavers. According to legend, the Reavers were men who went mad at the edge of space. A few years back, The Alliance was challenged by a faction known as The Independents (otherwise known as The Browncoats) who were basically like The Confederacy without the slave-owning. The Browncoats lost and now one of them, a captain by the name of Malcolm Reynolds, cruises the cosmos under the Alliance radar doing odd and mostly illegal jobs. Along the line he has picked up two fugitives that the Alliance is quite keen on recapturing: a telepathic, spooky girl named River Tam (Summer Glau) and her doctor brother Simon (Sean Maher). A new Alliance operative (Chiwetel Eijiofor, who really should choose a stage name) has taken on the task of tracking River down as the movie opens. For the rest of the film, Mal (the charismatic Nathan Fillion) and his crew of brigands are doing their best to defend River from this assassin and discover what, exactly, the government is so eager to kill her for.

I’ve seen this movie twice already and while I did love the show, I think I love this movie more. Without knowing anything about the “Firefly” universe, you should come to love the main characters within the first fifteen minutes. They’re just good, well-written characters that are tremendously easy to like. Hell, even the film’s psychopath is a character you appreciate and want to know more about. He’s got more dimensions than the average cinematic psycho. So when the shit starts hitting the fan about halfway through and the characters get placed in jeopardy, it puts you on the edge of your seat. The best science fiction remembers that it’s a compelling plot and good characters that make for great entertainment, and “Serenity” is brilliant in that regard. The special effects are often not up to “Star Wars” caliber, but I guarantee you won’t even give a shit. The whole government conspiracy plot plays out magnificently, and these are characters I am happy to follow to the ends of the universe, characters whose perils put me through the wringer. In fact, I hope this film does well. It left me wanting more. In that regard, it reminds me of the original “Star Wars” trilogy. And, like that trilogy, “Serenity” succeeds because its characters are not scientists or high-minded military men exploring a new frontier: they’re outlaws taking whatever job they can get to keep food on the table and gas in the tanks. And when people like this find something worth fighting for and decide to risk everything for something noble…well, that’s pretty damned interesting, as far as I’m concerned.

I love the plot and I love the characters, and both combine to make this one of the most emotionally wrenching and suspenseful films I’ve seen in a long, long time. It’s a lesson more hollow Hollywood blockbusters would do well to learn. The film has a gritty, lived-in look that reminded me of the “Alien” films. It’s not one of those sci-fi films where everything looks pristine and new. Also, every member of the cast (none of them are all that well known) give everything they’ve got to these roles. This is clearly a labor of love for the actors as well as the crew, and that love spills over into the audience. In my opinion, this is the best, non-“Star Wars”, science fiction film since “The Matrix”, and it’s definitely one of the most fun EVER. Unlike most sci-fi, the “Firefly” universe has a simple, human message and a lot of heart behind it. That is what ultimately distinguishes the film and the series. And the movie never feels like just a long episode of the show. It is epic both in idea and plot (and in terms of scope).

I don’t know if the average viewer will appreciate it, but a couple of the people I convinced to go along with me loved this movie, and they’d only seen bits and pieces of the original show. An appreciation of the show might add some depth to the movie, but it’s far from mandatory. The film does a great job of setting everything you need to know up within the first five minutes, and investing you emotionally in the characters in the ten minutes shortly thereafter. After that, I’m fairly confident that everyone in the audience will be sucked in as efficiently as I was. All things aside, this is simply a damn good movie. Joss Whedon has never done anything better.

This year has been short on movies that I’ve legitimately loved, but I really loved this one. Give it a chance. You might love it too.