By Dale Nauertz

I probably say this every year (though it seems true every year) but this has been a pretty shitty year in film. There have been a few gems, but definitely less than five of them (“V for Vendetta”, “Little Miss Sunshine” and “The Matador” are the only great flicks that come immediately to my mind). On the whole, my attitude toward the year’s films has been one of boredom, disappointment or both. That’s okay, though, because I’ve saved some money (which I proceeded to blow on other things) and read more books than usual. But I’m surprisingly optimistic about what the fall and winter months hold. I have a feeling that all the year’s best movies will be seen in the next three months and that some of them might be pretty spectacular. There are some great filmmakers behind some of these films, and some truly intriguing concepts and premises. They could still suck, of course, nothing is ever surefire, but when it comes to entertainment and enlightenment, these are the films that I’ve got my money on. Like last year’s list, I’m going to use the Homeland Security color scheme to indicate my level of interest in upcoming films. As with our country’s terror alerts, any of these films could escalate from one color group to a group of higher interest based on word of mouth, critical acclaim, a great trailer or a really boring weekend.

Here’s how the color schemes break down:

Green: these are films I have virtually no interest in. In fact, I would do anything in power to stay away from these films. No foreseeable force could make me go. I will not probably not even mention them.

Examples: “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning” or “The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause” (merely hearing these titles is enough to irritate me)

Blue: I don’t really want to see these either, but if I were drugged, abducted and returned to consciousness in a theater playing one of these films, I wouldn’t be too displeased. (Though I would wonder who the hell would go through such trouble just to get me to see “Gridiron Gang” or Russell Crowe’s “A Good Year”)

Yellow: I would describe my attitude toward any films in this category as “mildly intrigued”. I doubt I’d be intrigued enough to see them in the theater but, as I already mentioned, a great trailer or a really boring day off might be enough to get my ass in a seat.

Examples: “Flushed Away”, “Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny”

Orange: I want to see these, probably even in a theater, but if they’re released the same weekend as something on the red list, they’re gonna have to wait their turn.

Examples: “Casino Royale”, “Fast Food Nation”

Red: Movies I really, really want to see. Unfortunately, it’s a pretty short list.

Now, onto:

The Red Alert List

1. The Fountain

Like “Gangs of New York” this film is making its second appearance on this list. It was supposed to come out last fall/winter, but it didn’t. I was sad. But it’s pretty much a lock that this film is finally getting released in November. Why do I care? The teaser and trailer both looked excellent. The plot, as I understand it, is highly intriguing (Hugh Jackman on a quest for eternal life and the love of that eternal life, played by Rachel Weisz, one of the few women worth searching for over the course of several centuries if you ask me). The visuals are highly arresting. And all of this is being put together by Darren Aronofsky, who hasn’t made a film since 2000’s haunting “Requiem for a Dream”…mostly because he was having so much trouble putting this film together. Brad Pitt was initially supposed to star, but he dropped out. There were the usual studio run-ins and so forth, but despite these complications it seems that this film will finally see the light of day. And I, for one, am psyched.

2. “Southland Tales”

This is the second film from Richard Kelly, the director of “Donnie Darko”. “Donnie Darko” was great and extremely messed up, and “Southland Tales” sounds like more of the same. It’s got The Rock, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jon Lovitz, Stiffler, Justin Timberlake and John Larroquette in it. Apparently, it’s about the Apocalypse (which takes place in the summer of 2008). I’ve seen a couple clips from this film and they didn’t look amazing, but they certainly looked intriguing. At the very least, it looks just fucked up enough to be a good time. The Internet Movie Database has this film scheduled to come out in November, but they don’t have a specific date listed for it yet and no trailer has yet been released. That isn’t a good sign. The film had quite a buzz going for it earlier in the year, but that buzz evaporated due to a disastrous screening at the Cannes Film Festival. Still, I want to see it. If the French hated it, it could conceivably rock pretty hard. Of all the films on this list, this one is the most apt to end up on my list again next year. Here’s hoping it gets released before its own apocalyptic deadline.

3. “The Prestige”

I’m champing at the bit for this one. I was interested in it by its mere premise: at the turn of the 20th century, two magicians (Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale) start as friends but soon become competitors, each trying to top the other with a more spectacular stage act. David Bowie portrays electrical genius Nicola Tesla (the inventor of radio and many other fine things whose inventions were usually “liberally borrowed” by the likes of Thomas Edison and others) who apparently helps out at least one of these fictionalized Houdinis. Christopher Nolan chose this project as his follow-up to “Batman Begins” (and likely the film that will precede his involvement in its sequel “The Dark Knight”). Between this and “The Illusionist” it seems that early 20th century magic acts are going to be well represented at the box office this fall. I’ve always been intrigued by the world of early 1900’s magic (Harry Houdini and the book “Carter Beats the Devil” are two of my main reasons for this). But, of the two, this is the one that I have more interest in. “The Illusionist” looks interesting and all, but it looks like a romance between an egocentric magician (Edward Norton), a hot chick (Jessica Biel) and some count or something (Rufus Sewell). “The Prestige” looks more mysterious and gothic (judging by its amazingly cool trailer). Plus, the idea of dueling magicians is more interesting than another damn love story. And, just for those of you still on the fence, “The Prestige” has Michael Caine. I rest my case.

4. “Stranger Than Fiction”

Will Farrell stars in a film from the director of “Monster’s Ball” as a man who one day discovers that he can hear someone narrating the events of his life. When he hears that same, narrating voice coming from his TV during a talk show one day he begins to suspect his life might be the creation of a renowned writer, played by Emma Thompson. Unfortunately for Will’s character, Emma Thompson is contemplating the death of his character and he has to somehow stop her. This sounds highly intriguing, though I’m frankly amazed that the script wasn’t written by Charlie Kaufman. It sounds like the brand of absurdity that is his bread and butter. The film looks to be quirky, surreal craziness in the vein of “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” or “Adaptation”. If that’s actually the case, it should be an excellent time. Plus, this might be Will’s chance to branch out and illustrate that he can do more than the ingeniously moronic comedies he seems to specialize in.

5. “Flag of Our Fathers”

It’s another damned war movie, true. But this one is directed by Clint Eastwood, whose recent film output has been better than just about anyone else in Hollywood. Aside from that, and according to the trailer, “Flags of Our Fathers” appears to be move beyond the usual battle, bonding scene, battle template utilized by most World War Two films. The film concerns the battle of Iwo Jima, the boys who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, and the media attention and aftermath of that event, wherein the American military made the boys into celebrities in order to sell war bonds and bolster the financial position of their war machine, which might have been just as important as the strategy of the battles themselves. If it really does concern more than just a seemingly endless stream of Pacific theater battles, and if it is up to par with Clint’s recent cinematic output, then this has an excellent shot at winning “Best Picture”. And kicking the ass, once again, out of…

6. “The Departed”

…Martin Scorsese!!! This film is Marty’s third with Leonardo DiCaprio (one of those things that make you go…Hmmm). I guess Leo must be the DeNiro of his generation after all. All of us ardent DiCapriots were right after all, and all you Leo-haters were simply bothered by his looks. Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen and Jack Freakin’ Nicholson are on board as well. As far as casts go, that’s pretty impressive. The film is an Americanization of a pretty terrific Hong Kong thriller called “Infernal Affairs”. Like 98% of Hong Kong thrillers, this one is about people undercover, one a gangster undercover in the police and the other a police officer undercover in a gang. It’s about the nature of identity and good and evil and all the usual Hong Kong action movie themes. Scorsese should have a field day with that sort of material, plus it might give Nicholson the chance to do some wonderful scenery chewing (at which he excels) and Damon and DiCaprio the occasion to face off and be all angsty. This all sounds very promising. And who knows, if Scorsese just does a movie he wants to do rather than flirting with Oscar gold like he has in the past, he might just win one. Just don’t get your hopes up and act all pissy if you lose again, Marty. You’re starting to look like a crybaby.

7. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

It’s not often that a comedy comes out as controversial as “Borat”. It hasn’t even been released yet and it’s got an entire country pissed off. The president of Kazakhstan has even scheduled a meeting with President Bush to discuss the ramifications of this film…despite the fact that its lead actor, writer and general mastermind (Sascha Baron Cohen) is actually from Britain. I don’t really care about any of that. All I know is that the character of Borat, played by Cohen on his HBO series “Da Ali G show”, is a hilarious creation. On “Da Ali G Show” Borat interacts with average Americans (all of them clueless that he’s only a character) under the guise of making an informative television show for those in his home country of Kazakhstan. These clueless Americans generally embarrass themselves, and a good time is had by all watching. The movie looks like more of the same, but that’s fine by me. Borat’s shenanigans usually leave me in stitches, and I’ve been yearning for a great comedy. “Borat” looks like the season’s (year’s?) best bet.

8. Apocalypto

Mel Gibson’s latest movie is the story of a Mayan sacrifice who rejects his destiny and wants to live. I don’t know this for certain, but I would assume this touches off a bloody revolt. As with Mel’s last film, the movie is not in English, filled with subtitles and is certain to be bloody (from what I remember of Mayan history from high school, they weren’t exactly touchy feely). Why do I want to see this? First of all, I love Mel, no matter what kind of antics he’s up to. Secondly, from the trailer, this movie looks downright, batshit insane. No matter what, it’s bound to be unique.

Orange Alert:

1. “Casino Royale”

I love James Bond movies. I’ve seen them all, even the bad ones (“The Man With the Golden Gun”, “Diamonds are Forever”) and I’m sure that I’ll see this one too. The trailer makes it look pretty good, but I’m still not sold on restarting the Bond franchise…particularly in modern day. The book on which this film is based was damned good, but I’m not sure how it will work in a modern context. Plus, I like Bond the way he is. I don’t need him to be grittier or modernized or blonde. Still, I can’t deny the drawing power of 007. I’d be lying if I told you I was even going to try.

2. “A Night at the Museum”

Ben Stiller is a guard at the New York Museum of Natural History. As it happens, the museum comes to life at night. Basically, that means Ben will have spend the majority of this film running from CGI. So it’s essentially “Jumanji” with Ben Stiller. Hell, it’s even got Robin Williams in it as Teddy Roosevelt. I liked “Jumanji”, I like Teddy Roosevelt (if I had to choose a favorite president, he might be it), and I like that Dick Van Dyke and Mickey Rooney are getting work in this film. Mark my words, this movie may not seem like much now, but it’s going to be one of the season’s surprise hits. Trust me.

3. “The Good Shepherd”

Robert DeNiro directs and Matt Damon stars in the story of the CIA and its evolution over the years. As long as its better than “Syriana”, I’ll be happy. Plus, it’s got Joe Pesci in it. Remember when Joe Pesci got work? Those were good times.

4. “Children of Men”

Alfonso Cuaron follows up “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” with this, an intriguing film about a future where humans can no longer procreate. Clive Owen plays a former activist escorting a mysteriously pregnant woman (Julianne Moore) to a lab in the ocean…or something. I don’t know the specifics, but I am interested. Very, very interested. I like futuristic movies, I like Julianne Moore, and I like Clive Owen. I see no reason not to see this.

5. “Pan’s Labyrinth”

Guillermo Del Toro (director of “Hellboy” and “Blade 2”) is one messed up dude. I am intrigued by this, his latest film, that tells the story of a young girl who enters a labyrinth and discovers that she is a princess who must complete three dangerous tasks in order to achieve her destiny. Underground settings and strange effects are a given. But will David Bowie make an appearance? Time will tell.

6. “For Your Consideration”

The gang behind “Best in Show”, “Waiting for Guffman” and “A Mighty Wind” strikes again. This time they are using their improvisational skills to tell the story of an independent film that gets award consideration come Oscar time. Should be amusing, with some gut-busting moments…just like the others.

7. “Fast Food Nation”

I love the work of director Richard Linklater. Here, he takes on the world of fast food with a little help from Greg Kinnear and Bruce Willis. Could be interesting.

8. “Man of the Year”

Robin Williams plays a Jon Stewart clone who runs for president as a joke. When he gets elected, it turns out the joke is on him. Lewis Black, Christopher Walken, and Laura Linney round out the cast for this, a comedy with a solid premise from director Barry Levinson, who’s never made a downright BAD film and usually guides Williams to some of his better work. He did direct “Good Morning Vietnam”, after all. I’ll go in the hopes that Robin Williams can be funny again.

And there you have it. A not-so-brief list of movies I’ll probably shell out money for. Some of them are bound to suck (in a perfect world, all of these films would be great) and some of them are bound to run too long or have a little too much fat in the middle or perhaps be just too weird for their own damn good, but this list is and has always been about potential. These are the films I’ve found in the upcoming schedule with the potential for goodness, perhaps even greatness.

But moviegoing is like gambling. You roll the dice and take your chances. Unfortunately, as of late, the House usually wins.

2006 / 87 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

There is a fine art to making a great action movie. The film needs to have enough plot to propel the action sequences, enough plot to drive them and give them a reason to exist. However, it’s usually best if that plot is not too complex. If the plot is too complicated, then the film is thrown out of balance. No one goes to these movies, after all, for plot. For that, people see interesting little independent movies or those prestige films released in the last two months of the year…or they stay home and read a book. Then again, not enough plot and the movie just becomes a series of explosions without reason. With too little plot, the audience is still provided with some chaos, but they don’t care about it. They are left with no emotional investment in the proceedings. They have nothing and no one to root for (in this it’s also good to have an interesting or, failing that, likable hero and an interestingly evil villain for him to play off of). Therefore a good action movie needs enough plot to keep it moving, but not enough to slow it down. A good action movie plot should be fairly aerodynamic.

Then again, judging by the movie “Crank”, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a good action movie doesn’t need much plot at all. However, a good action movie needs something that makes it unique. If you can’t hatch an interesting plot, then you at least need an intriguing gimmick.

Like “Speed”, “Crank” has the least plot imaginable…but it does have a great gimmick. A hit man inexplicably named Chev Chelios (played by the taciturn Jason Statham) awakens one morning feeling like shit. He soon discovers the reason for this: he has been poisoned in his sleep by a dude named Ricky Verona (Jose Pablo Cantillo) with something nicknamed a “Beijing Cocktail”. This drug inhibits the gland that produces adrenaline, or something, causing his body to slow down and eventually shut down altogether. Verona helpfully, and cockily, informs him that he’ll be dead in an hour. However, Verona didn’t count on Statham being a truly resilient son of a bitch. Chelios discovers the only way he can stay alive is by forcing his body to produce adrenaline. Therefore he can’t slow down. He drives as fast as he can, starts random fights, takes drugs, has very public sex with his sweet girlfriend (an adorable Amy Smart) and does just about anything he can to keep his heart pumping. Like a shark, he has to keep moving, as fast as he can, or he’ll die. In short, it’s kind of like “Speed”, except Statham is the bus.

I’ll admit, the premise of this film is pretty ludicrous and kinda stupid. The movie itself has as much logic as a film like “Road House” or “Con Air”. It bears only a passing resemblance to our reality. But that’s fine. That’s really all I want out of my action movies. It has a ludicrous premise, but it plays that premise to its hilt. The movie stays exciting because, like its protagonist, it never slows down. Rapid edits, split screen, Atari graphics, Google Earth, the filmmakers (mysteriously named Nevedrine/Taylor) throw everything they can conceive at the audience to keep our adrenaline pumping, to keep us on our toes. I never knew where this film was ultimately going, or where it would take me next. I thrive on that sensation. The filmmaking style borders on overkill, but for once this excessive style of filmmaking actually works with the story it’s trying to tell. The style of filmmaking actually makes you feel like the main character, moving as fast as you can and keeping yourself adrenalized. The action sequences are clever and inventive, which helps immeasurably. The film’s actual plot (the reason why Statham’s oddly named character has been injected with “this Chinese shit”) is pretty routine. It’s the same plot we’ve seen in pretty much every hit man movie ever made. But since the filmmakers seemed to use their time devising ingenious action scenarios instead, I really didn’t mind. I’d rather more writers and directors used their time to make things explode in new, exciting ways as long as the plot of their film isn’t going to reinvent the wheel anyway. There are some great fight sequences, an excellent sequence in a hospital, the best car chase through a mall since “The Blues Brothers”, and a particularly outlandish motorcycle ride. This is the most fun I’ve had at a movie in ages. I also love that the filmmakers milk their bizarre premise for all that its worth. They continually find new, inspired ways for Chelios to keep moving and new methods for him to introduce bursts of adrenaline into his anatomy. I love it when a movie makes the most of its premise. If you’re gonna go, go balls out.

The film loses a bit of steam toward the middle, I must admit. I actually started to get a tad restless. That’s when it starts to concentrate on the actual plot which, as I said before, is pretty routine and flimsy. But the filmmakers “everything but the kitchen sink” approach to this outlandish material works more often than it doesn’t and the actors (particularly the twitchily psychotic Castillo, the eye-poppingly intense Statham and Dwight Yoakam as a depraved, laconic Zen Cowboy doctor) invest these outrageous proceedings with everything they’ve got. Jason Statham invests the film with urgency and Amy Smart invests her scenes with a sweet humanity. “Crank” doesn’t give you a chance to get bored. It’s not hard to suspend disbelief while watching this film either. The movie doesn’t slow down long enough for you to realize how ridiculous all of this is. It’s such giddy, goofy fun that the smile didn’t leave my face until about half an hour after the final credits rolled. “Crank” isn’t going to win an Oscar but, unlike a lot of action movies, it doesn’t seem to have any pompous delusions that it will. I don’t think the people behind this movie are even aware the Oscars exist. “Crank” isn’t reinventing the wheel; it’s just trying to keep its audience relentlessly entertained. And, on that score, it succeeds brilliantly.

It’s not the best film of the year, but it is definitely the most fun. It’s one of those rare films that understand it’s not your plot that matters, it’s your attitude. And “Crank” has enough attitude for three movies. It’s a hard-R-rated extravaganza of blood, breasts, psychosis, gore and pure unadulterated mayhem that doesn’t know the meaning of the phrase “politically correct”. I didn’t realize how much I’ve missed this sort of thing. It’s just as good as those gleefully brain-dead action movies they made in the 1980’s. If you’re nostalgic for films like “Rambo: First Blood Part 2” and “Road House” then get your ass to a theater. If not, then go see “The Illusionist” and leave the rest of us alone. Like its lead actor, “Crank” has a certain kamikaze delight that is sadly lacking in most modern action films.

Well for once I have made good on a promise. There is after all, a first time for everything.

So behold!!! The first ever A Fistful of Reviews podcast!!!

There were a couple of technical difficulties here and there and we are still working on the format for the show, but overall it came together quite well. Hopefully you enjoy it.

Anyway, we ripped on, made fun of, and generally discussed the following:

Celebrity Madness (Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan, etc.)
Snakes on a ahhhh… Who gives a shit?
Movies that we are sick and tired of (Sequels, Superhero Movies, “Begins” movies, etc.)

Download it in MP3 format (opens in just about anything) here:

Server 1 Download

Or subscribe to it here:

Like the rest of the site the podcast is mildly explicit. There’s a couple of F-bombs here and there, but never referencing sex which means if the MPAA were rating this it would probably be a PG-13. The download is 23.75MB and just under an hour long. Hopefully it’s entertaining and doesn’t bore you to death. Feel free to send feedback our way. If you liked it, hated it, have topic ideas, etc. feel free to let us know.

- Jones

2006 / 110 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I don’t think there’s a filmmaker beside M. Night Shyamalan who would have had the sheer hubris to roll on a mess like “Lady in the Water”. “Lady in the Water” is, as Quentin Tarantino once said of Brian De Palma’s “Bonfire of the Vanities”: “the kind of mess that only a talented filmmaker can make.”

According to M. Night Shyamalan, “Lady in the Water” began as a story that he told his daughters at bedtime. The tale concerns a narf (kind of like a mermaid without the fins) from an undersea world who comes to influence mankind and push us toward another stage of intellectual development…or something. She comes to our world through a tunnel from her sea kingdom that ends up in a Pennsylvania swimming pool. The caretaker of the apartment complex where this pool resides is a guy named Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti). Heep discovers this lady in the pool water, falls into the pool and almost drowns before she saves him. After this, Heep lets the narf sleep on his couch while he tries to help her find the human being she has come to inspire.

Also living in this apartment complex are a man who is great at crossword puzzles, a hermit, a man who lifts weights to develop the muscles on only one side of his body, an apartment full of stoners, and a crotchety film critic. Proving that it takes a village to help a narf, all of these strange characters eventually come together to help the narf (the word gets sillier every time I type it) achieve her goal and also to protect her from being killed by a scrunt (a cross between a wolf, a porcupine and a lichen intent on keeping her from completing her mission…for some reason).

Just from reading that synopsis, you can probably tell that “Lady in the Water” is a mess. For one thing, it’s often just plain silly. A man with well-defined muscles on only one side of his body, a narf named Story (Bryce Dallas Howard, looking exceptionally pale and damp), something called a scrunt? These are downright ludicrous concepts. It would be hard for ANY movie to make them work as anything but high comedy. Yet, somehow, Shyamalan makes most of these goofy (albeit highly original) concepts work…at least for the amount of time that I was watching the movie. After I left the theater, I started wondering why the hell I cared about any of this, but for the two hours I spent in “Lady in the Water’s” company, I was strangely mesmerized. Even when characters started looking for divine revelations in the morning crossword puzzle and asking a film critic how the film’s events would turn out, these plot machinations somehow didn’t make me want to throw popcorn at the screen. Perhaps it is because Shyamalan brings to “Lady in the Water” the same dark, suspenseful tone that he has brought to all his other films. The goofy events onscreen take on a ponderous, self-important weight due to the way Shyamalan stages and lights them. The scrunt is a wacky concept, but Shyamalan presents it in such a way that it’s actually pretty creepy. Shyamalan casting himself as a writer with the potential to change the entire world is a pretty shaky proposition, yet Shyamalan the director actually manages to coax a good performance out of himself. It’s not actually as self-delusional as it would seem.

Still, despite the fact that most of the film works, this is a slight, silly film with a self-important tone. Giamatti and Howard do good work, as do most of the supporting actors, but they can’t quite compensate for the fact that their character names are “Cleveland Heep” and “Story”. Themes that would work as subtext are actually spoken aloud by major characters (never good). Moments of sublime ridiculousness abound. The plot isn’t bad, but if Shymalan had used a more fantastical, whimsical approach, it might have worked even better. Shyamalan’s standard look and tone are starting to wear thin. This is a fairy tale, after all, and he still shoots it like a thriller. This, his standard approach, still works, but in “Lady in the Water” I could see cracks forming around its edges. If Shyamalan doesn’t branch out and try something new, I doubt his usual method will work very much longer. “Lady in the Water” is lighter than his past efforts, but it’s still a tad ponderous for its own good.

“Lady in the Water” is like a balloon attached to a lead weight. By all rights, it should never leave the ground. It should falter under the weight of its flaws. And yet, by some bizarre miracle, the movie actually remains airborne most of the time. It’s silly, self-important and weird but it’s still original and highly entertaining…in its own, lunatic fashion. For all its flaws, “Lady in the Water” still one man’s artistic vision. As goofy as this story is, Shyamalan obviously cares about it, and that care and love translate through past everything else. In a summer of films that seem crafted by a committee of executives, these things make “Lady in the Water” downright refreshing.

2006 / 150 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Hollywood seems increasingly eager to churn out fun summer blockbusters. The studios have sunk all their money into making these franchises and remakes and action-packed spectacles…and yet they seem to have completely forgotten how to make one of the damned things.

Take, for example, the second film in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise. I loved the original film precisely because it was one of the few summer blockbusters that remembered and embraced the summer blockbuster’s original mission statement: to provide fun at any cost. The original pirate had a unique, wonderful creation of a main character (Capt. Jack Sparrow played with droll wit and audacity by the incomparable Johnny Depp) a streamlined plot that took itself just seriously enough, fun special effects, plenty of action and a romance that while not revolutionary worked within the framework of the film. It also had charm, wit, a delightful swashbuckling flair and a lush, romantic, storybook production design. It was fresh. It was exotic. And it was a hell of a lot of fun.

The exotic flair of the first film is now standard operating procedure as the second film opens. I am happy to report that the baroque production design and visual flair that made the original “Pirates” such a feast for the eyes remains in tact. There are portions of this film that are achingly gorgeous. The production designers are to be commended for each and every set.

Sadly, the members of the production design team are the only ones working up to the par of the first film.

Everyone else seems to have forgotten what made us love “Pirates” in the first place. The plot of the first was simple, breezy and a little silly. But that was all right. The plot did its job, providing a perfect framework for such eccentric goodies as Depp’s performance, a great deal of swashbuckling action, and some nifty special effects. This time the filmmakers have provided both too much plot and not enough. I will explain. The film’s plot is a convoluted, labyrinthine exercise involving baddies from the East Indian Trading Company, an enchanted compass, a chest containing the heart of a diabolical otherworldly fiend, a special key, a disgraced commodore, and a paternal reunion. This is too much plot, and the film spends way too much time untangling it. I understand that they felt the need to devise a plotline complex enough to run the course of two sequels but, like “The Matrix Reloaded”, they seem to have gone overboard and smothered any sense of fun the film might otherwise have been able to generate. The movie has no time to be fun because it has to spend so much time explaining what the hell is going on. The movie founders under the weight of exposition, which wouldn’t be so bad if the exposition was interesting. Unfortunately, it is not. I, for one, did not care about a single element of the film’s storyline. It just didn’t grab me. There’s no hook here, nothing original or emotionally compelling.

Also, the film takes too many diversions that aren’t very diverting. Too much screen time is wasted on the Island of Wacky Cannibals. This is material we’ve seen in a thousand similar films (white man becomes god of backward tribe, tribe is full of cannibals, said cannibals are complete morons) and the film does nothing to distinguish this material. The only reason it exists is to provide a pointless, yet admittedly amusing, action sequences involving large round cages. The characters imprisoned in these cage balls make an escape that reminded me of watching a hamster manipulate one of those big exercise balls. This part is amusing, but it does absolutely nothing to further the plot, which wouldn’t be such a problem if the filmmakers hadn’t made the plot so damned important.

A large part of screen time is also, unfortunately, devoted to the villains aboard The Flying Dutchman, a cursed ship captained by Davy Jones. Neither Davy Jones nor any of his crew is very intimidating. Even worse, the special effects used to bring them to life look downright silly. How scary is a guy with a conch shell for a head? Not very. Neither Davy nor any of his crew manage to generate much menace (Davy does the best, with his “Phantom of the Opera”-style organ playing and his tentacled moustache). They’re about as intimidating as Looney Toons villains. In the original, Geoffrey Rush managed to generate a real sense of menace. Also, Rush’s Capt. Barbossa had actual motivation. His character was well developed. Davy Jones is evil because…well, he’s evil. There’s some mumbo-jumbo about a failed romance or something, but that it’s never developed. Maybe it will be developed in the sequel, but that doesn’t help this movie any.

The heroes don’t fare much better than the villains, I’m afraid. What little interest we in the audience had in Orlando Bloom’s Will Turner character is now gone. He got the girl at the end of the first movie. Watching a guy try to keep the girl isn’t all that exciting. The filmmakers don’t give us much reason to root for him. Keira Knightley is also underused and underdeveloped. She comes off as unrealistic (though, considering her lack of breasts, the fact that she’s able to pass herself off as a male crewmember is entirely too believable) and shrewish. She’s irritating. But the biggest shock is Johnny Depp’s Capt. Jack Sparrow. He just isn’t given enough to do. Unlike the first movie, he has no great lines to wrap his droll accent around and he’s barely a participant in the plot. His dialogue is a series of overly ornate, overly complex nonsense that has no point and little in the way of flair. His mannerisms are meant to be the joke, but we all got used to those the first time around. Perhaps the movie’s biggest flaw is that it gives Depp nothing new to work with. He’s the star of the movie and he’s largely pushed into the background.

The last ten or fifteen minutes are actually quite good. They’re so good that I’m actually looking forward the next “Pirates” sequel. Hopefully that movie will eschew the exposition and dense plotting altogether and just provide the fun and action that is sorely lacking in this movie. There are a couple of action sequences, but they’re few and far between and, when they do come, they’re not as exhilarating as anything in the first film. There’s none of the invention and kamikaze glee that “Pirates of the Caribbean” so elegantly demonstrated. The first movie had a certain spring in its step. That carries over to the beginning of this movie and resurfaces at the end but is mostly drowned by excessive length and too many dull subplots. The movie is as ornate and convoluted as most of Captain Jack’s dialogue and just as hollow.

The last fifteen minutes left me wanting more. The preceding two hours and fifteen minutes left me wanting less.

2006 / 154 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

After at least ten years of starts and stops, with directors like Tim Burton, McG, and Brett Ratner all taking turns at development, Superman finally returns to the big screen. And though the results aren’t bad (I’ll get to that in a minute) I sorta wish this film would have gotten off the ground back in the late 90’s, with Tim Burton at the helm, Nicolas Cage as the Man of Steel, Linda Fiorentino as Lois Lane (in my opinion, she’s the ultimate choice) and Kevin Spacey as Luthor. From what I’ve heard, the script involved a gay robot and a polar bear fight…but at least it would have been fascinating in a deranged, shitty-movie-night candidate fiasco sort of way.

After ten years of development and several complete personnel changes (except for Spacey, the best choice for Lex Luthor and the only one who weathered all the changes) the Superman we get can’t help but be rather disappointing. Then again, I’ve never been the biggest Superman fan. He’s too invincible to be really interesting. Batman has that dark revenge streak. Spider-Man has the trouble of trying to juggle a normal life AND be a superhero (with all the romantic and financial problems that lie therein). And Aquaman…well, okay, Aquaman sucks. At least Superman can do more than talk to fish. Superman can stop bullets, fly, and all that other stuff. The only thing that puts a crimp in his day is a green rock. That’s inherently cheesy, and it’s the reason Superman has never previously gelled for me.

The most pleasant surprise of this Superman film was how vulnerable Superman is. First of all, he’s in love with a woman who only wants him when he’s in a cape (and wants nothing to do with him as Clark Kent). It’s always seemed to me that Lois is kind of a superficial, career-centric bitch. Kate Bosworth really doesn’t do anything to change my opinion there. But by emphasizing this problematic love affair as well as Superman longing to know more about his roots (it’s what prompts his five year absence from Metropolis and Planet Earth) the movie gives us a more interesting Superman than we’ve seen in a lot of other movies. Though, even without this emotional baggage, Christopher Reeve did a much better job with the character. The best thing I can say about Brandon Routh’s portrayal of Superman/Clark is that he reminds me of Reeve. Unfortunately, he doesn’t do much to make the role his own. His portrayal of Superman reminds me of one of those TV shows where an actor dies or leaves and they plug another actor into the character and have him act identically to the man who left. They may do their best, but they never erase your memory of the other guy, unless they are allowed to put some unique stamp on the role. Routh doesn’t put his stamp on the role. He gives it a good shot, but he mostly makes us miss Reeve. Tom Welling, on TV’s “Smallville”, actually does a better job of owning this character. Still, the movie makes Superman a lot more vulnerable, and that gives us a little more interest in him.

The movie spends so much time making him vulnerable, unfortunately, that it forgets to make him heroic. It skimps on the exciting set pieces and dangerous situations that make us care about Superman in the first place. Moments of this film really work well. Superman’s first heroic rescue, for example, is amazing. It’s a literally crowd-pleasing moment. It’s almost as good as something from the original “Superman”. But too many of the action sequences have a “been there, done that” feel. It’s almost as if the filmmakers dusted off the original Superman script and just decided to update the effects. Big real estate scheme? Check. Entire city in jeopardy from earthquake thing? Check. The setup is great, and the first hour really gets things flowing nicely. Kevin Spacey does admirable, nuanced, creepy work as Lex Luthor but his villainous plot sucks. It’s nowhere near as good as Hackman’s ingenious scheme from the original movie. He has the best moment of the movie (it involves Superman being put in really big trouble) and Spacey gives the role a more sinister slant than Hackman. Spacey’s Luthor is a great example of a great actor taking a character and completely making it his own. Parker Posey is better than I expected as his moll, but I was annoyed that, once again, Luthor’s girlfriend brings his whole criminal empire crashing down. It’s the same thing that happened in the first film. You think the filmmakers could have done something new. If there’s a sequel to this film (and there probably will be) I hope that Luthor learns to swear off women altogether.

It was in the second half, however, that the movie started getting on my nerves. For one thing, nothing happens. The film is largely about character development, and it does well with that…to a point. But for character-driven material to work, you need to have some conflict between the characters. For example: in Superman’s absence, Lois has had a kid and is involved with her editor’s nephew Richard (James Marsden, best known as Cyclops from the X-Men films). Superman comes back, and Richard can clearly see that Lois wants him. He subtly asks her if she likes him, but that’s it. His character is too nice of a guy to get in his face about it. Gee, that’s great if he’s an actual guy. But this is a movie. Shouldn’t he confront her about that? That’s what we like to call drama. Hell, he could even confront Superman about it. That’d be cool. Superman could take a verbal bitching from Richard and not fight back because, well, Richard’s just a regular dude. Plus, he and Lois aren’t officially involved anyway. But, no, Richard just puts up with it. He should at least be pissed that he’s been seeing this woman for five years and they aren’t even talking marriage. I know that women are generally seen as the ones who want a rock on their finger, but guys occasionally want it too. And if she doesn’t, that means she really doesn’t want to be there and she wants to be with Superman. See what I’m saying here? This is real drama. The proceedings would’ve been a lot livelier.

Aside from the stagnant domestic stuff, the action stuff is rather lame. Superman doesn’t do all that much, not really. He picks up a big rock, stops a couple people from getting squashed, and stops some bullets. No big deal. We’ve seen this already. The first action sequence, where Superman saves a plane from being dragged into outer space, is a cool set piece and it’s original. It’s the best of the movie. The rest are bland rehashes of things we’ve already seen. Hell, the stakes on his other rescues aren’t even all that high. We don’t really get the sense that anyone or anything is in jeopardy. After all, if the screenwriters can’t make drama out of a relationship as soap-opera ready as the Lois/Richard/Superman love triangle (there’s even a kid whose paternity is in question!) then how are they going to make us give a shit about billions of lives hanging in the balance? Well, they could have…but they don’t. Bryan Singer’s direction is good enough that it distracts us from a lot of logistic questions for a while (one of them being: Hey, isn’t that thing made out of Kryptonite? How the hell is this happening?) but not for long enough. There’s a lot of flash and rumbling and a lot of things shaking (there are at least three sequences where things vibrate from something akin to an earthquake) but, plot-wise, virtually nothing is going on. Hell, action-wise nothing much is going on. I never got the sense that anything was really at stake here, and that essentially kills all the potential drama.

A lot of money has been spent on this movie (Ben’s big question was: “This cost 200 million?”) and it certainly looks real good but a lack of truly exciting heroics, a lame villainous plot, and some bland storytelling eventually destroy any momentum the movie manages to generate. The performances aren’t bad (Spacey is really good) and the effects are impressive (boy, that’s a huge rock Superman is lifting). But none of that matters if the filmmakers forget to make us care.

The movie did do one thing, though. It gave me a whole new appreciation for the first two Superman films. Sure, they were pretty cheesy and the effects haven’t aged well. But, damn it, they were sure exciting and fun.

2006 / 104 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Comic geeks are going to hate this movie. I can say that with absolute certainty. One of my friends is an avid X-Men reader (well, he has read way more issues than I have) and gleefully pointed out the inaccuracies of the film the moment it had finished (or, how it varied from thirty years of comics, at any rate). But he still said he enjoyed the film, and I heard him laughing gleefully at many points during the Midnight screening we attended. The average comic geek, on the other hand, will probably not be so kind. I understand why a person would be pissed off that a film based on a certain property just up and changed the rules and plot of that property, which has been established over thirty-odd (maybe even forty-odd) years. On the other hand, as a man who has barely glanced at an X-Men comic ever, I can say without hesitation that this film is a blast. So if you’re like me (and I’m thinking that thousands, perhaps millions of you are) then you’re bound to have a good time.

I appreciated the first two X-Men films because they not only provided excellent comic book action, they also dealt with issues that most comic book movies disregard. The X-Men films are about racism and non-comformity and the use/misuse of power, heady subjects for a movie whose characters dress in skin-tight leather and fight crime. And though director Bryan Singer, the sure and steady hand behind the first two films, went off to direct some silly “Superman” movie, that sense of moral relevance remains intact. This third film deals with a pharmaceutical company that has discovered a “cure” for the mutant gene. Any mutant who takes this cure will immediately become a regular person. There are some in the mutant community who are thrilled by this prospect (who wants to be ridiculed, ostracized and terrorized for their entire life?) but most of them are horrified. “They’re nothing wrong with us,” Storm says, “ANY of us.” Magneto (played once more to absolute perfection by Ian McKellan) uses this as the platform to rally hundreds of mutants to his cause. He decides to destroy the pharmaceutical labs (based on Alcatraz Island of all places) and end the “cure” debate his own way, once and for all. Because Magneto doesn’t care about killing a bunch of people in order to do this, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and the other “good mutants” or “X-Men” decide to protect humanity and themselves by stopping this “cure” nonsense in their own way.

As a director, Brett Ratner is generally something of a hack. But he’s done a pretty effective job of it here. Sure, I miss Bryan Singer’s moody, dark atmosphere, but Ratner keeps the pace lively and stages some impressive action sequences. Magneto’s attack on Alcatraz, for example, is awesome. Ratner lacks Singer’s visual poetry and finesse, but he gets the action beats right and works in a lot of subtle social commentary, as Singer did. The lines outside the mutant “cure” facility, for example, and the mob protesting it across the street are eerily reminiscent of the lines and protesters that flock outside abortion clinics.

The best thing about the film (which is probably best attributed to the screenplay by Zak Penn and Simon Kinsberg) is its willingness to up the stakes. The film has a lot of darkness to it, mainly having to do with the resurrection of Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) who doesn’t come back exactly as she was. Though I had never gotten this sense from the first two films, apparently Jean is the most powerful mutant on record. And in this film, boy, is she ever. She can destroy things and people at the molecular level, which is freaky and yet great fun to watch. Plus, she exhibits a heretofore unexplored bad attitude. Famke does a great job with her newly complex character and the effects that bring her rain of destruction to life are the best of the film. Not only that, but I was shocked (and, yes, sometimes a little pissed) at the number of major characters that either die or are significantly changed by the events of this film. Not only do they die but, unlike Jean, I get the distinct sense that a lot of them ain’t coming back. Though there are the usual hints at a sequel, I get the feeling that the filmmakers aren’t screwing around. This movie certainly feels like a last stand.

Unfortunately, the film has some major problems as well. Character development, for one. There really isn’t any. Jean Grey and Magneto are nicely explored in this film, but the good guys are pretty much glossed over. Wolverine and Storm are cool, and they kick a lot of ass, but the movie doesn’t really explore the emotional side of what they’re going through. We don’t get a sense of what makes them tick. That’s not too bad, since we’ve had two movies in which to get to know them, but the film gives us very little back story on the new mutants either. Kelsey Grammar’s blue Beast character is neat and all, but what’s his deal? He talks a lot, but we never get to the heart of why he does what he does, as we did with guys like Nightcrawler. And Beast gets the best time of it. A couple of the new mutants aren’t even given names! The first two films had a lot more major characters and didn’t have the luxury of devoting a lot of screen time to them, yet they made every moment of that time count. They developed the characters quite well in a limited span of time, something this movie barely bothers with.

Also, the film feels rushed. I understand why that is, however. After all, the movie has a lot of ground to cover fairly quickly, but I wish it would have been even ten minutes longer. Slow things down a little and you’d still have a fast paced film. Take your time to explore this world, Ratner. Getting more of a flavor of this world would immensely add to the proceedings.

Still, “X-Men: The Last Stand” is solid, action-packed entertainment with a bit of social commentary thrown into the mix. It’s not quite as effective as the other two (“X2” remains my favorite thus far) but it’s generally well-acted, fast-paced and potent stuff. I get the feeling it’s one of the better films we’ll be seeing this summer. But, then again, the slate of upcoming films doesn’t exactly fill me with a lot of faith.

2006 / 126 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

According to the calendar, summer starts on June 21st, but each year Hollywood pushes it up a little earlier. I remember a time (not so long ago) that the big summer popcorn flicks didn’t start rolling out until Memorial Day weekend. But since the start of this millennium, Hollywood has advanced the start date earlier and earlier. Hence summer this year officially began on May 5th, when “Mission: Impossible 3” burst into theaters.

“Mission: Impossible” movies have never been all that amazing, so it’s really no wonder that this film was released first, as though Paramount were just trying to get this over with. Sure, it has Tom Cruise and even with his last couple of wacky shenanigans he still guarantees a large box office take, but otherwise these movies have always been “also-rans”. In 1996, the big summer flick was “Twister”. “Mission: Impossible” just happened to be there (and be cool-looking enough so that people went to it when they weren’t able to get “Twister” tickets). In 2000, “Gladiator” was the big dog in the kennel of May. “MI:2” was, again, just there to soak up some of the overflow. And now here we have “MI:3” which was sprung early into the box office summer sweepstakes so that it has a chance to make money before movies like “The Da Vinci Code” and “X-Men: The Last Stand” have a chance to get going. At least Paramount, the studio that always releases these movies, seems to know exactly what they’re dealing with.

But all of this is just market strategy. The real question is this: is “MI:3” any good? It may seem irrelevant from a monetary standpoint, but some of us are still concerned with the quality of our big, dumb explosion-filled summer zombie entertainment. Well, I am anyway…most of the time. And the answer to that question is: yeah. “MI:3” is pretty good. But if you haven’t seen the other Impossibles, there’s no real reason to care about this one either.

However, if you’re at all curious, this is a good place to start. Those who haven’t seen the other two have no continuing plotlines to understand or character motivations to get caught up on. The good(?) thing about these movies is that they seem to exist in a vacuum. They don’t really connect up. Aside from the presence of Tom Cruise and Ving Rhames (apparently the turnover rate in the spy industry is even worse than fast food and retail) none of the characters carry over. Nothing from one movie carries over into any of the others. Nothing transfers. They may as well have completely different titles.

As the film begins, Tom’s character (Ethan Hunt) is retiring from the spy game. He still trains new agents for the IMF (it stands for exactly what you think) but he gets to go home to his fiancée (Michelle Monaghan) at the end of the day. Unfortunately (as in all of these movies) this situation is not meant to last. Trouble is brewing in Germany. One of his protégés (Keri Russell, looking foxier than ever) has been captured by an odious arms dealer named Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Because he likes the girl, in a non-romantic, sensei/kohai sort of way, Hunt agrees to head the team that goes to Germany and tries to save her. Their efforts are intense but ultimately futile since Davian has implanted a small explosive in her brain and sets it off just when it would suck the most. This understandably pisses Tom/Ethan off, so he helps the IMF hunt Davian down, keeping the operation off the books just in case someone would object (their superior, Laurence Fishburne, really ripped into them over Keri Russell’s death). They capture Davian in an elaborate sting at the Vatican but before they can get any information out of him or have him brought to justice, he is rescued in a sequence that reminded me both of “True Lies” and “License to Kill” (an excellent Bond film from the unfairly maligned Timothy Dalton era). Soon, Davian has turned the tables on our hero, kidnapping his girlfriend and holding her hostage until Ethan acquires something known as The Rabbit’s Foot for him.

This is all rather routine, really. If you’ve seen a spy movie before, nothing here is going to stun you. But the film rises above most spy films because of its excellent command of suspense. Even when I knew what was coming, I was on the edge of my seat during this film. The action sequences are staged with flair and heart-pounding immediacy. The movie even avoids the tired, erratic, “You are there” style of filmmaking that marred the last Bourne film…until the two-thirds mark. The actors all invest their roles with enough emotion that we care what happens to them, which is all that is necessary in a film like this. Cruise is particularly good. He’s so good you manage to forget his couch jumping antics for the entire movie. And he gets solid support from Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, Laurence Fishburne and Jonathan Rhys Meyers. But the real reason to watch this movie is Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman gives one of his finest performances here, and I’m not even kidding. I was more impressed by his performance here than in the overrated “Capote” of last winter. He’s a classic bad guy. He doesn’t go overboard with this character either. He plays Davian with a naturalism that is chilling. How chilling? Well, let me put it this way: it’s easy for a villain to be intimidating when he’s got the good guy tied to a chair, but Davian is even intimidating when the hero has HIM tied to a chair! He’s always one step ahead of our hero, he oozes a sort of evil charisma, and he kills without compunction and without even making a big deal out of it. He’s simply bad news all around, and Hoffman is better at this than anyone in recent memory.

Hoffman is better than the rest of the film, really. Aside from him, this stuff is good, potent even, but the movie pretty much goes in one eye and out the other. It’s not as unique as the “Bourne” films. It uses great suspense, visual flash and chronological trickery to hide a fairly routine plot and standard issue characters. Plus, as in most of these films, there is a mole within the spy agency. After five seasons of “24” and countless spy movies, this particular plot point should probably be retired. It’s not even shocking anymore.

Also, Michelle Monaghan and Tom share zero chemistry, something that really sabotages the plot of the film. If we don’t buy that Tom and Michelle really love each other, how are we supposed to buy all the stuff he’s doing to save her? He shares more chemistry with Russell’s character early on than he does with Monaghan. In fact, that would have been an interesting angle for the film to explore. Say Cruise was tired of field work and wanted to settle down with a nice girl (like the current plot) and yet he finds himself irresistibly attracted to Keri Russell, a great fighter young enough to actively enjoy and long for work in the spy field. This, of course, creates friction between them. Tom could explain why he can’t act on his love for her, why it will never work out…and then great drawn into the field to save her when a mission goes wrong. Then, of course, she gets killed and Tom gets pissed and then it would basically turn into a spy Mel Gibson movie. Now there is a film I’d like to see. There is a plot that doesn’t adhere to all the usual conventions. It’s not Shakespeare, but at least it isn’t by the numbers. It’d be a lot more interesting than Tom’s bland love affair with Michelle Monaghan, who looks a little too much like Katie Holmes for comfort. None of this is Tom’s fault. Tom tries to make us believe he loves Michelle in this movie, but for some reason they never quite click.

I don’t know, maybe he should have jumped on a couch or something.

2006 / 132 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

One man’s revolutionary is another man’s terrorist. In and of itself, that idea makes “V for Vendetta” quite possibly the ballsiest and boldest big budget Hollywood film in more than a decade.

But there are other reasons that “V” is so potent. For one thing, it takes George Orwell’s “1984” future (and, more extensively, the Thatcherian nightmare that was Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s 1980’s graphic novel) and adds elements of the current Bush administration to it. It steals elements from other bits of popular and classic fiction, but the way it seamlessly references modern problems and developments to use as the “history” of its particular future are very unnerving. For example: the problems in this film’s futuristic version of Britain spawned almost directly from a big, messy war started by America. The Wachowski brothers (who scripted this movie) clearly have important business on their minds, and they’re not about to let anyone off the hook by removing their world too far from our own reality.

Another bold move: making a film this big and this expensive about a masked terrorist intent on blowing up buildings and killing government officials. This was a bold enough move back when Alan Moore and David Lloyd wrote the graphic novel. But in this post-9/11 atmosphere, the film hits like a slap to the face. It’s as much a wake-up call as Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”, and it’s a lot more entertaining.

“V”, the mysterious lead character voiced and probably performed by Hugo Weaving, has had his life and body destroyed by the fascist regime that controls this future Britain. He’s mad as hell and he wants everyone else to be the same way. Not only that, but he has nothing left to lose so he really doesn’t care anymore. He’s willing to do things that no one else has the balls to do and he’s willing to expose uncomfortable truths in a manner that is alternately bold and subtle. Hugo essays a surprising range of emotion here with just his voice and mannerisms. He’s a great and wickedly subversive presence. It’s a nice reminder of his fine work in the original “Matrix” before his character became a joke in the sequels.

But he’s not alone here. Every actor in this ensemble delivers fine work. Stephen Rea is excellent as the man investigating V’s crimes. He’s a cop with a conscience and a haunted past we are never told about. We don’t need flashbacks to know that Rea’s character has had a rough life. It’s all there in his eyes and his mannerisms. I also love Stephen Fry’s great performance as a much more subtle revolutionary than V. He invests his role with quiet dignity and genuine heart. There’s a mischievous twinkle in his eye that puts you on his side almost immediately. On the other side of the coin, John Hurt is at his most intimidating and malicious. He looms over every frame of the film and inspires the dread necessary for the viewer to appreciate this desperate and desolate situation. He’s not very pleasant, but he’s definitely necessary.

But the best performance in this film belongs to Natalie Portman. Watching her here, I have decided once and for all that she is the best actress working in film today. She’s so natural with what she does. She can take a thankless role in a film like this or one of the “Star Wars” prequels and invest it with quiet humanity. She is the emotional core of this film. She is the “ordinary” person who V takes under his wing. She undergoes the most emotional journey of anyone in this film and she sells the emotion in a mesmerizing fashion. Near the end of the film, there is a lengthy sequence where she is imprisoned and tortured and everything she has ever believed, every opinion she has is challenged and then shattered. I can’t think of an actress beside Portman who could sell this sequence as effortlessly and powerfully as she does. She is simply astonishing here and when she finally breaks down, when these emotions finally reach their crest and break upon you, you will sincerely feel her pain. Had this film been released last year, and had the Academy chosen to view it, Reese Witherspoon’s mantel would be a pretty empty place. She’s our window into the world of this film. She’s the heart and soul of this movie. And she will break your heart and make you care.

Then again, it helps that the film has such a strong, clever plot to work with. The Wachowskis were wise not to mess too much with Alan Moore’s source material. Aside from updating it to more greatly reflect the times in which we are living (there’s even a reference or two to bird flu) and making V’s revolution more widespread, they haven’t changed much except to make it fit within the standard film running time. The direction, by first-timer James McTeague, is solid and assured. The color pallet and look of the film is perhaps a bit too sleek (the panels of the comic were a bit grittier) and polished, but that can also work in context. After all, the government in this film has gone to great trouble to remove anything it labels “dirty” and “subversive” so the film’s sleek and polished look might be a good reflection of that.

There are a few moments of the film that sort of drag, and one of V’s speeches toward the beginning of the film felt just a little silly to me. But, for the most part, this is bold, emotional, witty, intense and haunting filmmaking. It argues for the power of revolution and the necessity of it and the importance of remembering such virtues. It’s filled with gutsy, powerful ideas. But they’re ideas that should never be forgotten.

1991 / 143 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

There are certain things that are weird to think about, in retrospect, things you can’t believe actually happened. If you think back on the way the world was in the early 90’s, then you’ll have a sense of what I’m talking about. In the early 90’s, the world was a completely different place. I’m not just talking about the whole “nobody outside a high school computer class actually had a computer” thing or the explosion of grunge music thing or the smoking on airplanes business. No, no. The two weirdest things to remember about the early 90’s are these: Guns and Roses was the biggest band on Earth and Kevin Costner was the biggest movie star in the universe. We’ve come a long way in the past sixteen or fifteen years.

Now, far as the Guns and Roses thing goes, I’d say we’ve made some tremendous cultural progress. Sure, Slash plays a mean guitar and their songs are actually pretty good when you get past Axl Rose’s voice…but getting past Axl’s voice is a tall order. I’ve never strangled a cat. I’ve never talked to anyone that has. But the sound it makes cannot be any worse than the sound made by Axl Rose’s vocal cords. It’s almost like the rest of Guns and Roses were TOO good. It was like “Welcome to the Jungle” and “Sweet Child of Mine” were sonic lightyears ahead of anything that any other band could do so a Hard Rock Committee forced them to take the world’s least listenable person as their lead singer. Guns and Roses didn’t want Axl on board. But the alternative was Death. Otherwise, the entire Hard Rock genre might have collapsed in on itself, and we all kno