The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring ****
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (books), Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens and Peter Jackson (screenplay)
Starring: Elijah Wood, Sir Ian McKellen, Sean Bean, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan, Orlando Bloom, John Rhys-Davies, Ian Holm, Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett
Rated Pg-13 (intense battle scenes, and the fact that the filmmakers were faithful to the book)

Ross: “Hello? Didn’t you read The Lord of The Rings in high school?”
Joey: “I had (girlfriends) in high school.” – Friends

Wow. Wowie. Wowwowwowwowwow!

Hmmm... That’s not much of a review, is it? I should probably give some details and whatnot about what I thought of the film and why. And, I will.

If you’ve not heard of The Lord of The Rings, you’re probably not a geek. The classic epic is responsible for the world today. Wizards and dragons and elves and dwarves... these are all playable characters in the Dungeons and Dragons role-playing game, played by geeks the world over. Geeks who also read The Lord of The Rings, and went on to form software and hardware companies and became very, very rich. If it weren't for the books and the RPGs, you wouldn’t be reading this review on your computer. I’m exaggerating, of course, but the books have had a massive impact on literature and popular culture. If it weren’t for LotR, we wouldn’t have Harry Potter. It’s that simple. Led Zeppelin would have had fewer things to write songs about, and I’m guessing that the crown wouldn’t rest heavy on Conan the Barbarian’s brow, which would mean that we would be a world without Arnold Schwarzenegger. The series is that big.

If you are unfamiliar with the story, here’s a summary. Long ago, magic rings were forged and distributed to the races of the world: three went to the elves, seven went to the dwarves, nine for humans and one for the Dark Lord Sauron. The One Ring was the most powerful, and, naturally, evil. After a massive assault by the races of Middle-Earth on Mordor, where Sauron ruled, the One Ring was lost. Eventually, it fell into the hands of Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit. Bilbo (Holm) passed the one ring to his nephew, Frodo (Wood). Now, the battle in which Sauron lost the Ring did not kill Sauron – he’s just been biding his time and regaining his strength, and wants the Ring back. The only way to stop Sauron from getting the Ring and taking over Middle-Earth is to destroy the Ring. The only place that this can be done is in the Cracks of Doom – Sauron’s basement. Hobbits are small and not very tough. Clearly, if Frodo is to destroy the Ring, he’s going to need help. Gandalf the Grey (McKellen), Frodo’s hobbit friends Sam (Astin), Merry (Monaghan), and Pippin (Boyd), the elf Legolas (Bloom), the men Strider (Mortensen) and Boromir (Bean) and the dwarf Gimli (Rhys-Davies) form the Fellowship of the Ring. 3...2...1... begin adventure NOW!

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Lord of The Rings is an epic, widely regarded as a classic of 20th Century Literature, and has been studied even more thoroughly than the Star Trek universe. You can buy evlish dictionaries, runic dictionaries, and chronologies and histories of Middle-Earth. Fans of Tolkien’s universe range from people who have heard of hobbits to people who speak high- and low- Elvish with equal fluency. If Jackson and company screw up, then they have lost their primary fan base with this series. Fortunately, they didn’t screw up. In fact, they did everything but screw up.

As always happens when adapting books for cinema, things get left out, things get changed and things get moved around. I only noticed one adventure that was left out and one scene that was altered. These abridgements were minor and didn’t take away from the story in any way.

One distinct advantage that cinema has over books is that movies don’t have miles and miles of exposition. Do a cut, show some things, bang – story told in 20 seconds, rather than five pages. Jackson gets a +2 bonus to adaptation from literature.

Honestly, I could not find anything to dislike about LotR. Not a one. Some purists may complain about Arwen (Tyler) being given a bigger role – to them I say “Shut up. Liv Tyler is wonderful to look at, and, besides, you’re not the only audience. There are people out there who haven’t read the books, and some who haven’t even heard of them.”

Gladiator may have re-introduced the old-style Hollywood epic to cinema, but LotR shows how it’s supposed to be done. Old Hollywood epics, like Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments and Spartacus were big stories that demanded big visuals. LotR delivers. Epics demand big special effects. Present and accounted for. Epics demand clear direction and acting. Again, it has it all.

Peter Jackson is the Kiwi version of Sam Raimi. Both started out in indie/cult cinema (Raimi with the Evil Dead series, Jackson with Dead Alive and Meet the Feebles). Both made a sudden leap into ‘legitimate’ cinema (Raimi with the fantastic A Simple Plan, Jackson with Heavenly Creatures) And now, both are directing all-but-guaranteed blockbusters (Raimi with next summer’s Spider-Man, Jackson with the LotR trilogy). Using a relative unknown to helm an adaptation of a classic is actually a good thing. A big-time director would be too tempted to put ‘trademarks’ into the film. Jackson is very much a part of a new ‘school’ of cinema. Naturally, when cinema first began as an art form, many directors were self-taught. They then passed this knowledge on to underlings, who carried on the traditions. Then true film schools were founded, etc., etc. In the 1970s, two new ‘schools’ of cinema arose – the film school student who loves movies, typified by Spielberg and Lucas, and the directors who learned how to make movies by making movies, typified by Scorsese and John Sayles (who both learned from B-Movie King Roger Corman). Beginning in the 1980s, yet another ‘school’ began to emerge – kids with cameras. These kids grew up to become Sam Raimi and the Coen (Fargo, O, Brother, Where Art Thou?, Raising Arizona) Brothers. Even though Jackson was half a world away from the kids with cameras ‘school’, he belongs with them. By making self-produced-written-acted-filmed-edited-everything-involved-with-the-film-films, the kids with camera school learned how to tell a story without wasting anything. This sort of economy is what an epic needs.

The acting is also very good. The casting was perfect. No one but McKellen could play Gandalf. While other actors could probably play Frodo, Wood has the right degree of ‘innocence’ needed for the character. Plus, there’s nothing like a fantasy film or a Star Wars movie for giving character actors and little people work.

This is a film that deserves to be seen. Don’t let the three-hour running time put you off. There isn’t a slow part in the film. It didn’t drag once. Besides, Titanic was over three hours, and you saw that, didn’t you? The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring is actually shorter, and it’s much better. Plus, there are two sequels!

---

As a bonus, if you'd like to know more about The Lord of The Rings, one of the better sites is The One Ring.net. Of course, you could always read the books.

Not Another Teen Movie **1/2
Directed by: Joel Gallen
Written by: Michael G. Bender, Adam Jay Epstein, Andrew Jacobson, Phil Beauman and Buddy Johnson
Starring: Chyler Leigh, Jamie Pressley, Deon Richmond, Eric Jungman, Lacey Chabert, Chris Evans, Paul Gleason, Sam Huntington, Ron Lester, Cody McMains, Riley Smith, Randy Quaid, Chris Evans and some cameos
Rated R (nudity, teen-oriented comedy)

Don’t let the title fool you – Not Another Teen Movie is just that: another teen movie. The cast is photogenic, everything is predictable, there’s gratuitous nudity, and it all works out in the end.

If you’ve seen any of the ‘teen’ movies EVER made, you already know what Not Another Teen Movie is about. Take bits and pieces from (in no particular order) She’s All That, Cruel Intentions, Grease, any movie directed by John Hughes, American Pie, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Lucas, Rudy, any of the sports movies that didn’t star Denzel Washington or Gene Hackman, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Clueless, Bring It On, Can’t Hardly Wait, Pretty in Pink, American Beauty and Better Off Dead. Now that you’ve got those, and probably some that I forgot to mention, watch Airplane!, The Naked Gun, Kentucky Fried Movie, and Hot Shots!, and Dumb and Dumber, and then you have Not Another Teen Movie.

You already know the cast – they’re all stock characters. The Popular Jock (Smith), The Pretty Ugly Girl (Leigh), The Nasty Cheerleader (Pressley), The Beautiful Weirdo (Smith), The Obsessed Best Friend (Jungman), The Desperate Virgin (Evans)... just look at the movie poster. It has everything you need to know right there. You already know what’s going to happen, because it is, despite the title, another teen movie. The only difference between this and I Can’t Hardly Wait to Bring It to the Clueless Ridgemont High Breakfast Club is that the jokes in this movie are intentional.

Some of the jokes are clever. The school’s name is John Hughes High. The cafeteria is the Anthony Michael Dining Hall. Some of the jokes are laugh-out-loud funny. Some of the jokes are big-old gross-outs. And that's fine. Unfortunately, it’s all been done before, and better.

What was right with the flick? The soundtrack, first of all. Nearly all of the classic ‘themes’ are represented: “Don’t You Forget About Me”, “Oh, Yeah”, “Bizarre Love Triangle” – they’re all there, but they’re covered by bands like Orgy, Goldfinger and Face To Face.. The covers are good, but originals would have been better. The cast was also good. Mostly no-names, but no-names with some measure of comic timing and/or physical comedy skills.

What was bad? Some of the movies that were being parodied were wrong choices. Grease? Absolutely. She’s All That? More power to you. The Breakfast Club? Why? Better Off Dead? Wasn’t that a spoof in the first place?

Most of the time, Not Another Teen Movie is just awfully pleased with its own cleverness. Part of it seems like an homage to Jim Abrams, Jerry Zucker and David Zucker (the men behind Airplane! and The Naked Gun) put together by high school kids. The writers know what’s funny, but don’t know why a joke is funny, which is critical for a spoof. Airplane! worked because it was acted seriously. The actors behaved like they were in a disaster movie. When Leslie Neilson says “Don’t call me Shirley,” he’s not playing it for laughs, and that’s why the joke is funny, apart from the pun. When this flick is spoofing teen ‘dramas’, it works just fine. When it’s adding it’s own absurd jokes, it’s funny. When it’s trying to spoof a comedy, well, that’s just asking for trouble.

If you’re looking for an homage to a filmmaker, check out Mallrats (Kevin Smith’s tribute to John Hughes) or The People Under The Stairs (Wes Craven’s love letter to Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead series). If you’re looking for a Cameron (Fast Times at Ridgemont High) Crowe fix, Vanilla Sky opens this week. If you really want to see a spoof, anything involving the Zucker Brothers is good (except for Ghost, which isn’t meant to be a comedy). If you want to have some cheap laughs, some occasionally clever pop-culture references and sight-gags, and some brief nudity, then Not Another Teen Movie is probably right up your alley.

Ocean’s 11 *** ½
Directed by: Steven Soderburgh
Written by: George Clayton Russel and Jack Golden Russel (1960 story); Harry Brown and Charles Lederer (1960 screenplay); Ted Griffin (Screenplay)
Starring: George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Bernie Mac, Matt Damon, Scott Caan, Casey Affleck, Carl Reiner, Andy Garcia, Shaobo Qin, Don Cheadle, Edward Jemison, Elliot Gould and Julia Roberts.
Rated PG-13 (language, some violence. Oh, and the fact that it’s about one cool robbery)

“If it’s a remake of a classic, rent the classic!” – Jay “The Critic” Sherman.

OK, confession time. I’ve never seen the original Ocean’s 11. This probably makes me a bad person, and makes your trust in my ability as a movie reviewer very, very shaky. The original is, from what I’m told, a classic. It had the Rat Pack. Frank, Deano, Sammy. It defined cool. Cool didn’t even exist until the original came out. Oh, people thought that they knew what cool was, but they were living lies. Lame lies. Square lies.

Now, I’ve never seen the original. But, I liked the current version. Given the fact that the original is ALWAYS better than the remake, I can only assume that the original might even make me cool. Might.

Synopsis time. Danny Ocean (Clooney) just got out of prison for a con he pulled 6 years ago. He’s had a lot of time to think. Lots. And, he’s come up with a plan. A big plan. A cool plan. A crazy plan, man. He’s going to rob three casinos in Las Vegas on the same night. But, to do this, he needs to get a team together. A cool team. A crazy team, man. Not unlike Jake and Elwood Blues, he has to get the band back together. First up: Frank Catton (Mac). He’s the inside man. Next: Rusty Ryan (Pitt), a co-conspirator. Now: how to make this plan work. They’ll need money. That’s where Reuben Tishkoff (Gould) comes in. He’s a former casino owner, and, it just so happens that the three casinos Clooney & Company plan to rob belong to Terry Benedict (Garcia), the man who bought Reuben out. Reuben doesn’t like him, and gladly agrees. They’ll also need drivers and ‘utility men’ (my term). Enter Turk (Caan) and Virgil (Affleck) Malloy, a couple of bored citizens of Utah. Then we need some techies. Livingston Dell (Jemison) is a hacker and Basher Tarr (Cheadle) is a demolitions expert. They need a ‘grease man’ (the movie’s term) – someone who can get in and out of tight places easily. Enter Yen (Qin), a Chinese acrobat. Another inside man wouldn’t be bad, so why not get Saul Bloom (Reiner) – he’s got plenty of experience. And, someone with quick hands and an ability to tail people. That would be Linus Caldwell (Damon). Throw in a femme fatale named Tess Ocean (Roberts), make sure that she’s the ex-wife of Danny Ocean, and man alive, it looks like we have us one heck of a movie! Stuff is gonna get robbed, stuff is gonna blow up, there may be plot holes that we don’t care about, and, by golly, we’re gonna have fun!

I’m actually kind of glad that I went into Ocean’s 11 with a blank slate. Cinematic purist that I am, I was able to enjoy the movie without comparing it to the original. I can only hope that this remake is able to stand on its own merits, rather than suffer constant comparisons to the original. Much like The Shining or Fight Club – the books were excellent, and the movies based upon them were different, yet still excellent. You don’t say, “That’s not the way it happened!” when watching the movie versions. The books and the movies are two separate, yet equally rewarding experiences. Hopefully, this will be the same with the two Ocean’s 11.

What did I like about Ocean’s 11: 2001? Plenty. I like George Clooney. Especially when he’s playing George Clooney. He’s a handsome man, he looks like a classic leading man, but he doesn’t have a whole lot of range. And that’s just fine with me, frankly. Brad Pitt does a George Clooney impersonation throughout the movie, and, that’s cool too, man. Andy Garcia isn’t a ‘bad guy’ in the movie, but, he’s a jerk, because he doesn’t like Danny Ocean. Julia Roberts plays Supporting Actress Julia Roberts, rather than Melodramatic Romantic Comedy Julia Roberts, and looks good doing it. She’s not strictly eye candy, but she’s not a major player in this flick. I’m not going to do a run-down of each and every character in the flick. That would be boring for you. Just know that I didn’t see a single bad performance.

Cinematically, I loved it. Soderburgh seemed to blend ‘60s cinematography (French New Wave zooms, Kubrick-esque tracking shots and angles,) with a... ummm... It’s too early to say 21st Century style, so I’ll just call it a television sensibility. He knows when a shot should linger, he knows when to use a quick-cut, and he knows when to do a montage. The style never overshadows the story or the characters.

What didn’t I like about this movie? Well, not much. Personally, I think that classics should be left alone, so I guess I didn’t like the fact that this was a remake. I would have liked to have seen more of the planning of the heist, but that probably would have gone against the almost ‘innocent’ tone of the movie.

If you haven’t seen the original, by all means go and see this version. But only if you promise to see the 1960 version. If you have seen the original, use your own best judgement.

Behind Enemy Lines ***
Directed by: John Moore
Written by: Jim Thomas and John Thomas (story); David Veloz and Zak Penn (Screenplay)
Starring: Gene Hackman, Owen Wilson, Joaquim de Almeida and a bunch of Eastern Europeans
Rated PG-13 (I’d be ashamed to see a war movie that was rated below PG-13. If you don’t know what to expect in a war movie, you really shouldn’t be seeing this one.)

Bravo niner delta, what’s your vector, Victor?

You’ll hear lots of dialogue like that in Behind Enemy Lines. Military code talk is one of the coolest things ever. Vector, copy, come back, affirmative, negative, no-go, R(ally)P(oint)... That stuff is just plain COOL.

Back to the movie review. So – you’re making a war movie with airplanes. Let’s make sure you have everything you need. Stock footage? Check. Lieutenant with a ‘bad boy’ attitude? Check. Stuff blowing up? Check. Politically ambiguous military situation? Che – what? That doesn’t make sense. I mean, we’re America... (Don’t worry – We’re the good guys. It’s all the rest that’s ambiguous.)

See, Behind Enemy Lines is set in Bosnia during the ‘last’ days of the civil war in Serbia/Yugoslavia/Bosnia-Herzegovina. Chris Burnett (Wilson) is stationed on an aircraft carrier in the Adriatic Sea. The ship is commanded by Admiral Leslie Reigart (Hackman), who in turn is under the command of NATO, represented by Admiral Piquet (de Almeida). Now, Burnett is a bit of a maverick. Not like the Tom Cruise type – Burnett is tired of being in the Navy. He signed on to be a fighter pilot, not a sitting around on the ship pilot. In fact, he’s handed in his resignation papers. Of course, you can’t just leave in the middle of a mission. When the ship returns to port, Burnett is done. Reigart doesn’t really care for Burnett – he used to have potential, but now he’s just dead weight. So, in a bit of vindictiveness, Reigart assigns Burnett (a navigator) and his pilot, Stackhouse (Gabriel Macht), on a recon mission on Christmas. The recon? A lake. Lovely. But, radar picks up some activity. Activity OFF OF THE ASSIGNED COURSE. Now, we’ve established that Burnett is a maverick, so, naturally they do recon over there. They take pictures of mass graves. Then, they get shot down. BEHIND ENEMY LINES. This is not good. See, NATO planes were not supposed to be making fly-bys in that area. A peace treaty has just been signed, and things could fall apart at any moment. So, Reigart has a choice to make – does he risk the lives of thousands of people to get one man? Does he ensure peace and leave a man behind? We all know the answer to that.

Behind Enemy Lines is slick. It is very, very slick. Teflon. It looks like a video game. A really cool video game. Shifty frame-rates, cool filters, Matrix-style special effects, Saving Private Ryan-camera-effects, it looks way cool. It’s not universally realistic, but, stylistically it works very well.

The acting is also good. No one is going to win any acting awards in this picture, but, no one stinks. If you don’t know who Gene Hackman is, turn off your computer right now. You have some serious catching up to do. If you don’t know who Owen Wilson is, start paying attention. This guy is good. Very, very good. You may have seen him in Zoolander (he was the blonde model). You may have seen him in Shanghai Noon with Jackie Chan. You may have seen an underrated comedy called Rushmore – he co-wrote that. He’s just beginning to get recognition, and he deserves it. While I think he’s better in comedies, he’s no slouch as a leading-man-action-hero. Joaquim de Almeida doesn’t stand out, but you’ve seen him before. (He played Bucho (the bad guy) in Desperado.) And he's good.

So, that leaves us with the story. It must be tough to make a war movie now. WWII was easy – the bad guys were easy to spot. But, to make a movie based on any war post-1970 must be tricky. Things like finding ‘bad guys’ aren’t easy anymore. Even in something like the Gulf War. To paraphrase Mark Wahlberg from Three Kings: “I forget... Are we shooting people anymore?” The Balkan conflict was really, really tricky. First of all, there were three sides. Secondly, there was a huge history of racial strife in the area. Thirdly, NATO stepped in to prevent the war from spreading into Macedonia, which would have brought Greece (a NATO member) and Turkey (another NATO member) into the war against each other. Fourthly, keeping all the factions straight was very, very hard unless you studied political science. Behind Enemy Lines doesn’t get too bogged down in the details, which is good. Nor does it name real names. Slobodan Milosovic is not mentioned, but he is implied. The story is about an American airman in the middle of the conflict, but it’s not based on the story of Lt. Scott O’Grady.

What we have here is a slick, mostly non-political (there are some references to landmines being bad for children and other living things) war movie. It’s not perfectly paced, but it’s close. The cinematography is really, really cool. The sound design is good, too. And stuff blows up.

Spy Game ***
Directed by: Tony Scott
Written by: Michael Frost Beckner (story and screenplay) and David Arata (screenplay)
Starring: Robert Redford, Brad Pitt, Catherine McCormack, Stephen Dillane
Rated R (violence, some language, bad situations all around)

“What wicked webs we weave when we practice to deceive.” – A Quotation by something Shakespeare wrote that seems to make a good intro to a movie about espionage.

Spy Game is... well, just look at the title. It’s not a Merchant-Ivory costume drama. It’s a movie about spies. Actually, it’s a movie about when spies had to stop acting like spies in the early 1990s.

The year is 1991. The Berlin Wall is down. The first George Bush is President. And something not exactly nice is going on with the spooks at the CIA. Nathan Muir (Redford) is an agent, and is retiring. Today. He’s awakened by a phone call from the American Embassy in Hong Kong. One of Muir’s proteges has gotten into a bit of a mess in China. Seems that Tom Bishop (Pitt) was trying to pull a rescue operation in a Chinese prison, and things went poorly. This couldn’t have come at a worse time, as the President is just about to head to China to secure a trade agreement. The head spooks, led by Charles Harker (Dillane), want to know what Muir knows about Bishop. Muir wants to know what exactly is going on, and why the CIA hasn’t just pulled an extraction. 3...2...1... make plot twist go NOW!

Spy movies are convoluted, and they should be. Spy Game isn’t in the James Bond mode of spy films. It’s more of a Tom Clancy type story. More believable, but with fewer dangerously hot bad girls and explosions.

Spy Game is drenched in cinematic style. You’re always aware that you are watching a movie. But, that’s one of Tony Scott’s (brother of Ridley Scott) strong points. He also made Top Gun and Crimson Tide. He makes slick, commercial films. Sort of like a better version of Michael Bay. Surprisingly, the quick-cut style, wacky filters, and shifts of frame-rate work well in this flick. It looks good, it sounds good, and, feels good for ¾ of the movie.

Why only ¾? It’s not because of Tony Scott, or any of the actors. Redford plays a company man who knows when and how to cross the line, and does it well. Brad Pitt is Robert Redford if Redford had chosen to be a character actor instead of a leading man. Stephen Dillane is good at being slimy. So, it comes down to the story, then, doesn’t it?

And, the story is good, up until the end. Most of the movie is done in flashback, with Muir explaining his history with Bishop – from Vietnam, to Berlin, to Lebanon. Any one of these stories on its own would have made a pretty good movie on its own. Actually, Spy Game almost feels like a series of short films. The bits that happen in the film’s “present” are good, too. Up until the end. With the sort of build-up presented, you expect a bigger ending than what you get. The ending is (mostly) plausible, but, it needed something more. Explosions, or a shoot-out, or a fight, or something. It just didn’t feel right. It plays something like the espionage version of The Usual Suspects, only without Keyser Soze. Apart from that quibble, it’s certainly watchable, and, probably should be seen more than once, just to get all the details. I think I may have missed some, due to some technical problems that were fixed quite easily, but, they happened during the second reel when most of the exposition was going on. So, my suspension-of-disbelief was suspended, and the rest of my understanding suffered because of it.

Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone ***
Directed by: Chris Columbus
Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel), Steven Kloves
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris and Alan Rickman
Rated PG (some gore, some intense scenes, no language)

Quidditch is the Best. Game. Ever.

So, I saw Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone. Sorry. I couldn’t think of a better intro than that. I’m trying to avoid things that have been said and will be said. Things like: “If you haven’t heard of Harry Potter...” and “Pottermania is sweeping the nation...” I saw Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone. Regardless of anything anyone writes or says about the movie, it will be a huge hit. Fortunately, it’s a good flick.

Now, the movie assumes that the audience will know pretty much everything about Harry and his friends. So, much of the film feels like Harry Potter and The Abridgement of The Sorcerer’s Stone. More on that later.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Potter mythos, here’s the setup. Harry (Radcliffe) is a wizard. But, he doesn’t know it. His parents were killed when he was a baby, and he was left on the doorstep of his closest relatives, the Dursley’s. Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths) and Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) are muggles. (That’s wizardese for non-magic users.) And they hate anything that is out of the ordinary, including Harry. Harry sleeps in the closet under the stairs, and is tormented by his cousin, Dudley (Harry Melling). This has gone on for 11 years. One day, a letter arrives for Harry from the Hogwarts Academy for Wizards. This is not welcome in the Dursley house, you can bet that. Uncle Vernon wants nothing to do with these stinking letters, and, after much ado, he moves the family out to a house on an island where no one can deliver the mail. That, however, doesn’t stop Rubeus Hagrid (Coltrane) from finding Harry, and taking him to Hogwarts, after stopping in Diagon Alley to pick up his school supplies. Everyone, it seems, knows Harry, and the legend surrounding him. He was the only survivor of the attack that killed his parents. Harry, just 1 year old, seems to have beaten the greatest threat that the world of magic has ever faced – the dread Lord Voldemort, or He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Harry has lots to learn about wizards, witches, and the world he now lives in. Fortunately, he has help from his friends Ron Weasley (Grint), Hermione Granger (Watson), Hagrid, and Headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Harris). Unfortunately, he also has to put up with Professor Serverus Snape (Rickman), Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) and his gang, and staying out of the trouble that young wizards and witches tend to get into.

For those of you familiar with the Potter stories, here’s a good place to resume reading.

Overall, the movie was very good. However, as I said, parts of it felt like an abridgement. “Well, duh,” you’re probably thinking. “They couldn’t put EVERYTHING in.” And, I agree. But, the things that were cut out were the things that I really liked about the book. Harry’s relationship with the Dursley’s, for instance. There is some very, very funny stuff to be found there. It also seemed like they made Harry “nicer” in the movie. He’s not a jerk by any stretch of the imagination. But, he gets into less trouble in the movie... OK, I have to stop this right now. I’m not trying to compare the book and the movie, I’m here to tell you about the movie...

I think I can continue now.

What was good about Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone? Many, many things. The casting was dead-on. Especially with the non-Harry characters. Emma Watson is perfect as Hermione Granger. Rupert Grint was also a great choice for Ron Weasley. Draco Malfoy and his gang are also played very well by those actors. And the actors (yes, actors) who played Harry Potter did fine jobs. Two people played Harry, because Radcliffe’s voice changed during the filming. So, in some scenes (I think I spotted one), Harry’s voice is done by Joe Sowerbutts. I understand that Sowerbutts also plays the voice of Harry in various other media.

The special effects were also quite good. Mostly. The mixing of real and computer-generated backgrounds and animations is good for the most part, but not universally. Some of the CGI characters were outstanding – Hagrid’s dragon Norbert and Fluffy, the 3-headed dog, come to mind as great examples. The Quidditch match between Gryffindor and Slytherin is lots of fun to watch, but not quite up to par with the previous ‘cool’ CGI sequence – the pod race in The Phantom Menace. Of course, since Industrial Light and Magic did the special effects for Harry Potter, it’s understandable, since ILM is working on another movie you may have heard of. Star Wars Episode II – Attack of the Clones. But, hey, the special effects do their job, and I’m not gonna complain. Sometimes it’s apparent that the people are acting in front of a green screen, but, for the target audience, they’ll be mind-blowing. Probably the best effect in the movie is Hagrid. I don’t know if they used CGI trickery, or prosthetic limbs, but Robbie Coltrane sure does look at least 8 feet tall. That’s certainly bigger than should be allowed. (The previous sentence used to prove that I am not a muggle.)

Go and see this movie. If for no other reason than you’ll be able to understand what kids these days are talking about. If you already know, you won’t be disappointed in the adaptation. If you don’t know, well, you’re in for a treat. And several more movies in the franchise.

One more thing: I saw the new Star Wars trailer. And, again, I'm not saying a word. There's also a hilarious Monsters, Inc. trailer.

Shallow Hal ***
Directed by: Bobby and Peter Farrelly
Written by: Sean Moynihan, Peter Farrelly and Bobby Farrelly
Starring: Jack Black, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jason Alexander, Tony Robbins, and Kyle Gass
Rated PG-13 (language, adult situations, brief nudity)

Subtle is not a word one usually thinks of when you see the phrase ‘from the directors of Dumb and Dumber and There’s Something About Mary...’ or when you see that the two members of Tenacious D are starring in a movie by the Farrelly brothers. Oddly enough, it’s the only word I can think of to describe the humor in Shallow Hal. That just makes me feel all weird inside.

Here’s the spoiler-free synopsis of the movie... Hal (Black) and Mauricio (Alexander) are best friends, and both of them are unlucky in love. Mauricio is very, very neurotic. (Then again, this is they guy who played George in Seinfeld. Ever hear of that show?). Crazy neurotic. He’s trying to ditch his latest girlfriend because her ‘index’ toe is longer than her big toe. Hal aims far, far too high. “That Britney Spears girl is good, but she’s too muscular.” He’s completely fixated on how a woman looks. This doesn’t apply to his male friends, however. Mauricio has a very bad toupee, and another of his friends, Walt (Rene Kirby)... I won’t ruin that surprise. So, Hal has earned a shallow reputation, hence the title of the movie. Everything changes when his perceptions are altered by self-help guru Tony Robbins (played by Tony Robbins). Hal is now able to see inner beauty, which leads him to Rosemary (Paltrow). Rosemary is gorgeous, at least in Hal’s eyes. For the rest of the world, however, it’s a different story.

How is any of this subtle? You’ll just have to trust me on this. Don’t go into Shallow Hal expecting the sort of gross-out gags that the Farrelly brothers are known for. There are some cartoonish exaggerations in some scenes, but it’s not nearly as over-the-top as their previous films. The tone of the film is almost philisophical. That’s right – I used the P word in a review of a movie by the guys who wrote and filmed the ‘hair gel’ gag. Shallow Hal seems almost mature. I’m not entirely sure if that’s a good thing or not, but it works in this movie. ‘Do looks matter?’ It’s a tough question, and even tougher to base a romantic comedy around. In some ways, no, looks don’t matter. It’s what’s inside that counts. On the other hand, if looks didn’t matter, I wouldn’t be reviewing this movie in the first place. It’s a tough issue, and I’m not about to go into it, or divulge details about one of the best scenes in the movie.

As far as the acting goes, Jack Black is only beginning to be recognized by the general public. He’s been big in the undergournd for years, both with his band Tenacious D (which includes Shallow Hal co-star Kyle Gass), and as a bit player in movies like The Jackal, The Cable Guy, Mars Attacks!, and Bob Roberts. Black should have won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar® for his role as Barry in High Fidelity. He’s an amazing character actor, but I’m not sure he’s meant to be in the lead. Unless it’s in a Tenacious D movie. (If you know The D, you’ll understand.) Gwyneth Paltrow is flat-out adorable in this movie, and does some very good physical acting as well. Most of the time, we see Rosemary through Hal’s eyes, yet she’s able to act 300 lbs. quite well. Watch how she sits. Also watch her eyes. She has an amazingly expressive face. Jason Alexander seems to have become typecast as a neurotic little man. That’s ok, however, because he plays the role well.

It’s a short review because some of the things I’m trying to convey really need to be seen to be understood, and trying to describe some of the scenes will ruin the impact.

Monsters, Inc. ***
Directed by: Pete Docter, David Silverman, Lee Unkrich
Written by: Dan Gerson and Andrew Stanton
Featuring the voices of: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, James Coburn, Steve Buscemi, Jennifer Tilly and Mary Gibbs
Rated G

Parents – you might want to make sure that your kids don’t read the next sentence. The monster in your closet is REAL.

That monster is big and scary and is gonna make you scream and is gonna keep on doing it until you grow up. Tough. That’s the way it is. But, don’t think that it actually WANTS to scare you. It’s not mean, it’s just doing it’s job. See, that monster works for Monsters, Inc. Monsters, Inc. supplies all the power to Monstropolis, and your screams provide that power. Sadly, you haven’t been doing your job lately. You’re growing up too fast. You don’t scare easily. And, because of that, Monstropolis is in an energy crunch. So, when that big scary monster shows up tonight, make sure that you scream really, really loud. Just don’t touch the monster. Children are toxic. You don’t want to hurt the monster, do you?

You might want to take a quick break and calm your children down now. Reality is tough.

Much like the Toy Story franchise, Monsters, Inc. presents us with a look into a secret world. A world of monsters. Guess what? Those monsters are just like us, but not in a Twilight Zone episode kind of way. More like the going to work, having friends and families kind of way. Unlike most of us, however, the monsters are computer generated.

Synopsis time: Monsters, Inc. is roughly a day in the life of James P. “Sully” Sullivan (Goodman), and his friend Mike Wazowski (Crystal). They’re best friends, roommates, and partners at Monsters, Inc. (“We scare because we care.”) Sully does the actual scare-jobs, while Mike is, for lack of a better term, his crew chief. Mike handles the logistics, the paperwork (poorly), and everything else not involving the actual scaring of the children. Sully is the top scarer in the company, followed closely by Randall Boggs (Buscemi) – a sort-of cross between a gecko, a chameleon and a snake. The head of Monsters, Inc. is Henry J. Waternoose (Coburn), a crab thing. Waternoose is concerned both about the current energy crisis and about the quality of the new scarers. They’re just not all that scary, and tend to be just a little stupid and/or clumsy. Waternoose wants Sully to help train the new recruits, Randall wants to be in first place, and Mike just wants to make Celia (Tilly), a mix between Medusa and a cyclops, his girlfriend. Mike is in a hurry to get on his date with Celia and, once again, forgets to file his paperwork. Sully decides to do it for him. Mike left the paperwork on his desk on the Scarefloor.

Now, the mechanism by which the monsters emerge from a closet is this: a child’s ID card is scanned into a computer. An automated system then summons up the ‘other’ side of the closet door in that child’s bedroom. The door is inserted into a slot on the Scarefloor, power is applied to the door, a storage battery is attached to a receptical next to the door, the monster goes into the door, scares the kid, and comes out. No doors are supposed to be on the Scarefloor after the end of a shift. But, guess what Sully finds? He peeks into the bedroom, to make sure no monsters are present before he shuts the door down (so he doesn’t trap the monster). But, a big problem arises – the little girl (Biggs) that has that closet comes out, and into Monstropolis. This is not good. This is one of the worst things that could happen. And, she really likes Sully, whom she renames Kitty. Her name is Boo, at least according to Sully. Begin wackiness in T minus 3... 2... 1... make audience laugh now!

Overall, Monsters, Inc. is very well done. Then again, it was done by the same people behind the Toy Story franchise and A Bug’s Life. And, it’s certainly in the same vein. The writing is tight, the pacing is perfect, and the characters are entertaining. Most importantly, it won’t make grown-ups stupider or bored. There are times when the movie is a bit dark in tone, but not too much, and certainly not too intense for kids.

As far as the animation goes, well, it’s PIXAR, for the love of pete! It started off as a subsidiary of Industrial Light and Magic. Of course it’s going to be outstanding. However, the competition is tougher in 2001 than it was in the late ‘90s. Square Pictures' Final Fantasy raised the bar considerably in terms of what can be done with computer animation. Sully is a hairy monster. Hair all over. It’s so close to being done right that you can just feel it, but it’s not perfect. It’s not distracting, but it’s not quite perfect. Yet. But, in terms of the light-sourcing and the ‘physics’ that the monsters obey, it’s dead on. Same with the facial expressions. Even though Boo looks like a plastic toy (this could be by design, of course, since it’s intended to be cartoony, while Final Fantasy went for realism), the range of emotions she’s capable of displaying is amazing. Then again, PIXAR was able to make a desk lamp convey emotion (in the groundbreaking Luxo, Jr.). You’re not going to go wrong with seeing Monsters, Inc.

And now, for something completely different: ANOTHER REVIEW!

You might have heard rumors, or even read that Monsters, Inc. will be the only film to feature the Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones ‘teaser’ trailer. You heard right. I saw it, and I’m not saying a thing, cuz I’m a jerk like that.

The opening titles for Monsters, Inc. had a decidedly retro feel to them. The titles are done in a ‘cut-out’ fashion. Not like the kind featured in South Park, but in the mid-‘60s cartoon short-feature sort of way. When you see it, you’ll think of something, but you won’t be able to put a title with what it reminds you of. Unless it does. If you can think of the title, would you let me know? Cuz it’s driving me crazy!

Another thing adds to the retro feel – an animated short before the feature!

For The Birds ***1/2
Directed by: Ralph Eggleston

The ½ star at the end is for the feathers. Jaw-dropping.

I really can’t give a synopsis for a short. It’s birds on a wire. There’s no dialogue, because they’re birds. It’s just really, really funny. Funny in an old slap-stick way, and funny like previous PIXAR short features. You can catch a shortened version of it here. Be warned, however, that it takes quite a while to download, and you need Quicktime to view it.

From Hell ***
Directed by: The Hughes Brothers
Written by: Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell (comic series); Terry Hayes and Rafael Yglesias (screenplay)
Starring: Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Ian Holm, Robbie Coltrane
Rated R (It’s about Jack the Ripper. And there’s some brief nudity and drug use.)

Welcome to London 1888, ladies and gentlemen. What a grand city she is! Everything you could possibly want can be found within her borders. We have the latest and most effective psychological therapy ever discovered – the prefrontal lobotomy! A tap-tap here, and a tap-tap there, and one more tap-tap on this side and voila! The patient is cured! And, look at how civilized we are – take this young man, for instance. John Merrick was trapped in the hell of the freak show. But we will civilize him yet! Don’t be alarmed by how he looks – he’s not an animal, after all. He is a man! We have gaslight in the streets, and London has no prostitution. Oh, there are some... unfortunates... but pay them no mind. What a time to be alive! Unless you’re an unfortunate, of course.

The legend of Jack the Ripper is a horse that just won’t die. More than 100 years after his crimes, we still don’t know who he was, how many he was, what he was or why he was. Oh, sure, we have plenty of suspects and rumors (Lewis “Alice in Wonderland” Carroll, Prince Albert Victor, a conspiracy involving the British Monarchy), but we are no closer to finding out the truth than we were in 1888. Which means that we can still bring it up again and again.

From Hell, at least in comic form, has been cited as being probably the closest to the truth as we will ever get. How many comic books can you name that have bibliographies? As far as the movie goes, well, it is plausible.

Now, I’m sure we all know at least a little bit about Jack the Ripper. “He” was the first documented serial killer. “He” killed prostitutes in London’s East End. “He” didn’t do it very nicely. And, “he” got away with it. That’s pretty much all anyone knows about “him”. From Hell is a mystery because it has to be, but it's not a whodunit. It also attempts to show what Victorian London was like. It wasn’t pretty. The industrial revolution was still new, poverty was rampant, racial tension ran high due to Jewish and Oriental immigrants, the monarchy was not yet a figurehead, and the world was rigidly divided into upper and lower class. Middle class didn’t even exist. All of these facts are important to the story.

And that story is this: A prostitute has been murdered in London’s East End. Brutally, methodically, and a ‘trophy’ was taken. Enter Inspector Abberline (Depp). Abberline is known for his ‘visions’, which are aided by the use of opium or laudanum. These visions have helped him solve cases in the past, and his partner, Sgt. Godley (Coltrane), is confident that they can help in this case. As prostitute after prostitute is killed, more clues and patterns emerge. It’s obvious that the killer(s) know anatomy very well, and have plenty of money. This would indicate a cultured person. But, no civilized person would do such a thing! Preposterous! Police Commissioner Warren (Ian Richardson) suggests that Abberline concentrate on Jewish butchers, or ferriers. Tradesmen, yes, but a gentleman? Certainly not! Hmmmm.. But, wait! We have some peculiar witnesses – not to the murder of the first prostitute, but to a rather strange event. An event that seems to involve the Special Branch (think FBI). Mary Kelly (Graham) knows that something strange is going on. The rest of her friends are of the opinion that the press should be told. Mary thinks that this Inspector Abberline might be their best bet – for the sake of protection. Protection from the Nichols gang – wanna-be pimps who are demanding protection money. The plot gets deeper and deeper, but manages to stay less confusing than JFK.

Visually, the film is effective, if not affective. The comic was done in black and white, but the movie is in color. The opening sequence is good at establishing the squalor and claustrophobia of London’s East End, and remains consistent throughout. It’s not striving for realism, necessarily. It’s not expressionistic, but it is good at evoking the desired mood – bleak. The violence is well done. It’s not subtle, but we are spared seeing what “Jack” actually did.

Plot-wise, the movie works. The tension never really reaches a fever pitch, but, we know most of the facts already. We just want to see who did it “this” time. And, we want to know if it will have as happy an ending as it can.

From Hell isn’t horror, it’s not really a mystery, it’s not suspense, it’s not a costume drama. It’s historical fiction, and it’s well done.

(If you’re interested in knowing more about Jack the Ripper, I suggest going to Casebook.org.)

Bandits ***
Directed by: Barry Levinson
Written By: Harley Peyton
Starring: Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Cate Blanchett and Troy Garity
Rated PG-13 (language, adult situations, violence)

Fall is probably my favorite season of the year. There are all sorts of boring reasons that I could list, but the one that you’re probably most interested in (as you’re reading this) involves movies. Summer is over, kids are back in school, and Hollywood starts bringing out ‘riskier’ films. The costume dramas, the Robin Williams dramatic pieces, the Mirimax Oscar Contender ® -- things like that. Now, while Bandits probably won’t win any awards, it’s a character piece that would have been overlooked in the summer.

By character piece, I mean that it shifts genres. The previews look like a heist/caper movie with a romantic comedy subplot. Those previews aren’t misleading. However, what they don’t show is that the romantic comedy is more along the lines of Being John Malkovich than the collected works of Julia Roberts. More on that later.

Bandits is about 2 bank robbers – Joe (Willis) and Terry (Thornton). As is usual in heist movies, they want to go straight. Which takes money. Which means robbing banks. Joe is the muscle, Terry is the brains. Terry’s plan: daylight robberies. They kidnap the bank manager the night before the robbery, and spend the night with him/her, and then, before the bank opens, have the manager open the vault and give the ‘all-clear’. Works like a charm. Terry’s plans are great. Until Terry gets hit by a car driven by Kate (Blanchett). Terry, you see, is a hypochondriac, and thinks he received a concussion. Kate, on the other hand, is massively depressed. Not the most rational pair. Kate drives Terry back to the hideout, where she meets Joe and Harvey (Garity). Harvey is Joe’s cousin, a wanna-be stuntman and their ‘front man’. Terry knows that an outsider in the mix is a bad thing, Joe wants to sleep with Kate, Harvey is dense – LET THE FIREWORKS BEGIN!

Probably the best part about this movie is the actors. Billy Bob Thornton is an amazing character actor. Just look at Slingblade. Bruce Willis can play nearly any role you put in front of him, and play it well. Cate Blanchett is a name that isn’t familiar to most moviegoers, but she’s really, really good. (She was Queen Elizabeth in Elizabeth, a psychic in The Gift, and will either be praised or pilloried by geeks when she assumes the role of Galadriel in the upcoming The Lord of The Rings trilogy).

Another big plus in this movie is the focus on character rather than plot. George Bernard Shaw (a playwright) once said that he hated plots. He just put characters into a situation and watched what happened. That’s what we see in Bandits – we don’t get massive amounts of detail about the planing of the heists, we don’t have a moral. It’s not like it’s a Martin Scorsese movie. What we have is a strange marriage/love triangle thing (ala Being John Malkovich or Chasing Amy) that works because we believe the actions that the characters are performing, and we believe the actors that are playing the characters. The principle characters are well written and well rounded.

This review is shorter than previous ones, but, honestly, there isn’t a whole lot of detail that can be written about. I don’t have the words to describe character interaction, and the subtleties therein. Stuff blows up, guns are involved, but the focus is on character.

Don’t Say A Word **1/2
Directed by: Gary Fleder
Starring: Michael Douglas, Famke Janssen, Oliver Platt, Sean Bean, Skye McCole Bartusiak and Brittany Murphy
Written by: Andrew Klavan (novel), Patrick Smith Kelly and Anthony Peckham
Rated R (violence)

Well, I’m back. This is my first review in nearly half a month, so let’s hope I haven’t grown rusty.

Don’t Say A Word is a thriller. Well, it looks like one, anyway. It has grit, rain, creepy phone calls, paranoia, all the things that should be in a thriller. But, it’s lacking two key elements: thrills and tension.

Here’s the synopsis (yeah, my style is coming back to me now...): Dr. Nathan Conrad (Douglas) is happily married to his wife Aggie (Janssen) and is madly in love with his daughter, Jessie (Bartusiak). Conrad is a psychologist who is known for his ability to work with teenagers. He’s in his own practice now, but he used to work for the State of New York. On Thanksgiving Eve, he gets an emergency call from one of his former colleagues, Dr. Sachs (Platt). Sachs needs Conrad’s help in reaching a girl named Elizabeth. Elizabeth has been in institutions for the past 10 years, beginning shortly after her father died. Her records show mental illness after mental illness – post-traumatic stress disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, catatonia. Not a healthy girl, but non-violent, until just the other day, when she nearly killed a man with a razor blade. Without Conrad’s help, she’ll be drugged up and locked away for the rest of her life. But, as Conrad soon discovers, she might be faking most of her illnesses. He has little time to worry about that, however, as the next morning, he discovers that his daughter has been kidnapped! He gets a phone call from Patrick Koster (Bean), and receives instructions. Get a number out of Elizabeth’s head, and you get your daughter back. Don’t say a word to the police. None of this is a surprise, as we’ve seen the trailer for this movie.

As I said before, this movie looks like a thriller. But, it doesn’t feel like a thriller. Conrad is working under a strict timeline. He gets Koster’s phone call at 10 am, and he has until 5 PM to get the number. But, the pacing is all wrong. I never got the sense that time was running out. Yes, a thriller should build slowly, but it shouldn’t keep the same pace the whole way through. It spent the right amount of time on the build-up, and then kept on truckin’ at the same pace the whole way. Which meant that you were able to spot the ‘thrills’ coming a mile away.

The last half of the movie just felt contrived. Yes, it’s a movie, suspension of disbelief, etc., etc. But, the unexpected should fit within the framework of the universe that the film creates. Se7en worked because we believed in John Doe. We didn’t know how he was able to do what he did, but we believed he could do it. Psycho worked because we believed that Norman Bates was just that insane. We’re given little bits of information about the antagonist’s past (Doe’s diaries, Bates’ mother). We don’t get the same thing with Koster. While Sean Bean is a good character actor, what his character is doing doesn’t make sense with what we know about the ‘world’. Oliver Platt is a fantastic character actor, but he’s mostly wasted in this movie. And I didn’t buy Murphy’s portrayal of Elizabeth.

Don’t Say A Word isn’t without its good points, however. Skye McCole Bartusiak could go far, provided she doesn’t take ‘kiddie’ roles. There’s something in her eyes that hints at big things to come. Haley Joel Osment things. Kirsten Dunst things.

For the most part, however, Don’t Say A Word makes a good effort, but falls short of the mark

Due to the recent tragedy, Captain Corelli's Mandolin was not reviewed this week. The movie wasn't recieved by The Hangar in time for me to review it, due to the halt on air traffic. Sudios have shifted release dates for other movies, but, make sure you check back here every week, so you'll know what's coming out, and what I thought of it. :)

Rock Star **1/2
Directed by: Stephen Herek
Written by: John Stockwell
Starring:Mark Wahlberg, Jennifer Aniston, Zakk Wylde, Jason Bonham, Timothy Spall
Rated R (brief nudity, rock and roll lifestyle)

Briefly, Rock Star is a fairy tale. It's not really about rock and roll. It's about a male Cinderella (a Cinderfella, if you will, and if you don't mind a Jerry Lewis reference) who, instead of marrying a prince, marries a rock band... but at what cost?

This movie has several hurdles to clear -- This Is Spinal Tap, Wayne's World 2, and "VH1's Behind The Music". The audience already knows what happens in a rock and roll band. Thankfully, the movie isn't out to top anything or be a cautionary tale. It's just there to entertain.

If you've seen any trailers for this movie, you'll know what the story is: Chris Cole (Wahlberg) is the lead singer of a Steel Dragons tribute (NOT cover) band called Blood Pollution. When the lead singer for SD is fired, Cole is recruited to join as the new lead singer. Begin rise of fame. During his career with SD, his relationship with his girlfriend/manager Emily (Aniston) is strained. Will things work out? Will Steel Dragons be able to keep fans with a new lead singer? WILL HAIR METAL SURVIVE? All of these questions will be answered in the movie, if not here.

Although the movie is based around a fictional band, certain activities didn't need to be made up. Just as Hannibal Lecter is a combination of several serial killers, Steel Dragons is based on several metal bands. Nods are given to Judas Priest, Black Flag, Metallica, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Guns 'n' Roses, Van Halen, and probably a host of others I can't think of right now. Adding to Rock Star's r&r credibilty is the casting of Zakk Wylde (one of Ozzy Osbourne's guitarists) and Jason Bonham (a drummer, and son of late Led Zeppelin drummer John Bonham). So, the music is going to be of high quality, regardless of your feelings towards hair metal as a genre.

The movie is set in the mid-1980s, when post-glam hair metal was making big strides in top-40 music. This distinction is very important. Steel Dragons is not Twisted Sister or Motley Crue or Judas Priest or Metallica. It's more in the vein of Def Leppard or Winger or Bon Jovi. Girls will like this band. Cole (who is known to the public as Izzy) will not scare girls like Lemmy from Motorhead. The time that the movie is doubly important in that it happens before hair metal becomes a parody of itself, and, even more importantly, before the dread beast from the Northwest emerges from Seattle. It happens during the glory days of hair metal. Power ballads? Absolutely. Guitarists moving in unison? You bet. Tight leather pants? Oh, yeah. Once upon a time, this was actually cool, and not campy or homoerotic. Well, in retrospect, it was always homoerotic, but girls still liked it. And, that's what rock and roll is all about.

However, it's not what the movie is about -- it is about, to steal the tagline, "a wannabe who got to be". Here's where the movie tends to disappoint. The cast was incredibly talented, but the characters are fairly one-dimensional. Which is not to say that the performances were bad -- some of the scenes were incredibly passionate, but I would have liked to have seen more character in the characters. Chris Cole is, to put it bluntly, a geek. He knows things about Steel Dragons that would put a Trekkie who sleeps in his Spock ears and could write a 20-page dissertation on why Kirk is a far better captain than Picard to shame. Details about the color of the thread in costumes, what year and tour a particular outfit was worn, not to mention lyrics and choreography. This kid is devoted to his dream. Emily has a head for business, and is devoted to Chris. I really would have liked to have seen more backstory between these two characters. As they were written, however, I felt just a little bit left out. The character of Miggs (Spall) however, was just about perfect. He is THE roadie. Not the god-of-all-roadies that we saw in Wayne's World 2, but just a guy who can get the job done. And, of course, as this is a fairy tale, he is as close as we come to a fairy godmother.

If you're looking for a good character study within an industry, watch Boogie Nights. If you're looking for a date movie, Rock Star is probably better. And less awkward.

Jeepers Creepers *** ½
Written and Directed by: Victor Salva
Starring: Gina Phillips, Justin Long and Patricia Belcher
Rated R (violence)

Perhaps ‘horror’ is too strong a term for Jeepers Creepers. It’s got some scares, some icky things happen, but it’s also got laughs. It’s not a comedy, however. The closest I can come to describing it would be a mix between Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Stephen King. The ‘bad thing’ is a supernatural, unstoppable demon-thing, but it has personality, and the film is one of the most original thrillers to come along in years.

I won’t bother with a plot summary, because part of the fun in a movie like this is not knowing what is going to happen. Instead, I’ll set the stage: Trish (Phillips) and her brother Darius (Long) make a particularly gruesome discovery in the basement of a church. Bad mojo go now!

Jeepers Creepers doesn’t try to be ‘hip’ or ‘edgy’ or any of the other buzzwords that usually surround movies like this. It doesn’t break the ‘fourth wall’ and make self-referential jokes about rules or things like that. It doesn’t promote the soundtrack. If anything, it’s a throwback to what a ‘horror’ movie was before Freddy and Jason and Michael Meyers. That’s right – there were horror movies before slashers existed!

Jeepers Creepers hearkens back to the creature feature. It’s not as nail-biting as Alien or The Thing from Another World (remade by John Carpenter as The Thing), but its heritage is clear. The task at hand, however, is how to make a creature feature work in 2001.

Salva’s answer is: less is more. Less gore, less violence. Most of the violence happens off-screen. We see the results, but not the actual act itself. And the blood can probably be measured in pints, rather than gallons. What we’re left with is atmosphere. (Watch out – I’m gonna be jumping media here...) In ‘survival horror’ video games like Resident Evil (which is being made into a movie) and Parasite Eve, the really, really scary parts are when you see that something has happened, something very bad, but what, exactly is unclear. Sure, a zombie breaking a window right in front of you will make you jump, but when you see broken furniture and blood on the floor, that’s even more creepy. You’re fixated on what MIGHT happen, what COULD happen. The tension keeps building, and that’s where the lasting appeal lies. Not in how much gore you can put on the screen, but in how far you can stretch the tension and the audience.

Another thing that modern horror audiences expect is a motive. Norman Bates was insane, Freddy Kreuger was out for revenge, the xenomorph in Alien was a predator – what of the Unnamed Terror in Jeepers Creepers? Well, if you realize that the title of the movie is also the title of a song, that should point you in the right direction. So, we have the why, but not the WHY. Why does it need to do these things? I smell a franchise, and, unlike I Know What You Wasted Five Bucks On Last Summer, this one could be really, really good. A mythos needs to be fleshed out. Questions need to be answered. Trust me – when you see this movie, you’ll want to see more.

Jeepers Creepers isn’t Night of the Living Dead by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is it The Sixth Sense. It’s aimed at teens, but it’s not over-burdened with brand-names and postmodern humor. It’s a little bit campy, but not a parody of the genre. The campiness actually makes the film work better. It’s a traditional summer horror flick. And by traditional, I mean one that would have been part of a double-feature at the drive in. William Castle is probably sleeping soundly tonight.

Friday, August 24, 2001
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back ***
Directed by: Kevin Smith
Starring: Jason Mewes, Kevin Smith, Will Ferrel, Jason Lee, Ben Affleck
Rated: R (language and sexual innuendo)

Grant’s gone on vacation this week so I (Travis Kline, weekend jock) will be writing this review…

Kevin Smith takes us on one last trip through the View Askewineverse in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. If you ever wondered what happened to Dante and Randall after Clerks, or how the tonight show gig worked out for Brodie from Mallrats than this is a movie for you. Smith ties up all the loose ends from Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, and Dogma in this hilarious final chapter of the New Jersey series.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is reportedly Kevin Smith’s final comedy as he looks to move on to bigger and (maybe) better projects. If you’re like me, the idea of a Kevin Smith World War II movie scares you, but if you’re going to end an era, JSBSB is one helluva way to do it.

This movie is not for everyone. If you are easily offended and dislike “vulgar” language you should probably avoid this one. There are plenty of cheap laughs in this film, but that’s the whole point. You should also avoid this film if you liked Chasing Amy more than Mallrats or Clerks. There are NO deeply emotional plot points in this movie. This is slap-stick comedy plain and simple. Look for Drama somewhere else.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back revolves around the world of the title characters Jay and Silent Bob as they go on a cross-country quest to stop production on a movie based on their lives. Of course they get into all sorts of side adventures along the way and meet almost all your favorite characters from Smith’s other movies as well. All the character’s story lines are completed and you see who’s with who, who doing what and so on. JSBSB also features some of the funniest cameos I’ve seen to date, they are worth the price of admission alone. The movie also spoofs Hollywood in a big funny way.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back spares no one. Everyone is fair game in this side splitting comedy from one of the best directors of our time. Is this a film you take your parents or grandparents to see? No, you might not even what to take a date to this movie, but if you are looking for a good movie to see with you friends, JSBSB is perfect for you.

American Outlaws **
Directed by: Les Mayfield
Starring: Colin Farrell, Scott Caan, Ali Larter, Timothy Dalton, Gabriel Macht
Rated: PG-13 (violence, alcohol)

American Outlaws is something of an old-school western. But not a cool one like The Searchers. It’s more like a serial that would show before the feature. And that’s stretching it.

American Outlaws is a story about Jesse James and his gang, robbing banks, playing Robin Hood, all of it based on legend, rather than fact. History is just a suggestion in this movie, rather than something that is binding.

The movie starts off with promise – the James-Younger-Gang-To-Be is part of a guerilla platoon, killing Union soldiers. After the battle, they are informed that the Civil War is over. So, the gang heads back home to Liberty, MO, where they hope to be farmers. But, it turns out that Thaddeus Rains (Harris Yulin), Railroad Tycoon, is forcing farmers to sell their land to the railroad. (boo! hiss!) So, the gang decides that they will wage an economic war against the railroad – steal its money so it can’t be a jerk anymore. (yay!) This, of course, has nothing to do with history. And, any sort of theme or mood that the movie is trying to set goes away quickly.

The gang is made up of Jesse (Farrell), his brother Frank (Macht), cousins Cole (Caan), Bob (Will McCormack), and Jim (Gregory Smith) Younger, Loni Packwood (Joe Stevens), Comanche Tom (Nathaniel Arcand), and Zee Mimms (Larter) (Jesse’s first-cousin and wife-to-be). There may have been other members, but, they really don’t matter. None of the characters were fleshed-out beyond their stereotypes – Jesse is impetuous, Frank is smart, Cole is a thug, Comanche Tom is a stoic Indian, etc. Opposing the gang is the big, mean railroad and Allen Pinkerton (Timothy Dalton, doing a Sean Connery impersonation), founder of Pinkerton Security and the Secret Service.

The movie had trouble finding what it wanted to be. Did it want to be a straight Western? A romanticized view of some bad people doing bad things? A comedy like Shanghai Noon? It was a Western because there were horses and trains. It glossed over the real history of the James-Younger Gang by leaving out the murders that they committed during their robberies. There were some lines that were laugh-out-loud funny, but I’m not sure that they were meant to be.

I am fascinated by America’s fascination with ‘outlaws’. Bonnie and Clyde is a terrific example of this. Bonnie and Clyde were bad, bad people. They killed. They robbed. And they are cultural icons. Yet, we don’t see heroic tales of carjackers or pimps like we do of pirates, robbers and outlaws.

American Outlaws would have made a decent made-for-TV movie, but it’s a bit empty for a cinematic release. The characters didn’t bring out any emotions in me. For as much as the characters talk about their love of killing people, the violence is mostly of the ‘stuff blowing up’ and ‘grab your chest and fall down’ school of film, rather than the ‘first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan’ school of film. The characterizations are inconsistent – Jesse is portrayed as charming, a born leader, and, for one scene, more dangerous than Hannibal Lecter; Cole is a hot-headed psycho, but doesn’t really do much of anything more than bluster. At the beginning, the Gang is trying to bankrupt the railroad and distribute the wealth. Then they were concerned about who got top-billing on the wanted posters, and whose ‘portrait’ looked the best. No explaination is given for the change. Mostly, however, the movie was just boring. I couldn’t become emotionally involved with the characters. I’m not saying that the film was poorly-paced – it wasn’t. From a technical standpoint, the film is just fine. The camera work was decent, if not fantastic; the editing did what it was supposed to do; the sound design did its job, too. But, the acting wasn’t anything to write home about. The acting wasn’t bad – it was just ‘there’. I imagine that kids will like it, even though it’s not really a children’s movie. It seems like it is aimed at the teen market. I am not, however, a part of that demographic.

If you’re looking for a good western, rent Unforgiven or Tombstone. If you’re looking for a cowboy comedy, check out Shanghai Noon or Blazing Saddles. If you’re in the mood for something that could wind up being a campy cult-classic, give American Outlaws a shot.

American Pie 2 ***
Directed by: James B. Rogers
Starring: Jason Biggs, Eugene Levy, Mena Suvari, Seann William Scott, Shannon Elizabeth, Chris Klein, Alyson Hannigan, Thomas Ian Nicholas, Eddie Kay Thomas
Rated R (language, adult situations, brief nudity)

I’m sure that most of you have either seen or heard about American Pie. It was supposed to be Porky’s for a new generation. And it was, for the most part. I thought that Eugene Levy was the best part about American Pie, but, that might just be me. It’s tough to find a good straight man, but Levy is one of the best.

With a sequel, naturally, everything must be turned up a notch or two. The stakes are higher. Conventional wisdom says that the sequel will not be as good as the original. There are exceptions to this, of course – the Star Wars series, The Godfather I and II – but, for the most part a sequel is something like Species 2, The Crow 2 or The Exorcist II. It’s merely re-hashing old territory, and is usually just there to milk money from the franchise. That being said, I was very surprised by American Pie 2.

I didn’t go in expecting a whole lot, and for the most part I was right. There were the standard body-function jokes, the standard homophobic jocks, and the standard sexual mishaps. It took me awhile to see something entirely unexpected in the movie, and I was, for lack of a better term, charmed. More on that later.

The basic plot is this: Jim (Biggs), Kevin (Nicholas), “Oz” (Klein), Finch (Thomas), and Stifler (Scott) are back at home after their first year at college. Oz and Heather (Suvari) are still together, Kevin and Vicky (Tera Patrick) are not, Jim is still single, Finch is still pining for Stifler’s Mom (Jennifer Coolidge), and Stifler is still a dumb jock. Things have changed, however – high school parties are no longer “cool”. So, following the advice of Kevin’s older brother, the gang rents a beach house for the summer. The plan: to meet the ladies, and to throw a party that they will remember as the greatest party ever for the rest of their lives.

Wacky shenanigans go down, as expected. The gang has a job painting a house, and Stifler becomes convinced that there are two “hot lesbians” living there. The boys break in, and are forced to become, well, closer. Jim has an accident with superglue. (This bit, while painful, has nothing on There’s Something About Mary.) And, of course, the audience loves it. Pretty standard summer movie fare – it’s amusing, but predictable.

It took me at least halfway through the movie to start noticing something – the relationships were actually well written, directed, and acted! In the original American Pie, the relationships were just sort of there. In American Pie 2, I actually felt emotions in the characters. Everyone except Stifler was a person that I could relate to. Kevin and Vicky have broken up, apparently, and are just seeing each other again for the first time in months (an eternity in high-school years). She wants to be “friends”, while he wants to date her again. A very awkward situation, and handled very well. Oz and Heather are still together, and you feel that they are actually meant for each other. It’s genuinely sweet, and surprisingly tender. Jim has been waiting for Nadia (Elizabeth) to come back, but feels inadequate. He goes to Michelle (Hannigan) for a critique and advice. It’s silly, it’s improbable, and it’s charming.

Now, I’m not going to say that American Pie 2 is a masterful piece of art – it’s not When Harry Met Sally... or Chasing Amy, but it’s surprisingly charming in its own way.

There is no doubt that this film is aimed at teenagers and college kids – all the evidence you need for this is the soundtrack (although some of the incidental music is very good). It has pretty people doing funny things. It has naughty jokes. It has a beach house. It doesn’t have any explosions (well, one, but it’s a good one). But, if you look at the romantic relationships, it becomes just a little bit more than a standard summertime teenage sex farce. And, yes, there is room for a sequel.

Planet of the Apes ***
Directed by: Tim Burton
Written by: Peter Boulle (novel), William Broyles Jr., Lawrence Konner, Mark D. Rosenthal
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Tim Roth, Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Clarke Duncan
Rated PG-13 (violence)

At its heart, all good science fiction is more than what it seems. The original Star Trek TV series was about racism (Chekov was a Russian when the Cold War was just beginning, Spock was the product of a ‘bi-racial’ relationship, Uhura was a black woman, etc.), Jurassic Park was a cautionary tale about messing around too much with nature, Blade Runner made us think about what really makes us human. The original Planet of the Apes was an allegory for race relations in America in the late 1960s – not a subtle one, but still effective. Figuring out how to do this for the year 2001 is the key to making a new POTA work.

Burton wisely didn’t set out to remake the original – this version is a re-interpretation of the original novel La Planete des Singes (Monkey Planet). The basic elements are the same – American astronaut Leo Davidson (Wahlberg) crash lands on a planet where apes (gorillas, chimps and orangutans) are in charge, while humans are hunted and used as slaves and pets. Naturally, Leo doesn’t think this is a very good arrangement – nor do all the apes. Ari (Carter) is a human-rights activist. She thinks that humans can learn to be civilized and live alongside apes. This notion is preposterous, and borders on blasphemy. Ape religious texts clearly say that all apes are descended from Cemos, and that humans don’t even have souls. Attar (Duncan), a gorilla commander is a faithful follower of the religion, while Gen. Thade (Roth), a descendent of Cemos, just wants to kill the humans. Of course, Davidson leads a revolt against the apes, with the help of Ari and Krull (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa), her butler. Shocking discoveries are made, battles are fought, and people would shoot me if I revealed any more than this.

Now, what was the movie really about? It’s still about race relations and religion, and how the two affect each other. It would be impossible to have the same philosophical impact as the original film. Burton wisely chose to keep what worked, but changed little things here and there to make it more ‘contemporary’, but in a good way. You won’t see any apes saying “Wazzap?” The politics fit a bit better for the year 2001.

Visually, however – this POTA has the original beaten hands-down. Burton is one of the few directors working today who has a distinctive visual style, and the make-up work done by Rick Baker (who won another Oscar ® for his work on How the Grinch stole Christmas) is simply astounding. You can’t tell where the make-up ends and the actor begins. The actors move like apes as well. They tend to waddle when they walk, much like a chimp does, and when they run, it’s on all fours, like gorillas. It’s a neat novelty at first, but, there are scenes where chimp soldiers are running faster than horses – very scary stuff. The apes also seem to have super-human strength. This isn’t just for effect. A chimp could rip your arms of without breaking a sweat. If apes were smarter, they’d be in charge. These apes are scary. Dr. Zaius has nothing on an enraged Thade.

POTA 2001 isn’t without its flaws, however. The references to the original are a bit campy, but Burton seems to like that sort of thing. The attempts at humor really don’t click. All in all, this doesn’t detract from the film.

When you go to see Planet of the Apes, just let yourself become totally immersed in the film. It’s sort of like the original Night of the Living Dead – when you actually think about the situation that’s on the screen, it becomes flat-out scary. And with apes that look this real, it’s even more frightening.

America’s Sweethearts ***
Directed by: Joe Roth
Written by: Billy Crystal and Peter Tolan
Starring: John Cusack, Julia Roberts, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Billy Crystal
Rated PG-13 (language, adult situations)

I should have known. I should have expected it. I saw Christopher Walken in the trailer, and it just didn’t click. I was expecting this to be just another standard, run-of-the-mill, written-by-a-hack, guaranteed-to-be-a-hit-with-teenage-girls chick flick. Thankfully, I was wrong.

America’s Sweethearts is a charming, fun, lighthearted movie. It’s unpretentious, which is a good thing. It could have nose-dived so easily, given what it is trying to do. What it tries to do is recall the classic romantic comedies of yesteryear. It does, but it also realizes that a film like Bringing Up Baby would tank if it were made today.

Eddie Thomas (Cusack) and Gwen Harrison (Zeta-Jones) are America’s Sweethearts – an unstoppable duo at the box office. They’re gorgeous, they’re electric on-screen together, everyone loves them, and they’re married in real life! But, something went wrong. Gwen has been living with Hector (Hank Azaria) for a year-and-a-half, and has filed a restraining order against Eddie. Really bad breakup. Funny, but bad. (Think Eyes Wide Shut, but make it a comedy, and that’s how big a break-up we’re dealing with.) In that time, Gwen’s two solo vehicles have bombed, and Eddie has been in intensive therapy. One thing could save their careers – their last film together, Time Over Time, a sci-fi time-travel romance-adventure. Time Over Time is being directed by legendary director Hal Wideman (Christopher Walken) – legendary for his work, and his eccentricities. It should be a smash, but there’s one problem – the studio lacks the film. The studio needs a hit. Gwen needs a hit. America needs Gwen and Eddie. Enter Lee (Crystal) – film publicist! Lee’s job is to a) organize a press junket, and b) make America think that Eddie and Gwen are back together.

This movie is predictable. Know what? I didn’t care. America’s Sweethearts was just loads of fun to watch. The characters are silly, but not absurd. Think melodrama, not mellerdrammer. Gwen is spoiled, helpless, and knows she’s gorgeous. Kiki (Roberts), her sister and assistant, is put-upon, capable, charming, and adorable. Eddie is trying his best to remain sane, but doesn’t come across as pathetic. And the girls in the theatre liked him, too. Lee is in one of the most evil professions that exists, yet you love him. Hal is played by Christopher Walken – how much cooler can you get? Hector – ooooo, he’s an egoist, but he’s still entertaining.

The movie isn’t flawless, but that’s alright. It understood its limits, and didn’t cross the line. While it is clearly an homage to what romantic comedies used to be, it also understands that the audience is not the same.

The clips from the Thomas/Harrison ‘movies’ that we see are very well-done. They’re campy, ridiculous, and could be made next week. Roth also did some nice ‘guerrilla-style’ work – reminiscent of Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich). And, like Jonze, he knows how to use Walken in comedy – something that just isn’t done often enough. Another thing the movie got right was the fact that the humor wasn’t topical – I only caught one pop-culture reference. Credit for this should go to Crystal, and he should know from what funny is. There is some slapstick, but no bodily-function humor. Most of the laughs come from the situations. The situations are silly and improbable, but remember – it’s a movie about a celebrity couple. How much realism do you expect?

America’s Sweethearts is charming, surprisingly witty, light, and fun. But, you should be aware that it’s not a Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan romantic comedy. It’s not a Hepburn/Grant romantic comedy, either. While it won’t be the classic that Pretty Woman is, and might not be a huge blockbuster, it’s a nice way to spend an evening, and won’t be out-of-place in your home library.

The Score ***
Directed by Frank Oz
Starring: Robert DeNiro, Marlon Brando, Edward Norton and Angela Bassett
Rated R (language, violence, adult situations)

You can usually ‘bank’ on a heist movie to be entertaining. Weak pun, I know. But, I needed a way to start off this review, and couldn’t think of a way to start it off with a ‘bang’.

Still here? Good.

The Score is another good summertime movie. It doesn’t try to bend genres around; it doesn’t try to be something that it’s not. It’s a movie about a heist. Not a heist with aliens, not a heist with talking animals, not a heist with a Will Smith song about it, just a heist, plain and simple. Knowing that, you know what to expect, and that’s what makes it good.

One of the fun things about heist movies is trying to see what will go wrong. I’m not spoiling anything here – things falling apart is one of the staples of the genre. It’s seeing how and when and why the plan falls apart that keeps us going to these movies.

That being said, here’s a rough breakdown of the plot: Nicky (DeNiro) has been in the business for 25 years, and is thinking that it’s time to ‘retire’, live with Diane (Bassett), and run his jazz club full-time. Max (Brando) offers him (you know what’s coming) One. Last. Score. A score that will pay Nicky $4 million. Now, for something this big, it’s gotta be tough, and an insider will be needed. Enter Jack (Norton), who as ‘Brian’, a developmentally disabled part-time janitor, has unrestricted access to the Montreal Customs House where the heist will go down. From here we connect the dots, try and out-guess the crooks, try and figure out what will go wrong, make mistakes, watch the plot twists, and enjoy the show.

This is a strict genre piece. It’s not breaking any new ground here. It’s not Reservoir Dogs, and doesn’t try to be. There are some Tarantino-esque bits of dialogue (not so much with the sailor talk, but with the terse bits of detail), but, that’s to be expected. With the massive footprint that Quentin Tarantino made on American cinema, it’s nearly impossible not to steal from him, especially in movies about crime. The actors are all stock characters, but the actors who are playing them represent 3 generations of the best actors American cinema has ever seen.

Marlon Brando may be a big fat man now, but his acting is still top-notch. His eyes are incredibly expressive, and you can still see elements of the animal magnetism that made him a star. Robert DeNiro... well, he’s Robert DeNiro. He’s not charting new territory like he did in Raging Bull or Taxi Driver, but, it’s not like he’s going to turn in a bad performance. Besides, it’s not like he’s acting for Martin Scorsese. Edward Norton is so good that it’s scary. His portrayal of ‘Brian’ might be better than Kevin Spacey’s ‘Verbal Kint’ character in The Usual Suspects. Angela Bassett is there as a plot device – not quite a femme fatale, but as a motivation for DeNiro’s character. But, in order for a character like that to be able to hold her own against the likes of Brando, DeNiro and Norton, the actress would have to be good. And, she is.

And, what about Frank Oz? You know that you’ve seen that name somewhere before. Oz was ‘Miss Piggy’, ‘Fozzie Bear’, ‘Yoda’, ‘Grover’ – yup, a Muppeteer. He’s done acting without a Muppet, too (as the prison clerk who gives Jake Blues his belongings back when he leaves prison in The Blues Brothers, for example). Now, after having worked with George Lucas, John Landis and Jim Henson, Oz has clearly learned something about directing. He’s not a notable director, he’s not prolific, but he puts out good work, and he can handle actors who really know their stuff (Bill Murray and Richard Dreyfuss in What About Bob?, Eddie Murphy and Steve Martin in Bowfinger). This makes him almost ideal for directing a film like this. He’s not out to make a huge artistic statement; he’s here to make a good movie. And, he has.

Is The Score a classic? As a film, probably not. As a chance to see three truly gifted actors on screen at once (and the first time they share the screen together is electric), it just might be. Odds are, this will wind up being a sleeper hit, either in the theatres (like The Usual Suspects was), or on video (like The Shawshank Redemption was). Either way, you’re not going to go wrong with seeing this movie.

Cats and Dogs **1/2
Directed by Lawrence Guterman
Starring: Jeff Goldblum, Elizabeth Perkins, and Alexander Pollock
With the voices of: Alec Baldwin, Michael Clarke Duncan, Sean Hayes, Tobey Maguire, Joe Pantoliano, Jon Lovitz and Susan Sarandon
Rated PG (animal action)

(Read this aloud in a deep, movie-trailer voice) 'A secret war that has gone on for millennia... A war for the domination of Planet Earth... Two superpowers that exist underground, and right under your nose... Cats (drums or thunder) and Dogs (more thunder and drums)!'

Sounds like a really neat concept, doesn't it? It could be really, really cool. All sorts of nifty special effects, perhaps a spoof of the spy-movie genre, it could be a winner. But it's not.

Cats and Dogs is a movie for kids, and kids only. It tries to be a movie for everyone, however, and that leads to its downfall. I went into the movie thinking that it could be loads of fun, and parts of it were. I thought the concept was entertaining, if nothing else. I left disappointed.

The concept remains intact -- as it happens, Cats ruled mankind in Ancient Egypt. Humans were slaves who were freed by the Dogs. Ever since, Dogs have sworn to protect the 'primitive species' of Homo sapiens. Dr. Brody (Goldblum) is a scientist working on making a cure for the allergic reaction people have to dogs. The Cats, under the leadership of Mr. Tinkles (Hayes), feel that this is a very bad thing, and are doing everything in their power to stop it from happening. They start off by 'catnapping' the Brody family's dog, Buddy. A beagle puppy, Lou (Maguire) is sent in as a replacement. Alas, Lou is a bit like Luke Skywalker in the first Star Wars -- just a naive kid looking for adventure. The leader of the neighborhood dogs, Butch (Baldwin), is expecting a well-trained Doberman pup, not this wet-nosed kid (sorry, couldn't resist).

Lou is clued into what the Dogs do, and is introduced to Peek (Pantoliano, in a possible nod to his role in The Matrix), who handles surveillance, and Sam (Duncan, who played John Coffey in The Green Mile), who seems to just enjoy being an agent (by doing combat rolls and singing little 'secret-agent' theme songs to himself). The dogs then set about defending the Brody house against Cat invasions -- ninjas, 'The Russian' (a really cool villain), and various other nefarious Cat nastiness.

Enough of the synopsis -- I don't want this to become a spoiler.

I don't think the movie was 'bad' -- it's just that it could have been so much better, and still been family-friendly. There were so many ways to present a concept like this, but it seems like the filmmakers tried to use all of them at the same time and wound up with less instead of more.

They could have taken a Men In Black-type angle -- played the film straight, but used sight-gags and witty dialogue. They could have made it a live-action cartoon, so to speak. They tried, but it was inconsistent. They could have made it Far Side-esque, and played up the physical limitations of cats and dogs. They did plenty of that with the cats, but not with the dogs. It could have been similar to the Toy Story series and presented a secret world that all children dream about, but never actually see. It made an effort to do this, but fell short. Basically, it just spread itself too thin trying to be all things to all people.

My main complaint is just with the inconsistencies in the movie. They start off with realism, then the incorporate cartoon sound-effects. This would have worked if it was a farce, but it isn't. Later on in the film, they start using cartoonish surrealism (think Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Dick Tracy, or most of Tim Burton's films) -- tilted cameras, strange colors, etc. The shift isn't gradual, either. One scene is a nice suburban backyard. The next is full of green lighting and cockeyed cameras. Don't go into this movie expecting Babe -- it isn't.

I have no doubts that children under 10 will like this movie. The pacing is a bit slow at times, but the animals seem to have enough personality to engage their interest. The action sequences are fairly well done. The computer animation isn't on-par with Toy Story, but it isn't bad. There are some clever one-liners, several bits that children will imitate (Don't worry -- nothing that would make a parent blush if the kid did it in public), a few clever sight-gags and background dialogue bits that will get a chuckle out of the parents, but, basically, this is a movie for kids. I would guess that adults will be bored for much of it. Which is better than being annoyed at most of it. If you have children, yes, take them to see this movie. From the reaction I heard from the kids in the audience, they enjoyed it. Adults, on the other hand, will tend to yawn. Rest assured, however, that there isn't any foul language (that I recall), and the potty humor is kept to a minimum. Overall, its heart is in the right place, even if it never gets off the ground.

A.I.: Artificial Intelligence ****
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Written by Ian Watson (screen story), Brian Aldiss (short story ‘Supertoys Last All Summer Long’), Steven Spielberg (Screenplay), and Stanley Kubrick (concept)
Starring: Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law, William Hurt, Frances O’Connor and Jack Angel
Rated PG-13 (no particulars listed)

I freely admit from the outset that it was impossible for me to go into this film unbiased. The late Stanley Kubrick is one of my heroes, and had been developing this film for at least 10 years before his untimely death. However, he did want Steven Spielberg to direct it. Mr. Spielberg initally declined, but the two remained in contact throughout the years, and when Mr. Kubrick passed away, his family offered the movie to Spielberg again, and, obviously, he accepted. I have not disagreed with Stanley Kubrick before, and I don’t intend to start now.

On the surface, A.I. is a re-telling of the Pinnocchio fairy-tale. Don’t let this mislead you – like most fairy-tales, this one really isn’t for children. It’s rated PG-13 for a reason. This is not a film for children. The tale that unfolds on the screen is deep, dark, sometimes disturbing, but ultimately rewarding.

A.I. is the story of David (Osment), an advanced model android, similar to Rachael in the classic Blade Runner. David is ‘adopted’, for lack of a better term, by a couple who has a biological son in a coma. Part of what makes David unique amongst androids is his ability to ‘love’ his parents. This ‘love’ is unlocked by saying a code-phrase. Should a parent ever stop ‘loving’ their android, they must return it to the factory for destruction – the imprinting is irreversible. When the biological son of ‘Mommy’ (O’Connor) and Henry (Sam Robards) returns home, sparks fly.

For those of you who are familiar with Stanley Kubrick, one of the themes that emerges early on is ‘What makes emotion real?’ In Kubrick’s classic 2001: A Space Odyssey, HAL is ‘programmed’ to respond to his crewmates in an ‘emotional’ fashion. But, what makes a computer’s ‘emotions’ any less valid than those of a human? Hasn’t a human been ‘programmed’ to react with certain emotions in certain situations? It’s one thing to frame that question when the computer in question is represented as a red ‘eye’ placed in various areas around a spacecraft; it’s quite another when the computer is, for all intents and purposes, an 11-year-old boy, subject to the cruelty of other children and adults.

The way that the question is framed in A.I. plays quite well into Spielberg’s strengths as a director. Inside Steven Spielberg is the heart of a 12-year-old boy. In E.T., we see the fear and misunderstanding that children have of adults. In the Indiana Jones series, and in Jurassic Park, we see the part of a 12-year-old boy that likes action, adventure, and dinosaurs. In A.I., we see both the wonder that only a child has when witnessing creation, and we see the horror that only a child can inflict on another child. We see the unconditional love of a child for a parent, and we see that most adults have forgotten what it is like to be a child.

Things get bad in the Swinton household, so the only choice is to get rid of David. ‘Mommy’ can’t bear to see this ‘son’ of hers ‘die’, so she abandons him with his friend Teddy (voiced by Jack Angel), a ‘supertoy’ in the shape of a teddy bear.

David and Teddy wind up in a ‘Flesh Fair’, a carnival where unlicensed androids are destroyed in order to celebrate the ‘One Human Race’. In the flesh fair, David meets Gigilo Joe (Law), a pleasure-model android. David’s quest to find the ‘Blue Fairy’ that will turn him into a real boy brings the party to Rouge City and Dr. Know (voiced by Robin Williams).

To go further into the plot would ruin the film for those of you who choose to view it, so I will stop right here. If you don’t see it, you are truly missing out on one of the finest films of the year. If you do see it, be warned: unlike most summer films, A.I. will make you think. It will make you feel. It will make you talk. It might even confuse you.

I could go on writing about this film for pages and pages, but this is a movie review, not a short course in film criticism or philosophy. I will close by saying that this may be one of Steven Spielberg’s best films, and I am saddened that Stanley Kubrick is not alive to see a film that is certainly a fitting tribute to his genius.