Minority Report ***
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Philip K. Dick (short story); Scott Frank and Jon Cohen (screenplay)
Starring: Tom Cruise, Max von Sydow, Colin Farrell, Tim Blake Nelson and Samantha Morton
Rated PG-13 (violence, language, asking questions)

Science fiction – that is, good science fiction – is never ‘about’ the future. It is about the present. Fiction as a whole does not exist in a vacuum. Sci-fi is even less inside a vacuum. Sci-fi authors are able to ask questions that need to be asked and present ideas that need to be presented. But, because they tend to have things like robots and laser guns and spaceships, they are dismissed by the public. The public is right to do so, for the most part. There is loads and loads of sci-fi that is just terrible. The truly good stuff, however, shouldn’t even be called science fiction. Speculative fiction is a better term.

Now, it’s one thing to write a synopsis of the plot of Minority Report – it’s another thing entirely to tell you what it was ‘about’. I’m gonna try to do my best.

John Anderton (Cruise) is the chief of the Department of Precrime in Washington, DC. The Department of Precrime is charged with arresting murderers before they kill their victims. The murders are seen by three Pre-cogs – people who see, with great detail, murders that happen in the future. Precrime deals only with homicide, simply because the killing of one person by another person is so jarring to the metaphysical world that it is the only crime that can be pre-seen accurately. In the 6 years of Precrime’s trial run, murder in Washington, DC has dropped to zero. Not one murder. Sometimes there are close calls, but the officers have always been able to stop the crime from happening. The pre-murderer is arrested, mentally incapacitated with a device known as a halo, and is imprisoned. All three Pre-cogs, named Agatha (Morton), Dashiell (Matthew Dickman) and Arthur (Michael Dickman) see different things, but, combined, the images are nearly identical. Precrime is poised to go national, but before it does, Ed Witwer (Farrell) has been assigned by the Attorney General to see if there are any flaws in the system. When Anderton is charged with the precrime of murder, it sure looks like there are flaws. Many, many flaws.

I’m gonna talk about the movie itself here, and save the philosophy until the end, because if I don’t, you’ll get bored and go away.

There are no doubts in my mind that Steven Spielberg is one of the best filmmakers in history. Certainly he’s the best one working today. While Stanley Kubrick is still my favorite director of all time, Spielberg is able to appeal to the general public in a way that no other director I can think of is able to. He is in a phase in his career right now that can only lead to even greater things. I’m sure that Schindler’s List will be his magnum opus for many people, but I am more interested in seeing where he’s going. With A.I., he directed a Stanley Kubrick movie, but was able to bring his own sensibilities and ‘trademarks’ to it. It was a fairly dark story, but it still worked. There have always been sinister undercurrents in his work (adults who don’t remember what it’s like to be a child, Nazis, growing up – all things that, really, are scary in their own way), but now he is more able to deal with darker ideas. He has said that there is no way he could make E.T. today. He is no longer that idealistic. Of course, I imagine that talking to Holocaust survivors would tend to make one’s worldview a bit bleak. I really like this phase in his career. He’s not completely embittered, but he’s not going to candycoat anything.

Janusz Kaminski is the only cinematographer that matters. End of story. When he’s working with Spielberg, he is unstoppable.

The casting in this movie was perfect. The performances all outstanding, especially the exchanges between Cruise and Farrell.

I only have two complaints about the movie. The first was with the film itself. Now, I am all for action sequences. Chases, explosions, spaceships, guns, all that stuff is really good. The only problem was, in this movie, the main action sequence didn’t feel right with the rest of the movie. It was almost slapstick, and I thought it detracted from the overall quality of the film. The other complaint was with the person who assembled the reels before showing the movie. The second-to-the-last reel was loaded backwards, which meant that the audience had to wait for almost 30 minutes to see the end of the movie. A film is an experience. The lights go down, the surround sound kicks in, and there you are. Having to sit and wait lessens the overall impact of the experience, whether it’s a simple action movie or a kiddie flick or a drama – you’re drawn out of your suspension of disbelief, and it’s tough to get back into the flow.

Now it’s time for what I thought the movie was actually about. Feel free to imagine a drumroll.

By arresting someone before they commit a crime, you are altering the future. You have arrested someone for a crime that they did not commit. Yes, they were going to commit the crime, but the did not. They did not have the opportunity. You have taken away something that makes them human – free will. They were no longer able to choose to kill or not to kill. What if, at the last second, they did not commit the crime? You have arrested an innocent person. There are no trials, no judges, no juries. The decision of Precrime is final. What if you, or the Pre-cogs, made a mistake? What is the point in saving the life of someone who wasn’t going to be killed? How much faith do you have in the system? How much freedom are you willing to sacrifice to feel safe?

That’s another issue – freedom and privacy. The movie is absolutely filled with advertising. Here are the products I remember: Aquafina, Nokia, Pepsi, Lexus, Kawasaki and American Express. Part of the product placement was simply to reinforce the ‘reality’ of the world. It wasn’t there simply to advertise, it wasn’t parodied, it wasn’t mocked – it was simply there. My favorite movie of all time, 2001: A Space Odyssey featured Hilton hotels, AT&T and Pan-Am. Advertising in and of itself is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. But, the ways that the advertising was presented in Minority Report was a little bit scary. Identification is based on retinal scans in the world of 2054. Say you’re walking through a mall. A scanner identifies you, and a holographic salesperson appears, saying, “Welcome back, Grant. We’re running a special on those polos you like so much,” or “Grant Bennett, wouldn’t you love to take a trip to Hawaii? To be eligible to win, all you have to do is make three more purchases with your MasterCard. You haven’t been using it lately. Why not use it today?” How much privacy do we want? How much do we need? Technology is already in the works to place a call to your cellphone to notify you of sales at stores you walk by. Face-scanning technology has already been used at the Superbowl. Spielberg doesn’t pass judgement on the technology in this movie; he simply presents it as part of the world. I’m not sure I want that world.

It’s wonderful to see a good movie based on the work of Philip K. Dick. Dick was one of the most remarkable sci-fi authors I have ever encountered. Blade Runner is based on his story “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” which asked the question “What determines ‘life’? Is artificial life any less valid than ‘real’ life?” Total Recall was based on his short story “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale”, which dealt with the issue of our own memories. What do we remember? Do we actually remember it, or did we make it up? Philip K. Dick was able to write stories using God as a character without it seeming awkward or contrived. He is also the only person who I believe actually had a religious vision in the 20th Century. If you’re curious about him, check Philip K. Dick.com.

I chose to watch Minority Report this week because I am a fan of Spielberg and P.K. Dick. However, I do have a good feeling about the other movie opening at The Hangar this week, Lilo and Stitch. I’m glad to see Disney actually taking some risks in their animated features, instead of just churning out a musical ever 2 years or so.

Windtalkers **
Directed by: John Woo
Written by: John Rice and Joe Batteer
Starring: Nicholas Cage, Adam Beach, Peter Stormare, Roger Willie, Noah Emmerich and Christian Slater
Rated R (It’s a war movie. And it’s directed by John Woo.)

Dear Hollywood,

While it’s admirable that you are broadening your horizons by bringing in talent from overseas, perhaps you should let a director make the movie he or she wants to make, instead of making them make what you think audiences want to see.

Sincerely,
Grant Bennett

I really, really wanted to like Windtalkers. I really, really like John Woo and his films. American film audiences owe him a debt of gratitude. Ever see a character in a movie jump through the air holding 2 .45s in slow motion? John Woo invented that. Ever see a movie with a gunfight in a church? That’s his invention, too. You can bet that Quentin Tarantino has seen all of Woo’s films at least twice. John Woo practically invented a genre of film – the ‘blood opera’. Blood operas are very, very violent, but not gratuitously so. The violence is essential to the story, but the focus is on characters. Not too many characters, however.

Windtalkers, while not based on a true story per se, is based around the US Military’s use of the Navajo language as the basis for a code during World War II. Navajo code was the only unbreakable code in the war. Ben Yahzee (Beach) and Charles Whitehorse (Willie) are two private code talkers. In order to protect the code, each is assigned a Marine as a bodyguard. Yahzee has Sgt. Joe Anders (Cage), and Whitehorse has Sgt. Peter “Ox” Henderson (Slater). The task of the bodyguards is to protect the code, not necessarily the code talker. Themes like racism, family, friendship, duty and honor are addressed, people get shot, Nicholas Cage gets blown up like 7 times, and America wins the war, eventually. This story takes place fairly early in the Pacific campaign.

When I first saw a preview for this movie, I was all kinds of excited. “Woah! A new John Woo movie! And it’s a war movie! How can this not rock?” Well, I’m sad to say that there are several ways in which it failed to rock.

First of all, 2 words: stock footage. And not just any stock footage. I’m talking about stock footage that was clearly taken from video. Secondly, airplanes. I don’t know if the airplanes were CGI or models, but, either way, there were scale problems. Thirdly, John Woo wasn’t allowed to make a John Woo movie.

I’m sure that most of you have seen at least one John Woo movie. He directed Face/Off, Mission: Impossible II, Broken Arrow and his unfortunate American debut, Hard Target. All of these movies were action movies. All of them except Hard Target were very good action movies. But, John Woo is not an action movie director – he is a dramatic director who uses action in his stories. His movies are centered around doomed, tragic relationships, loneliness, misunderstanding, trust and redemption. Thusfar, he hasn’t made a John Woo movie in America, which is unfortunate. Especially since in Windtalkers he really could have made a masterpiece.

I don’t know for a fact that Woo was forced to make changes in his film, but it sure felt and looked like it. There are some scenes that are classic Woo – characters playing music because they like to play music, very strong friendships, characters self-destructing after a tragedy, nearly every John Woo hallmark is present, including camera work. But there are others that seem like the executive producer said, “Hey, ya know that really neat part in Saving Private Ryan? Why don’t you put something like that in. Oh, and, you know how in most of your movies you have like 3 primary characters? Well, if your stuff is good with 3, it’d be even better with, oh, I dunno, 4 primaries and like 10 supporting characters! What? Of course you’ll have time to develop all of the characters fully!”

I can’t say that I absolutely didn’t like this movie. It had some absolutely wonderful moments, but, it usually followed those moments up with cliches. I am just disappointed in Windtalkers, and in Hollywood for thinking that American audiences are too stupid to understand things like ‘emotion’ and ‘high tragedy’. That’s right – Hollywood thinks that American audiences are dumb. But, you and I both know better.

If you’re in the mood for a REAL John Woo movie, I’d suggest renting The Killer or Hard Boiled. They’re in Chinese with English subtitles since they were made in Hong Kong, but, that shouldn’t bother you. If you’re not in the mood for a HK John Woo flick, rent Face/Off, which also has Nicholas Cage.

Bad Company * ½
Directed by: Joel Schumacher
Written by: Gary Goodman and David Himmelstein (story); Jason Richman and Michael Browning (screenplay)
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Chris Rock, and a bunch of character actors
Rated PG-13 (sass, attitude and flava!)

I suppose I should extend my thanks to Messrs. Schumacher and Bruckheimer for giving me so many great ideas. There are so many ways I could start off this review, including (but not limited to):

• This movie deserves a hug, because it tried its best.


• The oldest story in human history must be that of the sassy, street-wise black man being paired up with the straight-laced older white man.


• Instead of writing a review, I’m going to write a transcript of what Mike, Crow and Tom Servo would have said, were they in the audience.

Instead, I’m going to use this opportunity – nay, this gift, to offer you something I’ve wanted to do for quite a while. This is going to be an entry-level film course. If there are any young Spielbergs or Kubricks reading this, please take notes. You won’t be quizzed, but, you will save yourself some humiliation at the box office should you feel compelled to make a movie starring Jimmy “Dyn-O-Mite!” Walker and Patrick “Engage!” Stewart in a buddy cop story that features as its central plot device a rogue state placing a nuclear device at a Star Trek convention and time-travel. Perhaps you’d call it Russell Simmons’ Def Con One or Box Office Poison. Sure, the idea sounds fantastic on paper, but, as you’ll soon learn, things don’t always translate from the page to the screen. So, to help you wind up with something that’s only mostly bad, like Turner and Hooch, instead of something that’s completely bad, like Rising Sun, I am offering these tips.

Now, to make sure that everyone’s on the same page, let me give you an abstract of the story. Jack Hayes (Rock) is a street-wise sassy black man. He plays chess in the park for money, and scalps tickets to things like Knicks games and Broadway shows. Gaylord Oakes (Hopkins) is a CIA spook, but not one of the head spooks. Oakes was working with Michael Turner (Rock) on trying to buy a former-Soviet suitcase nuclear bomb. Turner gets shot and dies, saving the life of Oakes. Guess what – Turner and Hayes are, are you sitting down? LONG LOST TWINS! (Long-lost twins would be the second-oldest story in human history.) Turner was a CIA spook, too. A deep-cover spook. The deal had been secured with a nasty former-Soviet General (some character actor speaking with a bad Russian accent). The CIA now has nine days to see this deal through. So, they ‘convince’ Hayes to help them out by impersonating Turner. There is a love interest, and another love interest, and some guns, and some shooting, and some computer stuff, and Jack Hayes says some sassy stuff, and Gaylord Oakes broods and acts all cold and distant, but you know that he’s just faking it, because, what’s the point of teaming up a sassy black man and a straight-laced white man if they don’t learn how to love?

So, that’s pretty much it. Now, here’s a partial list of things that went wrong in this train wreck.

When I first saw a trailer for this movie, I felt a little part of me die. I saw the name Jerry Bruckheimer. Now, I used to look forward to losing the brain cells that Bruckheimer productions killed off. I didn’t really need them, anyway. He made stupid, dumb summer movies that featured things like explosions and sassy black people in cameo roles, like the sassy black woman who was one of the hostages in The Rock, or the sassy black bus driver in The Rock, or, if a sassy black actor wasn’t available, a sassy homosexual, like the one seen in Con Air. They were formulaic and stupid and exemplified what a ‘Summer Movie’ was all about. Sometimes they featured an Aerosmith song, or a LeAnn Rimes song, but that was after all the explosions and one-liners delivered by Sean Connery or John Cusack. Then, he made Pearl Harbor, which had a preview that, I am not kidding, made an entire audience groan. We don’t want Jerry Bruckheimer involved in anything that involves actual emotional investment on the part of the audience. Not content with producing Pearl Harbor, he went and threw everyone for a loop by producing the Oscar-winning Black Hawk Down, which everyone should see. So, now, whenever I see Bruckheimer’s name attached to anything, I err on the side of caution and assume that it’s going to be garbage.

Just to kill a little bit more of my soul, I saw that Bad Company was directed by Joel Schumacher, the man who killed the Batman franchise. The man who decided that the costumes of Batman and Robin just weren’t complete without nipples. The man who directed DC Cab, which had Mr. T (which was good), and The Barbarian Brothers (which wasn’t good). Joel Schumacher should not be allowed to make movies ever again.

So, what filmmaking lessons can we gain from this movie?

1) Long-lost twin plots are only effective if Jackie Chan is the star of the movie. We like contrived plots in Jackie Chan’s movies. We’re not there for things like ‘story’ and ‘character development’ – we want to see what sort of crazy stunts Jackie is going to do. They do not work in movies that do not involve Jackie Chan. When we don’t have Jackie Chan, we wind up with Maximum Risk starring Jean-Claude Van Damme. The “twin” genre, for the most part, is just not a good idea. Unless you actually like movies with Peter and David Paul, The Barbarian Brothers.

2) If you’re going to cast a popular comedian in a movie, for the love of Pete, don’t have him or her use lines from their stand-up act. Especially lines from their stand-up act from like 10 years ago.

3) If you are looking to make an action/comedy, you should make sure that the comedy parts are the funny parts, not the action parts of the dramatic parts.

4) If you’re going to feature the CIA in your movie, you should either have an agent who is sickened by the amount of red tape that prevents him from solving the case, or a conspiracy based around either a) The Illuminati or b) space aliens. You shouldn’t just portray the entire agency as being incompetent.

5) If your name is Chris Rock, and you are a former member of the “Saturday Night Live” cast, you should get a better agent, or be more selective with your scripts. You should probably pick roles that don’t have you screaming like a woman. Those roles are written with Chris TUCKER in mind.

6) If your name is Anthony Hopkins, and you have been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II, you can play pretty much any role you want to play. There’s no need for you to go slumming.

7) If, as a director, you are working for Jerry Bruckheimer, and you are using excellent actors (like John Malkovich and Steve Buscemi in Con Air), you should make sure that you are actually using abilities the actors possess beyond ‘can read lines’ and ‘can not read lines when other characters are speaking’. You should also make sure that any villains can do convincing foreign accents, since they will be required.

8) If you are going to feature things like ‘computers’ or ‘technology’ in your movie, you should use things like ‘operating systems that actually work’. Apple Computers regularly pays lots of money to have MacOS used in movies. MacOS stopped the aliens in Independence Day. Little things like that will save you money in the long run.

9) If you’re going to feature ‘characters’ in your movie, make sure that the audience cares about what happens to them. If you’re going to feature things like ‘tension’ in your movie, make sure that you have met the needs for a ‘character’, and make sure that your ‘plot’ isn’t entirely predictable. If you’re going to feature things like ‘plot’, make sure that you’re not making a movie about long-lost twins. If you are absolutely set on the ‘long-lost twin’ genre, make sure that the twins have prior contact, so that Twin 1 can actually care about and/or be aware of the existence of the Twin 2.

10) If you are a director, and your name is not John Woo, you should not stage gunfights in churches. John Woo is to gunfights in churches what David "Lawrence of Arabia" Lean is to making movies in deserts. It's already been done better than you can do it, so, just don't even try it.

There are lots of things I could go into, but, this is meant to be an entry-level course. If you are looking to see about a nuclear device that terrorists have planted on American soil this week, go and see The Sum of All Fears. If you are in the mood to play the live-version of “Mystery Science Theatre 3000”, then, by all means, go and see Bad Company.

The Sum of All Fears *** ½
Directed by: Phil Alden Robinson
Written by: Tom Clancy (novel), Paul Attanasio and Daniel Pyne (screenplay)
Starring: Ben Affleck, Morgan Freeman, James Cromwell, Liev Schreiber, Ciaran Hinds
Rated PG-13 (because, in all reality, the MPAA rating system is arbitrary.)

If this movie doesn’t scare the hell out of you, man, you’re cold.

Now, how do I go about writing a synopsis of this one... Jack Ryan (Affleck) works for the CIA as an analyst specializing in Russian politics. He, and the other people in his office (he’s not a department head), watch lots of TV. They keep tabs on how much weight the Soviet President has gained, if he’s drinking again, who that person in the background is, who is having sex with whom, all of which are important details when a) keeping intel up to speed and b) shaping foreign policy. When the Soviet President has a heart attack and dies, Alexander Nemerov (Hinds) is picked to succeed him. Ryan wrote a massive research paper on Nemerov while in grad school, and knows more about him than most of the US government. For this reason, he is called in by CIA Director Bill Cabot (Freeman). Nemerov is something of an enigma – “He talks like a hard-liner, he acts like a hard-liner...” says one of President Fowler (Cromwell)’s Cabinet members. Ryan thinks that it’s all a ploy to get the real hard-liners (read: Communists) off of his back so he can start solving the Chechnya situation. Ryan and Cabot go over to Russia to make sure that the Russians are meeting their end of the START-II treaty and dismantling their nuclear arsenal. Nemerov tells the US to keep away from Chechnya. Ryan notices that 3 Russian nuclear scientists are missing. The essential three that would be needed to construct a nuclear bomb. This is not good. When a chemical attack that basically causes cerebral palsy is launched against the capital of Chechnya, Grozny, things get worse. Oh, and someone who isn’t Russia or America, or even a nation for that matter, has a nuclear bomb. That’s kind of an important detail. Please note that this is as simple a synopsis as I could write.

Many people were upset with the casting of Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan, who was played by Alec Baldwin in The Hunt for Red October and Harrison Ford in Patriot Games. Those people are wrong. Yes, it might not be entirely faithful to the storyline of the books, but that doesn’t matter. This movie is the best Jack Ryan movie, hands down. Affleck does a great job. I don’t think anyone is going to complain about Morgan Freeman. I’ve liked James Cromwell ever since he played Farmer Hoggitt in Babe, and he makes a fine President. All of the other actors are good, too. Lots of character (read: “Hey, it’s that guy!”) actors portray President Fowler’s cabinet. By far the coolest character in the movie is Mr. Clark, played by Liev Schreiber. He's one of those CIA agents that doesn't officially exist. They do the things that are generally frowned upon by things like 'other governments' and 'international treaties'. Tom Clancy is not only an author -- he has a media company called Red Storm Entertainment. One of his game series, Rainbow Six, is a tactical simulation (you have a group of soldiers, you command them to, say, rescue a hostage). I think he's clearly missing out on a BIG franchise by not making a Metal Gear-type game with Mr. Clark.

Robinson’s direction was very good. You’ve seen his stuff before – he also directed Field of Dreams and Sneakers, so he knows how to work with a talented cast. The cinematography was also good. Especially after... crap – I’m not going to give that away. Trust me. The pacing was tight, for the most part. If there were any lags, I’ve forgotten them.

After seeing this movie, I’m scared. Don’t get me wrong – I’m gonna sleep just fine tonight. The Sum of All Fears isn’t a huge downer. It’s just the exact emotional opposite of Dr. Strangelove.

Insomnia ***
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Written by: Nikolaj Frobenius and Erik Skjoldbjærg (1997 screenplay); Hillary Seitz (Screenplay)
Starring: Al Pacino, Robin Williams and Hillary Swank
Rated R (language, violence, brief nudity)

Sometimes, I wish that Robin Williams was still on the cocaine. Perhaps, if he were still messing with the nose candy, we would have been spared things like Patch Adams. This, however, is not one of those times. Robin Williams can act. He isn’t the clown who’s crying on the inside in this movie; he is a character.

Hap Eckhart (Martin Donovan) and Will Dormer (Pacino) are LAPD homicide detectives that are sent to Nightmute (how cool a name is that?), Alaska to help with a murder case. A 17-year-old girl was beaten to death, and left naked in a garbage dump. Ellie Burr (Swank) is one of the detectives assigned to the case. Ellie studied Dormer’s past cases while she was in the academy, and, early on, acts like an excited kid meeting her hero. Dormer seems put-off at first, but knows that she’s capable. In between looking for clues, Hap and Dormer discuss a situation within the LAPD – Internal Affairs has started looking very, very hard at some of the cases of their particular office within the force. Several of Hap and Dormer’s colleagues have been fingered on charges of evidence tampering, planting evidence, things like that. Part of the reason that the two detectives went north is so that some of the heat will come off of them. (In case you’re new to the cop drama genre, IA is bad. Cops are good.) Clues start pointing to mystery author Walter Finch (Williams), who lives nearby. Finch knows some things about Dormer, however. Not the least of which is that he hasn’t been able to sleep since arriving in Alaska. “At midnight, you’ll be at 6 days. That beats my record,” Finch tells Dormer at one point. The sun doesn’t set, and Dormer can’t adjust. To paraphrase a line from Fight Club, “When you can’t sleep, nothing is real anymore. Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy.” I can’t go into any more detail than that without spoiling everything.

As far as the story goes, it worked. I’d still like to see the original, just to see how many changes Hollywood made to it. Many films that come out of Scandanavia are incredibly moody, tense and affecting. While Nolan made some very good choices in the editing, I’d still like to see how it played out originally.

Nolan was a good choice as director. He seems to be fascinated by the displacement of people in time. His previous film, Memento, unfolded backwards. The main character was unable to form new memories, so cause-and-effect had no meaning for him. In Insomnia, Dormer seems to be affected in a similar way, except that instead of not forming memories, he’s not sure of reality. Again, to borrow from Fight Club, “Am I sleeping? Have I slept?”

Al Pacino is the reason to see this movie, hands down. First of all, he’s remembered how to use his inside voice. He hardly yells at all, which he seems to have been doing in every movie he’s done since Dick Tracy. Not once does he say “Hoo-ah!” Secondly, the haggard, detached, yet focused, performance he gives is similar to what he did in Dog Day Afternoon. If you haven’t seen that one, you really need to. Hillary Swank... She looked good, but I don’t think she was used to her full potential. As far as Robin Williams goes, he shows what he can do in one of his phone conversations with Dormer. You’ll know it when you see it. After seeing him here, I’m really looking forward to his performance in One Hour Photo.

This week, if you have kids, take them to see Attack of the Clones. I’d say take them to see Spirit, the new animated feature about the horse, but it just doesn’t look good to me. I watch lots of cartoons, so I think you can trust my judgement there. Avoid Enough. Please. Yes, Jennifer Lopez can act. But, come on – you already know what’s going to happen.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones ***
Directed by: George Lucas
Written by: George Lucas (story and screenplay) and Jonathan Hales (screenplay)
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christiansen, Natalie Portman, Christopher Lee, Ian McDiarmid, Frank Oz, Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker
Rated PG (Just like all the other movies in the franchise, for the same reasons)

I’ve been looking forward to writing this review, and dreading it at the same time.

Like most people in my generation, the Star Wars saga is a part of who I am. I think I’m unique among movie critics in that I am as old as the series. I was born in March of 1977; Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was released in May of 1977. I can’t even conceptualize a world that was around before we knew Darth Vader, Chewbacca, Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia Organa, Yoda, R2-D2 and C-3PO. Star Wars was a massive part of my childhood. Previous generations of boys played Cowboys and Indians. In my kindergarten years, my friend (not a lot of kids in that neighborhood), his sister and I would play Star Wars. He and I would have arguments over who got to be Luke Skywalker and Han Solo; his sister was Princess Leia by default. When you’re that age, you don’t understand just how cool Han Solo is – Luke was who you wanted to be. He could use the Force, and, at least until Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi came out, he apparently got the girl. We would have lightsaber fights with flashlights. We had the toys. We had the Underoos. Growing up, my favorite character was Darth Vader. I can’t explain why. I remember having him on my 5th Birthday cake. I have a ceramic R2-D2 with flashing lights inside. That’s cool and all, but I really wanted a Darth Vader.

Don’t worry – I am going somewhere with this. I’m not just rambling (for once). This current trilogy is telling the story of how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. Ultimately, the story will be about Anakin’s fall and redemption. However, you’re probably more interested in the latest installment, so, here we go!

Attack of the Clones takes place 10 years after The Phantom Menace. Some things have changed in the lives of the characters introduced in Episode I – Obi-Wan Kenobi (McGregor) has become a full-fledged Jedi Master. Anakin Skywalker (Christiansen) is still a padowan learner, 19 years old, and chomping at the bit to be respected as an adult. Padmé Amidala (Portman) is no longer Queen of Naboo; she’s a senator. Jar-Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) is a representative of the Gungans. Palpatine (McDiarmid) is now Supreme Chancellor. There is trouble brewing within the Republic – political infighting and bureaucratic muckity-muck has begun to wear away at the democracy, and many systems are threatening to secede. Amidala is one of the key loyalists. She wants to keep the Republic intact, but still hopes for a diplomatic solution. Other members of the loyalists want to grant Chancellor Palpatine the authority to build up the military in order to keep separatist systems in line. When Amidala is nearly killed in a rocket attack, Obi-Wan and Anakin are assigned to protect her. Obi-Wan begins an investigation into who tried to kill Amidala, while Anakin goes back to Naboo with Amidala. Obi-Wan discovers some very scary stuff. Anakin and Amidala struggle with their feelings for each other. The Jedi Council, led by Mace Windu (Jackson) and Yoda (voice of Oz) start digging deeper into what Obi-Wan has discovered, and we’re introduced to a rebel Jedi – Count Dooku (Lee), or, as he is known to the Sith, Darth Tyranus.

An important thing to remember about Star Wars is that George Lucas ultimately wants to wind up with one movie that’s 12 to 13 hours long. So, to really pass judgement on one episode without seeing the work in its entirety would be foolish. We all have favorite TV shows, but we don’t praise or condemn an entire series on the basis of one episode. I liked Attack of the Clones. Many people won’t.

Let me start by saying this: George Lucas is an amazing storyteller. He is not, however, a great director. He’s very good at telling a story with images, but not so good at working with actors. To quote Harrison Ford, “Dammit, George, you can write this (stuff), but you can’t expect us to say it!” The dialogue is somewhat heavy-handed, but the emotional core is dead on. You’ll understand when you see it.

The acting was average for the most part. However, McGregor’s portrayal of Obi-Wan is fantastic. As an audience, we pretty much know Obi-Wan as either an old man or a ghost. In Episode II, we see more of Obi-Wan, the man, instead of Obi-Wan, the Jedi Master. In A New Hope, he warns Luke that you’ll not find a “greater hive of scum and villainy” than Mos Eisly on Tatooine. In Attack of the Clones, we see that that’s exactly the type of place he likes to be. We also see more of Yoda – he’s in charge of training the children that enter the Jedi Academy. He’s also someone you want to remain on the good side of.

In terms of pacing, well, there’s a LOT of story to tell. Lucas is establishing the ‘universe’ of the original trilogy. This includes LOTS of detail – politics, economics, family ties, character motivations, foreshadowing, etc. When there’s a lot of story to tell, you need to take your time doing it, because there’s loads of detail that the audience is expected to remember. The ‘prequel’ trilogy is much more complicated than the episodes we’ve seen so far.

One other note: Attack of the Clones was filmed digitally. On DVD it is going to be amazing. In digital theatres, it will blow you away. Unfortunately, digital to film transfer isn’t perfect. Some of the early scenes were somewhat grainy. It was disappointing, but not distracting.

Regardless of what any critic says, you’re probably going to see this movie. It’s not disappointing in the least. It might not be what you expect, but it might be your favorite installment. I’m still going to have to say that my favorite episode thusfar is The Empire Strikes Back.

Unfaithful ***
Directed by: Adrian Lyne
Written by: Claude Chabrol (original film, La Femme Infidele), Alvin Sargent and William Broyles, Jr. (Screenplay)
Starring: Richard Gere, Diane Lane, Olivier Martinez and Erik Per Sullivan
Rated R (for rogerring. There’s also language, surprisingly little nudity, adult situations and violence. But, it’s not like kids are gonna want to see this anyway. Heck, Spider-Man is just down the hall. They should see that instead. Or, they could wait until next week for Star Wars Episode II.)

Hmmmm.

(scratches head, mutters something, raises his hand as if to make a point, shakes his head, mutters again, etc.)

Well, if I’ve learned anything from Adrian Lyne’s films, it’s that sex is wrong and will never wind up good for anyone. You might think it’s a lasting treasure, but it’s only a moment’s pleasure, and, they might say that they will, but, odds are, they won’t love you tomorrow. There are reasons that I’m single.

Lousy moral quandaries.

You’ve all seen the previews. You all know that Adrian Lyne directed Fatal Attraction. Unfaithful is not the “guy” version of Fatal Attraction. In terms of mood, it’s more in line with his remake of Lolita.

If you don’t know what it’s all about, here’s a synopsis. Connie (Lane) and Edward (Gere) Sumner are a happily married couple. Edward is the head of a security company – armored trucks and the like, like Brinks, but smaller. Connie is involved in charity work, mostly for her son, Charlie (Per Sullivan)’s school. On a very windy day in New York City, Connie runs into Paul (Martinez), and hurts herself. Paul is charming, handsome, smart, and French. Combine that with the title of the movie, and you already know what’s going to happen. Edward starts to suspect things, and has a private eye follow Connie around. See, Edward values loyalty. In fact, he fires one of his employees, Bill Stone (Chad Lowe), when word reaches him that Bill has been ‘courted’ by several other security firms. “You can’t fire me! I have a family!” protests Bill. “You had a family here,” retorts Edward. Anyway, things get bad, and then they get worse. Police start asking questions, the Sumner’s start asking questions, and then I went “Hmmmm.”

As far as direction went, well, it’s not like Lyne hasn’t been in this territory before. 9 ½ Weeks, Indecent Proposal, Fatal Attraction, Lolita – either he’s really comfortable with sexual relationships, or he has loads of issues regarding sexual relationships. Either way, he’s familiar with this sort of material.

Actingwise – wow. I had forgotten that Richard Gere could act. He’s able to play sad, hurt, angry and indignant at the same time. Diane Lane is able to shift from loving wife to doting mother to sex-starved minx at the drop of a hat. I’m not familiar with Olivier Martinez, but, the ladies won’t mind seeing him with his shirt off. And, Erik Per Sullivan – I just like this kid. He plays Dewey on “Malcolm In The Middle”. While he’s essentially playing the same character here, at the same time, he isn’t. He just strikes me as the sort of kid who makes up dumb songs and talks to animals in his real life, not just when he’s on camera.

The story – also good. Be aware that I’m gonna get pseudo-intellectual right now.

Call me old-fashioned, but I’m a firm believer in fidelity. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t even really know what a groove is, so I don’t fully understand the desire to get it back. But, I do believe that if you are with someone, you are with him or her. Yes, eyes wander. Yes, we all have urges. Just because a handsome French man made you tea is no reason to start having an affair with him, however. I had very little sympathy for Connie. “No. I can’t,” she said repeatedly. “We have to stop,” she would tell Paul. Of course, those protests lasted for about 10 seconds, since he was handsome and French and made her feel naughty. That’s just something I don’t think I’ll ever understand. Hi, I’m happily married, have a loving husband and a great kid. Could you make me feel like a whore, please? And then there’s the issue of Edward. Had I been in that situation, I would have been all “Dear Baby, Welcome to Dumpsville, population: You.” But, we are shown that Edward values loyalty, and not just from others – he places the same burden on himself. I understand why he does what he does, but, it’s almost like the audience is left out of some big part of backstory – why is loyalty such a big issue with Edward? I understand and condone nearly everything he does. But, by the end of the movie, I had started saying, “Hmmmm.” The situation was different than I thought it was. There’s a scene near the end where Edward and Connie are dancing and kissing. There’s nothing romantic about it. They are damaged people, desperate people. They know everything, but they also know that they need each other. It’s not even love anymore. They want it to be love, but that’s just not possible anymore. It’s not addiction, it’s something... else. I don’t have the words to describe it. The final shot of the movie mirrors an earlier scene where Connie first meets Paul. The right thing to do is within reach. But, the right thing to do isn’t what’s going to be done.

This is probably one of the worst movies to go to on a first date I’ve seen in awhile.

Spider-Man ***1/2
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Written by: David Koepp, based on characters created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and Willem Dafoe
Rated PG-13 (violence. But, for the love of Pete, it’s a superhero movie!)

From now until May 15th, I want to be Spider-Man. When May 15th hits, I’ll go back to wanting to be a Jedi.

Forget what your calendar says – Summer is here. This is, by my reckoning, the 25th Blockbuster Movie Summer. I consider Star Wars Episode IV to be the first true summer blockbuster. It changed the way Hollywood promotes and produces movies. During the summer, it releases the big special effects movies, the sequels, the franchise pieces, and hopes to cash in big. I have a good feeling about the next few years, movie-wise, anyway. If Spider-Man is any indication, I’m gonna say that I’m right with that feeling.

You might be unfamiliar with Spider-Man. I’m gonna guess that you’re not. I don’t care how cool you are now, at some point you’ve read a comic book. If you’re a geek like me, you still read them. When a comic book is adapted to cinema, it’s either really good (Superman and Batman) or really bad (Superman IV and any Batman movie that didn’t involve Tim Burton). Spider-Man is really good.

You should already know the basic story, but, just in case you don’t, here we go!

Peter Parker (Maguire) is a nerd. He’s in the chess club, he’s the photographer for the school newspaper, and he has little in the way of social skills. He’s been in love with Mary Jane Watson (Dunst) since they were in 4th grade. Peter’s only friend is Harry Osborne (James Franco), who is the son of multi-millionaire industrialist, Norman Osborne (Dafoe). While on a school field trip, Peter is bitten by a genetically-engineered spider. When he gets home to his foster parents, Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) are shocked when he just wants to go to sleep. When Peter awakes the next day, he no longer needs his glasses, and he is packed with muscle. Meanwhile, Norman Osborne’s company, Oscorp, is under pressure to deliver some sort of super-soldier serum (bonus points if you get that reference) to the government. Osborne’s chief researcher thinks that they need to completely start the project over, but Norman doesn’t want to lose the contract, so he tests the enhancer on himself. On the plus side, the chems do their job – Osborne is stronger, faster, and has better reflexes. On the minus side, insanity is one of the side-effects. Dang.

Story-wise, I liked it. Like most of Stan Lee’s creations, Spider-Man is more than just a guy in a costume fighting crime. Peter Parker didn’t ask for his powers, they were forced upon him. He’s not cut out to be a superhero, really. He’s a shy kid, a geek. But, when he puts on his costume, he’s spouting one-liners, full of pizzazz, everything we expect from a superhero. At the same time, he is fully aware of the responsibilities he has, and fears letting anyone get to close to him since they might be hurt. Maguire is perfect for this role. As far as everything else in the movie goes, you’re really asking the wrong guy. I was never a big Spider-Man fan. I was more into Captain America. So, I have no idea if Green Goblin was faithful to the comics or not. I do know that Dafoe looked like he was having a blast hamming it up on-screen. I’m also not that familiar with the Mary Jane Watson character, but I do know that Kirsten Dunst looked REALLY good playing her.

Cinematically, Sam Raimi was the perfect choice to direct. If you’ve seen his Evil Dead movies, or The Quick and The Dead, you know that he has a very distinctive kinetic style with his cinematography. This is absolutely what needs to happen – webslinging is about as kinetic a shot as you can get. As a bonus, Raimi has demonstrated that he can work with talented actors – just take a look at A Simple Plan. So, we’re not short-changed there at all.

The special effects were outstanding, and ILM had nothing to do with them! However, the special effects supervisor was John Dykstra, who was one of the guys who helped do Star Wars. Not too shabby. The shifts between a completely CGI Spider-Man and Maguire were nearly seamless. No disappointments from what I saw.

So, what was not entirely cool about it?

1) The webs that Spider-Man shot. I’ve always thought that Parker built special ‘web-guns’ that he wore around his wrists. Here, they just shoot out of his arms. While that’s really cool, it’s not ‘canon’, so to speak.

2) They totally forgot to include The Ramones version of ‘Spider-Man’. That song rocks so much that it should be used as much as possible, not just in Spider-Man properties.

Marvel Comics has been on a roll lately. X-Men and the Blade series made loads of money, and more adaptations are on the horizon – a teaser trailer for Hulk, directed by Ang (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) Lee, was featured before Spider-Man, and Ben Affleck is rumored to be on-board for a Daredevil movie. Spider-Man does Stan Lee’s creation justice.

Besides, don’t think that Cingular Wireless can’t make you go and see it.

Life or Something Like It ***
Directed by: Stephen Herek
Written by: John Scott Shepard (story and screenplay), and Dana Stevens (screenplay)
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Edward Burns and Tony Shalhoub
Rated PG-13 (language, I guess.)

I’m not who this movie is aimed at. I think I might have missed the point of the movie since I was stuck wondering how an alternachick who was big into Social Distortion wound up being a reporter with a Type A personality.

Regardless, the movie isn’t terrible by any stretch of the imagination, mostly because of the skill of the three principle actors.

Lanie Kerrigan (Jolie) is a news reporter (mostly puff pieces) for a Seattle TV station. One of the major networks is interested in seeing what she can do on their morning news show, AM USA. To help her gain some cred in the industry, her boss has her do location shoots with Pete (Burns). Lanie doesn’t like Pete, and Pete doesn’t like Lanie. (Yeah, right. To quote Pete’s sound-man, “Why don’t you to get a room already?”) One of the location shoots is about a homeless clairvoyant named Prophet Jack (Shalhoub). Pete knows him because Jack picked some good stocks that Pete made some money on. During the piece, Jack predicts that the Seahawks will beat the Broncos 19 to 13, that it will hail the next morning, and that Lanie will die next Thursday. Lo and behold, the Seahawks win, it hails and... heh, heh, heh.

Honestly, it’s a pretty lightweight chick flick. Yeah, yeah, live every moment like it will be your last, we’ve all heard that plenty of times before. But, I thought the more interesting question that the movie posed was, “How far do you follow your dreams? What sacrifices do you want to make? When is enough enough?” Of course, you know the answer that this story has already, but it’s an interesting question nonetheless.

At first I thought that Life or Something Like It was directed by the same guy who did Hi Fidelity. I was wrong. I should really do better research, but, hey, that’s what The Internet Movie Database is for. Stephen Frears directed Hi Fidelity. Stephen Herek directed Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure and Mr. Holland’s Opus. Not a particularly notable director (i.e. one with an identifiable style like Tim Burton or Steven Spielberg), but not one worthy of hatred (i.e. Joel Schumacher (Batman Forever and Batman and Robin)).

Angelina Jolie is crazy. At least as crazy as her husband, Billy Bob Thorton. But, just like her husband, she can act like nobody’s bidness. She does some incredibly subtle facial work that is just perfect. It doesn’t hurt that she’s very attractive, as well. Ed Burns kept enough of New Yawk to make Pete believable, and he has the right degree of ‘ruggedness’ to woo the ladies in the audience. And Tony Shalhoub is, while not a fantastic character actor, is a good enough actor to play nearly any role. In fact, during my vacation (Yes, there actually WAS a reason I didn’t review The Scorpion King), I had an accidental Shalhoub mini-fest, watching Spy Kids (one of the best family movies made in the past decade) and The Man Who Wasn’t There (an excellent piece of noir by the Coen Brothers that no one saw). In Spy Kids, he played an evil henchman to Alan “Best Character Actor in The Bidness” Cumming’s Floop, and in The Man Who Wasn’t There, he played a high-priced lawyer.

Now, if you’ll look at the beginning of this review, I mentioned something called Social Distortion. What the heck is that? One of the reasons I went to review this movie, for one thing. Social Distortion is an amazing band led by Mike Ness. Their sound is like if a punk band had traveled back in time and recorded albums for Sun Records. They do a superb cover of Johnny Cash’s “Ring of Fire”. One of their songs, “Story of My Life” is featured in a key scene of the movie, and Angelina Jolie wears a SD T-shirt very, very well. That song is the high-point of the soundtrack, at least for people of my demographic. Hence my confusion – bands like Social Distortion aren’t the first choice of the image conscious. You’re not going to be one of the cool kids in high school if you listen to them, and you won’t hear them at parties. Unless you go to some really cool parties. It’s listened to by misfits. And, the movie does indicate that Lanie used to be a misfit, but then something happened. What, exactly, that thing was isn’t explored, and I wish that it were.

If for no other reason than to get more Social Distortion played in a movie.

Changing Lanes *** ½
Directed by: Roger Michell
Written by: Chap Taylor (story and screenplay) and Michael Tolkin (screenplay)
Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Affleck, Amanda Peet, Sidney Pollack, Toni Collette and William Hurt
Rated R (violence and philosophy)

This is going to be one strange review.

When I was leaving the theatre, “All You Need Is Love” by The Beatles was playing on the radio, and a stray, soggy, muddy, lonely St. Bernard was wandering around the parking lot. That sums up everything I feel about the movie. Should I have helped the dog? Yes. I swear to you that the dog was looking at me, but didn’t want to beg to come with me. I could have let the dog into my truck, but then what? I don’t have room in my apartment for a St. Bernard. Especially a soggy one. Plus, I can’t have pets anyway. There’s doing what’s right, and there’s doing what’s legal, and they’re not always the same thing. What happens when doing the right thing isn’t possible because of the world you live in? What happens when you try to do the right thing, and everything works against you?

I’m rambling.

Here’s my synopsis. Please note that what you see in the previews doesn’t even come close to showing what the movie is about. Gavin Banek (Affleck) is a lawyer. One of his clients died recently. Before this client died, he signed documents giving control of his trust fund to Gavin’s law firm, rather than the board of trustees that the client had established. Doyle Gipson (Jackson) is a recovering alcoholic going through a custody battle. His wife loves him, but she just can’t be with him anymore. I won’t explain more than that. Gavin and Doyle are both going to the courthouse on the same day. Someone cuts someone else off, resulting in Doyle’s car slamming into a bunch of barrels on FDR in New York. Hey, that’s fine, things happen. Traffic was heavy, they’re both in a hurry, everyone is cool. Gavin offers to give Doyle a blank check for repairs. “No, I wanna do this the right way,” replies Doyle. Gavin doesn’t have time to do it the right way. Of course, neither does Doyle, but, he really thinks that he should. Gavin leaves Doyle stranded on the expressway, but leaves behind a very important file. Gavin needs the file for the hearing he is going to, and Doyle winds up missing his custody hearing. Begin escalation of vengeance... NOW.

Changing Lanes is about America, and about humanity. It’s about living in a world where doing the right thing will land you in jail, but doing the wrong thing will help hundreds of disadvantaged children. It’s about living in a world where blackmailing your boss can keep a family together. It’s about living in a world where the son of a man who made his family’s fortune smuggling booze during prohibition is elected President of the United States. The movie hates that world, and will do everything it can to make you hate it, too. Then, it takes it one step further – it shows you how you can kill that world.

There are no good guys or bad guys in this movie. There are just people doing what they think is necessary to get what they want. They’re not unscrupulous, just desperate. Each person has what the other needs to live his life has he knows it. I’m gonna stop this subject right now, because I will just wind up rambling some more.

I’m gonna skip my usual thoughts on the various aspects of the film (story, acting, etc.), because I really need to wrap my head around some stuff. I will say this, however: I didn’t know that Affleck could act that well.

When you go to see this (and you should), be warned – it moves slowly. It needs to. In order for Ben and Sam’s Very Bad Day to work, you need to be dragged along with it. Ever have one of those bad days that just doesn’t end? The pacing in this matches that mood perfectly. But, trust me, you’ve never had a day as bad as either of these guys.

Panic Room *** ½
Directed by: David Fincher
Written By: David Koepp
Starring: Jodie Foster, Forest Whitaker, Dwight Yoakam, Jared Leto and Kristen Stewart
Rated R (language, violence, implied violence, overt violence, and stuff hitting fans left and right)

It’s about time someone made a good thriller. Don’t Say A Word tried to be a thriller, but failed. Most thrillers today wind up with the protagonist spouting off a clever one-liner and then shooting the bad guy. In fact, a thriller starring Jennifer “J-Lo” Lopez was previewed before Panic Room. When a thriller lists a song in its credits during the preview, especially when the song is off of an upcoming album called “J to the Lo”, you can bet it’s going to be predictable as all get-out. And not in the good way. Panic Room is predictable in the good way.

I saw an interview with Alfred Hitchcock several years ago. To paraphrase what he said: Show the bad guys placing a bomb underneath the dining room table. Then, have the good guys sit at the table and talk about baseball. The audience knows that the bomb is there, but the good guys don’t. While the baseball conversation is happening, the audience is squirming in their seats thinking “Don’t talk about baseball, you idiots! There’s a bomb under the table!” Does the bomb go off? It might, and that’s what makes a thriller work – show something bad that might happen, and then pile surprises on top of that.

The trailers for Panic Room tell you everything you need to know about the plot. Actually, there isn’t much of a plot. It’s a premise. Playwright George Bernard Shaw once said that he never used plots. He had a situation, put characters into the situation, and watched what would happen. That’s what happens here.

Meg Altman (Foster) and her daughter Sarah (Stewart) just moved into a gorgeous house: a mix between a townhouse and a brownstone, or, a brownhouse. The house has all sorts of nifty things, like an elevator (the last resident was very rich and disabled). The movie gets its title from the panic room in the house. It’s explained in the trailers, but, to recap, the panic room is a house within the house. It has its own ventilation system, phone line, plumbing, and electricity. If you shut the massive steel door, no one can get in. Now, the last resident had loads of money and several kids. The inheritance is in dispute, and there are millions of dollars missing. Three people who know more about the panic room than Meg and Sarah break into the house. Junior (Leto), Burnham (Whitaker) and Raoul (Yoakam) are the bad guys – some worse than others. Then, things get messy. And tense.

I like David Fincher. I like him a lot. Se7en is a near-classic. Fight Club is in my DVD collection. I’m not entirely sure what his motives as a director are (the great directors typically explore their psyches on the screen: Spielberg fights Nazis and tries to forgive his father, Lucas relives his childhood, Hitchcock showed his contempt for humanity, Kubrick asked the questions that needed to be asked), but whatever they are, they sure look cool. Fincher started off directing music videos, so he understands pacing and editing – essentials for a thriller.

Now, for a thriller to really work, it has to start off slowly. You need to be introduced to the characters, details need to be shown, and all of these things take time. No detail is unimportant in a thriller. Often, however, the details are shown quickly or are not the center of attention. The first part of a thriller needs to move slowly. We already know that these robbers are going to break into the house, and the mother and daughter will be locked in the panic room. So, from the beginning, the audience is already anxious – when is it going to happen? Then, of course, it does happen. Other things are added into the mix, and we keep saying, OK – now what? How does this wind up? But, it shouldn’t be tense all the time. The audience needs breaks. Throw in a laugh, or a lull in the action. Fincher has this down.

Enough of my lecture series – time to get into the nitty gritty. What did I like?

First off, the story. I don’t care if it was plausible or not – it had me. I didn’t notice any loose-ends or plot-holes. Even apparent plot-holes are addressed. “Why the hell didn’t we do that?” asks Raoul at one point. The thing he’s referring to is obvious, but, given the premise, it’s understandable why the thugs didn’t do it in the first place.

Secondly, the acting. Jodie Foster is no slouch at all. The fact that she spends most of the movie in a leotard doesn’t hurt, either. Forest Whitaker is excellent. He has a very quiet presence on the screen, but he commands attention. Jared Leto – he’s almost a chameleon. I didn’t recognize him at first. Very good character actor. Kristen Stewart – I’ve never seen her before, but her performance is unforced, which is tough to find in a child actor. Dwight Yoakam – wow. This is only the second time I’ve seen him act, but he is very, very good. He was absolutely unrecognizable in Sling Blade, and he is just evil in this role.

What didn’t I like? Hmmm....

This is really odd for me to say, but the special effects. Don’t get me wrong – they were excellent. I thought that Blue Sky (the people who did Ice Age) did it. They did the FX for Fight Club, and similar techniques were used, but, Toybox handled the digital FX here. While they were very, very good effects, at times it seemed to draw me out of ‘the moment’. Things are cool, I’m entranced by the movie, and then all of a sudden I’m snapped back into reality because of an effect. This is coming from a guy who grew up with the Star Wars movies. But, the effects should add to the story, not remind the audience that they are watching a movie. Did Keanu Reeves really do that crazy bending in The Matrix? Of course not. Did it work? You betcha. Can a camera really move through walls like it does in Panic Room? No. Does it work? Yes, but only to a point. After that point, it actually detracts from the experience.

Is Panic Room Hitchcockian? It actually almost is. That is, if Hitch were making movies today, and didn’t have nearly as many issues, he might have done this. If you’re claustrophobic, you might want to skip this. If you want to see how a thriller should be made, you need to check this out. And, if you hate Dwight Yoakam (unlike me. I think he’s great.), you DEFINATELY want to see this.

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial 20th Anniversary Edition *** ½
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Melissa Matheson
Starring: Henry Thomas, Dee Wallace, Drew Barrymore, Peter Coyote, Robert MacNaughton, and Erika Eleniak (betcha didn’t know THAT.)
Rated PG (If you don’t know why, I’m not the person who should be telling you)

I was tempted to give this zero stars – not because of the quality of the film, but simply because with something like E.T., stars are irrelevant.

Seriously – it’s pretty much a classic, like It’s A Wonderful Life or The Wizard of Oz or The Princess Bride. A critic’s opinion really doesn’t matter that much. Especially in a re-release. I don't think it's Speilberg trying to get more money. This is something that should be re-released periodically.

If for some reason you are completely unaware of what one of the highest-grossing films of all time is about, if you’ve lived your whole life without hearing the phrase “E.T. phone home,” if you thought that Drew Barrymore’s first role was in Scream, I want you to shut of your computer right now and go to the nearest theatre that is showing this film. For those of you who just want a quick refresher, here we go.

An alien is stranded on Earth. His family left because they were in danger. Things were coming through the forest where they were collecting plants. The things were loud and had bright lights. The aliens waited as long as they could for their brother, but couldn’t wait any longer, so they had to leave. The alien makes his way out of the forest and into a tool shed. A boy named Elliot (Thomas) finds him in the shed, but no one believes him. He shows the alien (later named E.T.) to his brother Michael (MacNaughton), and sister Gertie (Barrymore), who swear that E.T. will be their secret. Gertie, however, is 4. And talkative. And friendly. Oh, and those things in the woods? Government agents. They were looking for E.T., too. E.T. wants to go home. Elliot wants to help him, but wants E.T. to stay, too.

The question you’re probably asking yourself is: should I go and see this ‘new’ version? If you’ve never seen it before, yes. Absolutely. If you have seen it before, it’s entirely up to you. Nothing is really added to make the story deeper or more compelling. E.T. does look better in this version, thanks to Industrial Light and Magic doing subtle cgi work on his face. If you’ve only seen it on TV or video, you really do owe it to yourself to see it on the big screen. The soundtrack is absolutely pristine, even if they did cut Neil Diamond’s “Heartlight” from the closing credits.

Yes, yes, that’s all well and good, you’re thinking. But what did you think of the movie, Mr. Critic?

That’s a very good question. I remember seeing it back in 1982. I was 4 or 5. I must have liked it, because I had all kinds of E.T. stuff – coloring books, figurines, things like that. But it never impacted me the way that Star Wars did. Now that I’m 20 years older, and have studied film, I can see it from different angles. This was Speilberg’s first ‘serious’ movie, as I see it. He’d made Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark at this point, as well as Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I consider Close Encounters to be his first sci-fi movie. While it was ‘serious’, it wasn’t aiming at the same target as most of his other works.

Speilberg has never forgotten what it’s like to be a boy. That’s why he was able to make the Indiana Jones series and Jurassic Park work – the Gee-Whiz factor in those movies could only be achieved by someone who is still 12. Stuff blowing up is cool. Adventure is cool. Dinosaurs are VERY cool. Girls are kinda neat, too. But, it seems that in E.T., he also remembered that being a kid sucks. Adults don’t listen to you, big brothers are jerks (I know – I am one), little sisters are annoying (I know – I have one), school is damn near intolerable – looking back, it’s easy for adults to forget things like that.

In E.T., Speilberg starts to work on some of his issues. He already started fighting Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark. In E.T., he starts dealing with fatherhood issues. Elliot’s dad is in Mexico. With his girlfriend. Speilberg was raised by his mother. Elliot wants to hang out and play Dungeons and Dragons with his brother and his brother’s friends, but they won’t let him. Speilberg was the only Jewish kid in his neighborhood. Abandonment and being an outsider show up again and again in his work, but it seems that he starts dealing with them in E.T. As such, it’s not incredibly subtle.

He has his trademark shots of people looking. He has the John Williams score in place. Everything that we associate with Steven Speilberg is there; it’s just not as refined as it will become. When E.T. leaves (if that’s a spoiler, shame on you for not having seen this movie in the first place. 20 years not long enough for you?), he’s clearly looking for tears. Not subtle at all. Is that a bad thing? Nope. It’s a family movie. Sometimes you need to bring out the big brush to get things across.

It’s a family movie, and it has the guts to not sugarcoat everything. Sometimes people say bad words. Sometimes adults just don’t listen to you. Adults aren’t bad; they just don’t always remember what it’s like to be a kid. If you are a parent, please, take your children to see this movie. If you have seen it already, see it in a theatre. It’s nice to see that the film doesn’t feel dated in the least. You might want to think twice about eating that pack of Reese’s Pieces you have from the original premiere, however.

Ice Age ***
Directed by: Carlos Saldahna and Chris Wedge
Written by: Michael J. Wilson (Story); Michael Berg, Michael J. Wilson and Peter Ackerman (Screenplay)
Featuring the voices of: Ray Romano, John Leguizamo and Denis Leary
Rated G (There’s no reason to give it anything above a G, really.)

There is absolutely no reason for a kiddie flick to be stupid. The Toy Story series understood that. Sometimes, Disney remembers that. Cats and Dogs tried, but it didn’t quite work. Ice Age understands it just fine, thank you very much.

The title says it all. Thanks, and good night. Actually, there is a bit more than that. The movie starts out with the annual multi-species migration to the south. Darn near everything is heading south except for Manfred (Romano), a mammoth. He and his issues are heading north. Sid (Leguizamo) meant to head south, but the rest of his sloth brethren decided to just let him sleep because he’s annoying. Sid gets on the wrong side of two proto-rhinos (the side with the horns), and is ‘saved’ by Manfred. Manfred doesn’t like Sid, or anyone else for that matter. Sid, however, tags along. As if you didn’t see that coming. Diego (Leary) is a saber-toothed tiger. His pack was decimated by humans. The head of the pack, Soto (Goran Visnjic), wants revenge. The pack will attack the tribe at dawn. Diego’s job is to bring the baby to Soto alive. Of course, Diego doesn’t get the baby, who winds up with Manfred and Sid. Sid wants to return the baby to the tribe. Manfred could care less. Diego knows where the humans are. Manfred, Sid, Diego and the baby (named Lumpy, Stinky Drool-Face, and a host of other things by Manfred) set off on their journey, wherein they learn lessons. There’s also a proto-squirrel named Scrat, who manages to steal the show several times.

Now, CG animation is becoming more and more prevalent. In fact, Shrek, Monsters, Inc. and Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius are all up for Oscars® this year. How does Ice Age compare to them? Quite well.

Blue Sky Studios didn’t go for strict realism in their designs. They could have quite easily, I suspect. Blue Sky did the CGI effects in Fight Club. Obviously, they aren’t going to be able to measure up to what Pixar can do, but they understand their limitations and use them to their advantage. The movie looks like very high-quality stop-motion animation. Think Chicken Run or Wallace and Gromit, but just a tiny bit smoother. The characters are fairly blocky which actually works quite well. Blockiness aside, the characters are all expressive, and move like they have skeletons and mass. The physics never faltered, which is a BIG selling point for me. Of course, there are scenes where you replace ‘normal’ physics with ACME physics and just enjoy the ride.

That’s another thing this flick got right. It wasn’t afraid to just be silly and stupid. That’s where Scrat comes in. Now, I had 3 choices this week. I could have chosen Showtime, with Eddy Murphy and Robert DeNiro. That could have been really, really good. I could have seen Resident Evil, which has Milla Jovavich fighting zombies. I went with Ice Age because of Scrat. The first trailer I saw had Scrat running around on top of a glacier with an acorn in his paws. He wants to bury the acorn. Don’t ask why. Burying the acorn is apparently the only reason Scrat exists. When he finds a suitable place to bury the acorn, the hole causes the ice to crack. And crack. And crack. And it just keeps going. The crack causes an avalanche, and hilarity ensues. His life really doesn’t get any better. He’s cursed or something. You sort of feel bad for the guy. To swipe a great quotation from Roger Ebert, his life is just “one damn thing after another”. Thank goodness for that.

Another great scene involves dodos. Survivalist dodos. They’re convinced that an ice age is coming, and they’ll have to live underground for billions of years. They live up to their names. Scrat isn’t stupid – he’s just wired to bury a nut. That’s all he knows. The dodos, on the other hand, can think. They just can’t do it very well.

Now, before you think that Ice Age is all just fun and games, it does pull something of a Bambi. If guns had been around 20,000 years ago, you would have heard a shot fired. I refuse to say that it’s too intense for kids, however. Things are hinted at. Are the things sad? Yes, of course they are. Sometimes things are sad. If your child has seen Bambi, however, there’s nothing to worry about in Ice Age. Forgiveness is another big theme in the movie, which is never a bad thing.

I really liked this movie. Time will tell if it’s going to be a classic. There are some dark moments, but no more so than when Uncle Walt was making things like Pinocchio or Snow White. Most importantly, it doesn’t dumb itself down.

And Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones is going to rock SO hard.

The Time Machine ***
Directed by: Gore Verbinski and Simon Wells
Written by: H. G. Wells (novel), David Duncan (earlier screenplay) and John Logan (screenplay)
Starring: Guy Pearce, Samantha Mumba, Orlando Jones, Omero Mumba and Jeremy Irons
Rated PG-13 (Violence, I guess. It wasn’t language or nudity or sexual content, so it must be violence.)

Later on in this review, I’m going to put WAY too much thought into what happened in the movie. I’ll warn you when we get to that part.

I’ll start off by saying that I liked this movie. I didn’t LIKE it like it, but I liked it. I don’t want to marry the movie, but it’s decent.

If you don’t know the story, well, you’re probably new to Western Culture. Welcome. For those of you who sort-of know what The Time Machine is about (like me), this synopsis should be accurate. For those of you who know the book by heart, as well as every other thing that H. G. Wells has written, you probably should skip ahead.

Alexander Hartdegen (Pearce) is an associate physics professor in New York during the last years of the 19th Century, presumably 1899. He’s going to ask his comely girlfriend Emma (Sienna Guillroy) to marry him. It’s all very sweet, but then, just after he slips the ring on her finger, they’re mugged and she winds up dead. Alexander doesn’t like this turn of events at all, and builds a (get ready for this) time machine so that he can go back in time to change history so Emma doesn’t die. Turns out that he can’t change history, so he goes into the future, where he meets Vox (Jones), a computer at the library. Later on, he ventures farther into the future, and sees the moon falling apart (due to human development of sublunar colonies). Even farther into the future goes our protagonist, 800,000 years all told. He meets Mara (S. Mumba) and her brother Kalen (O. Mumba), who are humans who call themselves Eloi. There’s another race on the planet, too. The Morloks. They’re bad.

While I’ve not read the book (I just can’t get through 19th Century Literature), I know that the Eloi, the Morloks and a time machine are involved. As far as everything else in the movie, I’m not so sure.

Of course, given that one of the directors is the great-grandson of H. G., I’ll allow liberties to be taken at will.

The movie looks very good. There was one part where one of the compositors (the people who bring together the real actors and anything else that isn’t really there) was apparently asleep at the switch that looked really bad, but everything else looked really slick. The machine itself is quite obviously patterned after the 1960 George Pal machine, but with more glass and brass. The makeup and cgi elements for the Morloks are very good. That’s what happens when Stan Winston (possibly the best ‘monster maker’ around), Industrial Light and Magic (If you’ve ever seen a movie by Steven Spielberg or George Lucas, you’ve seen their work) and Digital Domain (James Cameron’s company. Did Titanic.) work together.

Guy Pearce is a fine actor. He held his own against James Cromwell, Kevin Spacey, Danny DeVito and Russell Crowe in L.A. Confidential. He’s able to chew scenery like a veteran in this flick. Orlando Jones is entertaining. You’ve seen him before. He was the old “7-Up Guy”. While he doesn’t use his comedy skills in this picture, it’s a step in the right direction for him career-wise. Jeremy Irons is in it, he’s good, but his part is really, really small. However, he makes up for it with one of the neatest gross-out costumes I’ve seen in a while.

OK – here’s where I’m gonna start thinking too much. I’ll let you know when I’m done.

The book was written before Einstein came out with his theories of relativity, and LONG before we even had an inkling of quantum mechanics, or multiverse theories, all that stuff. So, from a science standpoint, the story just doesn’t work. Which is fine. With sci-fi, there are just some things that you need to accept. As long as the universe that the story creates is constant, it works. Except when it doesn’t.

For example: while travelling in time, the machine stays in one place, while the world around it changes. When it stops ‘travelling’, it comes back into a reality that we can perceive. During the climax, however, the machine is visible as it ‘travels’. At another point, it is indicated that while time does not pass while within the machine, if something falls out of the field that the machine emits, it is affected by the environment. The machine, in effect, creates its own isolated pocket universe. However, during an ice age, Alexander is shown with frost on his face – one universe affecting another. If this can happen, then the whole premise is shot. And, I just don’t buy the Morloks.

I never have. I know what they are, but I just don’t buy it. Yes, 800,000 years is a long, long time. Heck, it’s only been 12,000 years since the last ice age. I just never bought them. Even if we did lose all of our technology, we wouldn’t lose everything. We would still have oral traditions, and literacy would be passed down. Also, I didn’t buy the fact that the species that had the technology was also the stronger physically. And, so drastically different from the Eloi in terms of physique. There’s only so much that selective breeding can do. Yes, we have Great Danes and Bull Mastiffs and Chihuahuas and Shar Peis, but have you really looked at a purebred dog? Most of them are so massively inbred that they have huge physical and emotional problems. If humanity lost all technology, there’s no way that the Morloks could have come about. Genetic drift would have killed them all in the end.

One thing Wells (both of ‘em) did right was to have the time traveler wind up in an era more primitive than the one he came from. I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who said that any sufficiently evolved technology will be indistinguishable from magic. Think about it – you drop someone from the steam age into the atomic age and they’re gonna freak out. You can sleep off jet lag.

Done thinkin’ now.

All in all, it’s not the smartest sci-fi ever made. Actually, I’d call it an adventure more than sci-fi. Good pulp fiction. But it has its heart in the right place.

40 Days and 40 Nights (no stars)
Directed by: Michael Lehmann
Written by: Rob Perez
Starring: Josh Hartnett and a bunch of people I don’t care about
Rated R (Nudity and the Fall of Rome)

Never in my life have I been so offended by a movie. I’ve seen Pink Flamingos, which features acrobatic genitals, a morbidly obese woman in a playpen eating eggs and a drag queen eating dog poop. That didn’t offend me. I laughed the whole way through Natural Born Killers. However, this seemingly innocent ‘romantic comedy’ made me want to destroy everything around me.

I wish I could say that I’m not mincing my words. Obviously, I have to. Which is probably for the best.

If you don’t know the premise of the movie already, good for you. Matt (Hartnett) is a slut. He has been single for six months and is having sex with any female in sight. But, oh, the poor guy is still hung up on his ex-girlfriend. So, even though he’s a huge whore, he gets freaked out after the act, and sometimes during the act since he’s still thinking about his one true love. He confides his problems to his brother, a priest-in-training. Matt then decides to do the ‘unthinkable’ – no sex (or sex-related activities) for 40 days! But, then he meets a girl, starts liking her a whole lot, and, for some reason, feels compelled to lie about the fact that he’s taken a vow of celibacy for Lent. People are betting that he can’t make it. Stuff happens, and I hate this movie.

From a technical standpoint, yes, this movie was well made. Clever edits and sight gags. Better than average. The acting was well done. The writing wasn’t terrible. It was a bit dated (Matt is a ‘dot commer’), but, it was fairly snappy.

However, this film made me sick.

It made me sick on many different levels. It sickens me when people are reduced to nothing more than their most base urges. Yes, people get horny, but that’s not the primary motivation in people’s lives. I refuse to believe that it is. There are schools of philosophy that teach that we are little more than pleasure-seeking machines. I disagree with those schools greatly.

While I am not the most religious person in the world, I don’t stand for religions being debased in this way. Any religion. It’s one thing to make a religious satire like The Life of Brian or a song like “Every Sperm is Sacred”. It’s quite another to pass off a vow of celibacy for Lent as being equal to the temptations Christ faced while fasting in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights. It’s one thing make the suicide scene in M*A*S*H look like “The Last Supper”. It’s just plain wrong to make Josh Hartnett into a Christ-symbol by being handcuffed to a bed so he won’t break his vow.

Sex, or the lack thereof, can be a very, very funny thing. “Seinfeld” did it very well on at least two occasions. The “Master of My Domain” episode is a perfect example of this. So is any episode of “Benny Hill” or “Laugh-In”. Things like that deconstruct sex, show just how silly and stupid and just plain fun it is. 40 Days and 40 Nights elevated it to such a level, made it the primary focus of every character in the movie that there are no redeemable people in the movie. Everyone in the film is a slut, or wishes that they were. I wish I were kidding.

The movie hates women. Which sickens me even more. I’ve been watching the Fight Club DVD for about a week. Fight Club features such lines as “If I had a tumor, I’d name it Marla,” and “We’re a generation of men raised by our mothers. Maybe another woman isn’t what we need in our life.” It has nothing on 40 Days. One scene in 40 Days features 2 women trying to regain the ‘power’ of withholding sex back from Matt by making out in front of him to make him break his vow. Another has a woman spreading her legs to show off the tattoo on her inner thigh, making the most unsubtle innuendoes ever, and then making a photocopy of her butt, just in case he changes his mind. The female lead, Erica, is frustrated because she has such a great relationship with Matt, but she isn’t having sex with him. Fine, we get the point. It’s not just men that think about sex. But, why portray women as being men without the same anatomy? As I stated earlier, everyone in the movie is a slut. A trollop. A whore.

What sickens me the most is that this movie will make lots and lots of money. It comes out less than a week after Fox aired a show about a bunch of fat people gorging themselves on mayonnaise, hard-boiled eggs and butter to prove who was the most deserving of being executed by John Doe from Se7en. Now, we are treated to a movie that reduces the audience to nothing more than genitals with bodies attached, and tries to make us laugh about it. It takes one of the most sacred times of the Christian year and turns it into a joke. It takes the concept of strengthening yourself through self-denial and turns it into a parlor game. Perhaps I’m being puritanical. Perhaps I should lighten up. Perhaps I’m just waiting for the return of vomitoriums so we can continue gorging ourselves until our society collapses under the weight of its own excesses.

Did I mention that this movie offended me?

Queen of the Damned *
Directed by: Michael Rymer
Written by: Anne Rice (novels), Scott Abbott and Michael Petroni (screenplay)
Starring: Stuart Townsend, Marguerite Moreau, Aaliyah, and Vincent Perez
Rated R (It’s about vampires AND rock and roll.)

“You should see what I didn’t write.” – George Bernard Shaw, responding to a woman who said that his review of a play was too harsh.

According to fans of the Anne Rice Vampire novels, this particular movie was either going to be really good or really bad. No middle ground. I can’t claim to be a fan of Ms. Rice’s books, but I am a fan of movies. This one is bad.

Sometimes, when a book is adapted for a movie, it works, like with Jurassic Park. Other times, it doesn’t, like with Rising Sun. With Queen of the Damned, I suspect that the movie just happens to share the title with a book of the same name. My first clue is this: the movie is based on Rice’s The Vampire Chronicles – a series, rather than on Queen of the Damned, the novel.

You may have seen Interview with the Vampire, which was a good movie. Forget anything about that movie, because it doesn’t apply here.

Here’s my synopsis, so you’ll know what you won’t be missing. Lestat (Townsend) is bored with being a vampire. It’s oh so lonely, you see. And boring. And he’s an extrovert. So, he decides to sleep for a century. All of a sudden he’s awakened by the magical power that is to be found in the current neo-goth-metal movement in Top 40 music. He decides that he wants to be a rock star in a goth band, and sing goth songs for all those kids who dress in black. So, he does. Then, we meet Jesse (Moreau), who is apparently a vampire researcher-in-training. But, see, she was raised by vampires, and then... Probably dropped off at an orphanage. That’s never explained. Jesse thinks that she’s found some sort of Vampire Secrets in The Vampire Lestat’s lyrics. That’s what he calls himself – The Vampire Lestat. It’s also the name of his band. Dude has an ego. Jesse’s mentor, David (Paul McGann) explains that everyone already knew that, and what’s more, he has Lestat’s journal! Lestat was made a vampire by Marius (Perez). Who happened to have the mother of all vampires in his basement. Akasha (Aaliyah), for some reason, is in love with Lestat. But, she’s a statue. Jesse tracks Lestat down in London, stuff happens, Lestat decides that he wants to bring the vampires out of hiding, stuff happens, he has a concert in Death Valley (which would clearly melt any TRUE goths, what with their penchant for wearing black leather and/or latex), Akasha shows up, makes Lestat her king, blah blah blah. It really doesn’t matter, because the movie just isn’t worth your time.

So, was there anything good about the movie? Yeah. The set design. Aaliyah’s costumes. And Stuart Townsend has the androgynous good looks to be a goth rock star. That’s it.

What was bad about the movie? You might want to grab a soda or something. This could take awhile.

First of all, just the acting. Lordy, what a mess that was. EVERYONE speaks with an Eastern European accent. Even though Lestat was French, and Akasha was Egyptian. There’s little-to-no inflection in the lines – it’s not like the actors are just reading the script, it’s more like they’re trying to out Bela Lugosi each other. They’re so impressed with their accents, that they forget to change the pitch of their voices.

Secondly, the lapses in ‘vampire logic’, for lack of a better term. There are certain things that we all know about vampire mythology. In one scene, Akasha tears out the heart of a vampire and eats it. But, the heart is still beating. Vampires do not have a heartbeat. They have no pulse. And, the movie never should have happened in the first place. In the backstory, we see Lestat chained to a bed after drinking the blood of Akasha. He clearly should have died, since vampires need to sleep in a coffin. In yet another scene, Jesse walks, unescorted into a vampire bar. Somehow, she only gets strange glances from the vampires. As we have seen in other vampire movies, vampires have other senses, and can smell blood from a long way off. Jesse should have died before she left. But, she makes it out just fine.

Thirdly, Lestat is not a jerk. Like I said, I’ve not read any of the Chronicles other than Interview, but, from what I understand, Lestat is a colossal jackass. He hates everyone except himself. Yet, we see him having actual feelings for mortals. Ugh.

Fourthly, there was no gay romance. Interview (the movie) was basically an exercise in mainstream homoerotica. Interview (the book) had Lestat and Louis sharing the ‘blood’ of a young man (and if you don’t catch THAT metaphor...). And yet, even though Lestat in Damned was a Bowie-esque androgynous rock star, he only preyed on Backstage Bettys.

Lastly, just because I don’t feel like writing anymore, the special effects just weren’t all that special. The entire special effects budget went to one shot. It’s fairly impressive, but the rest of the effects are just rotten. The makeup was pretty rotten, too.

If you’re a fan of the late Aaliyah, just rent Romeo Must Die. That one has Jet Li in it. You’re guaranteed some great action sequences. If you’re not a fan hers, then, just skip this movie. Please. As for me, I'll take my filmed vampires on Tuesday nights with Joss Whedon as the executive producer.

Hart’s War ***
Directed by: Gregory Hoblit
Written by: John Katzenbach (novel), Billy Ray and Terry George (screenplay)
Starring: Colin Farrell, Bruce Willis, Terrence Dashon Howard, Cole Hauser and Marcel Iures.
Rated R (It’s a movie set in a POW camp that isn’t run by Col. Klink)

Before seeing this one, I was somewhat... I don’t know. I mean, for me, WWII ended with Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line. We don’t need to make any more movies about The Big War. Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg and The History Channel have told us pretty much everything there is to know about the war. Yes, there are still some great stories to be told, but, they belong on PBS. Hollywood is in desperate need of new ideas.

With that out of the way, I wasn’t disappointed in Hart’s War. See, it’s not really a war movie – it’s a courtroom drama with the war in the background. Mostly.

Lt. Tommy Hart (Farrell) is, as John Fogerty would put it, a fortunate son. His dad is a senator. Which means that he will probably never see actual combat. Prior to the war he was in his 2nd year of law school at Yale. While driving a captain back to his base, the jeep Hart is driving is ambushed, and Hart winds up being interrogated and transported to Stalag VI A. The colonel in charge of the American troops is McNamara (Willis). After being debriefed, Hart is sent to bunk with the enlisted men, rather than the officers. “No room,” is the reason given. During the stay, two black 2nd lieutenants (Tuskeegee airmen, to be precise) are brought into the American camp. They, too, are sent to the enlisted men. Of course, this didn’t go well at all. One of the pilots is framed by Bedford (Hauser), and is executed by the German soldiers, thus setting things in motion for a court-martial trial for Lt. Scott (Howard).

I’m giving Hart’s War 3 stars. Of course, you know that already, since it’s listed at the top of this review. The thing is, while I liked the movie, there’s nothing really outstanding in it.

I like both Bruce Willises. I’m certain that there are two of him. Another critic (whose name I don’t remember) suggested it, and I think it’s correct. We have Bruce Willis, Actor, and Bruce Willis, Action Hero. BWA can be seen in “Moonlighting”, The Sixth Sense, and Pulp Fiction. BWAH can be seen in Die Hard With A Vengeance, The Fifth Element and Armageddon. Both are good. In Hart’s War, we seem to get BWA. Not exceptional BWA, but, the performance is solid. Colin Farrell has redeemed himself from American Outlaws. He has leading-man good looks, and I like him more than the current crop of teenie-bopper magazine cover models. While Terrence Dashon Howard doesn’t have the screen presence of Michael Clarke Duncan, he doesn’t stink up the screen. Cole Hauser plays a jerk well, and Marcel Iures plays a Nazi. The performances work.

I really liked the 1st and 2nd acts of the film. Most of the 3rd act as well.

The movie starts out by touching on some important issues that better works have brought up (friendly fire, institutional racism), but that’s really it. Racism is more a plot device than a central issue of the film. Lt. Hart’s struggle to prove himself worthy of his rank and to and to actually understand what happens in a war is good for awhile, but, alas, the movie shows its hand too soon. The movie ended like it had to, but I was somewhat disappointed, anyhow.

Hart’s War is probably your best bet this week. It’s not bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s just not that memorable.

Slackers ***
Directed by: Dewey Nicks
Written by: David H. Steinberg
Starring: Jason Schwartzman, James King, Devon Sawa, Michael C. Maronna, Jason Segel, and Laura Prepon
Rated R (language, drug use, brief nudity, naughty bits, and it’s a college movie)

This, ladies and gentlemen, is not another teen movie.

It’s not charting new comedic ground, it doesn’t re-write the rules of cinema, and it has cheap laughs. However, don’t go into Slackers expecting Porky’s or American Pie. You’ll just be confused if you do.

Now, if you haven’t gathered it from the previews, here’s a synopsis. Dave (Sawa) and his friends Sam (Segel) and Jeff (Maronna) are scam artists. Not for the benefit of others, just for themselves. They don’t actually want to have to study for tests and such. They execute elaborate schemes to get what they want, whether it’s passing a final or getting a girl. They’re awfully good at it, too. Unfortunately, Dave gets caught by Ethan (Schwartzman). Ethan won’t expose the crew, provided that they get Angela (King) to be his girlfriend. On my signal, unleash wacky college pranks.

What the previews don’t show you is what makes this movie the best comedy I’ve seen this year. Any movie that has the audacity to use a symphonic version of “Baba O’Reily” by The Who as the opening theme has plenty to live up to. Fortunately, it does.

First off, the story is just different enough to stand out from the crowd. In PCU and Animal House, the wacky pranks were wacky, and enabled the guys to keep their charter/house. Everyone had fun at the big party, everyone got drunk, and, ooooh, did they show that crusty old dean. In Slackers, on the other hand, the wacky hijinks are a way of life for the gang. Slackers, my friends, is cleverly disguised film noir! Move the fellas from a college campus to the seedy underbelly of some unnamed American city. Instead of scamming grades, have them scam, oh, I don’t know, insurance companies. See where I’m going with this? Add the femme fatale, the desire for one of the hoods to go straight, and away we go!

Secondly, it changes the styles of comedy that it uses. It has fart jokes, and they work. It has bits of absurdist (think Monty Python) humor. Throw in some surrealism, some Benny Hill-style bawdiness, some Norm MacDonald catch-phrases, break the ‘fourth wall’ and add some quick-paced dialogue, and you get just the kick in the pants that ‘teen’ comedies have needed for a long time.

Thirdly, I loved the cast. I think that the only person other than Jason Schwartzman who could have played Ethan is Ben Stiller. You might have seen Schwartzman in Rushmore. Odds are that you didn’t, because the film, while quite good, didn’t really go anywhere in the box office. Trust me – he’s good. Michael C. Maronna is good too. You might have seen him from the Nickelodeon TV show ”The Adventures of Pete and Pete”. Maronna was Big Pete. You’ll recognize Laura Prepon as Eric’s girlfriend from “That 70s Show”. Devon Sawa is a teen heartthrob, but he’s able to bring the right degree of passion to the character. James King has the right degree of innocence and silliness to play Angela effectively.

What didn’t I like about this movie? The pacing seemed to suffer in the middle. Part of this may have been that in a traditional film noir piece, the middle is where the tension really starts to build. The beginning establishes characters and sets the ball rolling. In the middle, plot twists are added, one on top of another, until the climax and epilogue, when we realize that, hey, it’s Chinatown. That particular convention doesn’t really work with comedy.

I also didn’t really like the ending. Again, it’s probably a holdover from noir. It has a terrible film noir ending, but a standard college movie ending. It wasn’t a letdown, however, because, cinematically it was great. It was theatrical, rather than cinematic. It looks like I’m contradicting myself, but, trust me, I’m not. (You’re thinking right now, “But, you just said that it was great cinematically because it wasn’t cinematic. I don’t get it...” You will when you see it.)

Slackers isn’t a spoof. It’s not a send-up of a genre. It’s not strictly a college movie, and it’s certainly not a teen sex-farce. It’s not character driven, it’s plot driven. It’s film noir without the existentialism. Film noir-light, I guess. Go and see it, but, don’t put your faith in the previews. They’re not lying, they’re just hiding the best stuff.